[Stormsmith]

In this case, Suska, the language will be determined by popular usage. Americans will dicker for a few years over wedding or marriage vs civil union, but it will be a short conversation. Opposers to the expanded definition of marriage will soon realize gay weddings have no direct impact on their own status, and little impact elsewhere. In short, they'll adapt.

The Satanic thingee will consist of the most adament opposition, but I imagine their numbers to be small. This debate's been on going for years, and this is the first time I've heard of it.

[Lightman]

You're confusing civil and canon laws. At the end of the day, I expect the SCOTUS will have to rule on gay marriage, and I would expect the finding to be similar to ours: gay couples have the right to marry. No church can be compelled to marry gays if the church is against gay marriage, but all gays are entitled to a civil ceremony. If a particular JP opposes gay weddings for religious reasons, s/he may be excused if and only if s/he and find an alternate JP who will do the deed. note the onus is on the JP, not the couple.

ps Some vicars etc have been offering gay couples "blessing ceremonies" for ages, and are happy to do the real deal now.

If the Supreme Court ever rules in favor of gay marriage (which I think is unfortunately much less likely than people think, at least short term), it won't be because of religious equality.

[Suska]

the language will be determined by popular usage

By popular usage do you mean the gay agenda?

Again (for the umpteenth time), the supreme court has no place defining marriage.

[Stormsmith]

It would include gays, with or without an agenda. It would also include hetros.

If this goes to SCOTUS, I doubt it will be worded to specifically define "marriage". The case would, I think, be an appeal to the court's responsiblity on constitutional rights. Granted, the decision may redefine the word marriage, then again, the court may insist these unions be called something else. Won't matter. It will change by popular usage.

[Suska]

It would include gays, with or without an agenda. It would also include hetros.

Gays can't claim marriage any more than any Hedonist. They are the enemy of the traditional.

[Donna]

C'mon Donald, that appeals to you right?

Actually, there are churches that are gay affirming and marry gay couples by their own choice.

Gays can't claim marriage any more than any Hedonist. They are the enemy of the traditional.

This might be true, but there are still some homosexuals that delude themselves into believing they are normal and in a bizarre way their rights need to be respected as well, even if they are bullshitting themselves.

[Suska]

It just doesn't have anything to do with rights Donald, the logic of it is like everyone is entitled to a Bar Mitzvah, if you bring your ritual to class you better have brought enough for everyone. I object mainly to the fact that our government has made inroads in these matters, I object to hedonists in general destroying marriage by insisting on the romantic-sexual version of it and divorce if its too much effort, but I also object to this gay agenda bullshit. It smacks of bitter grapes. You left that world behind, that world where marriage had a meaning. Now we're supposed to feel ashamed for the unfairness of you not having it.

[Godstud]

Sexual orientation has nothing to do with hedonism, Suska. The philosophical theory you like to peddle is just that. It is not fact, which is something which you like to pretend.

[YTPresident2012]

So there are two different topics as I see it.

1. On a purely legal athiest level, do homosexuals have the right to marry someone they love if there was no religion involved?

2. What is the true definition of mairriage? In terms of what is it supposed to mean? Is it a religious symbol of love? Is it a strict symbol of intent to procreate to raise offspring? I have to say if it's only a symbol to procreate I would dump my fiancée and marry Ann Coulter, my wisdom and her tenacity would make for a very ambitious offspring. Yea we would always disagree and fight but think of our nations future? Those kids would change the world, and I wouldn't even have to love their mom. Yes, I can be sarcastic, but again, if marriage is supposed to involve love at every level than gays should have the legal right to marry another just as I have that right.

[Godstud]

If your only rebuttal is an insult, then I must be correct in my interpretation.

[Suska]

My rebuttal? You don't even seem to know what I'm talking about. Every now and then I like to point that out to you.

[Godstud]

I know all about your support of the philosophical theory of hedonism, which you like to apply to homosexuality. Not everyone considers theories to be fact. Why do you?

[Suska]

This will be another pointless discussion. Why not address what I have written instead of objecting because it was me that spoke. You make it sound like I have a closed box and have put a label on it, whereas in fact I have efficiently outlined my specific objections.

[Godstud]

Then why not say that instead of making a childish insult?

Marriage still has meaning. No matter who marries who, the marriage only has as much meaning as the people getting marriage choose to attach to it. Claiming that "hedonists" are destroying marriage because they believe in a romantic-sexual version of it is quite absurd. Marriage has been considered romantic-sexual for quite a while now. This view of it is not really new.

Gays can't claim marriage any more than any Hedonist.

Heterosexuality is as hedonistic as homosexuality. Your hedonism theory applies to everyone, not just people you choose to apply it to. Homosexuals can claim marriage as much as anyone else can.

They are the enemy of the traditional.

That's not a bad thing. It was tradition for people to have slaves, to treat your wife like property, beat your wife, use horses to plow the fields, live in homes made of sod, etc.

Change is the enemy of tradition. Customs and beliefs change as information, education and knowledge make those traditions obsolete. Cultures are dynamic, not static.

[Suska]

Then why not say that instead of making a childish insult?

If it was a childish insult it would be meaningless. No. For you Godstud, only very serious adult insults that convey the gist of the problem. For example; instead of asking me to say something you might have tried reading what I had already written and pointed out just for you to read.

Marriage has been considered romantic-sexual for quite a while now.

Oh, so you did finally get around to reading it. I wonder what that was all about? Yes Godstud, the popular idea is that marriage is meaningless. I suppose I should just lay down on the road and wait for someone to run me over, but I thought I'd put objecting to the situation somewhat first.

Homosexuals can claim marriage as much as anyone else can.

anyone else who is a hedonist. Correct.

live in homes made of sod, etc.

Yes, exactly, when I say traditional in a thread called "If homosexuals can marry each other" I'm obviously talking about sod houses.

[Donna]

Suska, the only reason that gay marriage is even thinkable today is because heterosexuals have already defiled/altered/revolutionized marriage. By the time the first same-sex unions began taking place marriage was already a flat fish thanks to the conduct of heterosexuals in the 60s and 70s. In no way can you blame homosexuals for this. Marriage had become a complete joke in western societies at a time when homosexuals were still a ghetto culture.

[Suska]

But I more or less agree with you Donald. In fact I believe I have called gay marriage a coup de grace in the past. I'm not here to lay blame for past deeds. I don't think you and I would disagree radically about the history behind it. You want to embrace the new "mating" protocols, I don't.

[Stormsmith]

You want to embrace the new "mating" protocols, I don't.

For a lot of people, it isn't a case of wanting to embrace some new mating protocol. Its more like we don't think it's right to deny people rights given to us by man's own laws. As for a moral feeling about homosexuality, I suppose everyone has a 'take' on that. For me, its a case of not being any of my business, and therefore I will not judge; if God has a problem with gays marrying, I pretty sure he has the capability of sorting out things.

[Donna]

I think the main focus should be saving the Earth from the destructive forces of capitalism. Civil society is now very dynamic and I have hopes for a post-consumerist gay identity that closely associates with earth-religion and an eroticized paganism. Attempting to inject ourselves into the sky-religions will not necessarily end in disaster, but it is obviously futile and most homosexuals aren't interested in it except those who have the money to buy their assimilation. We are a marsh culture who should only be prepared to attack the steppes-dwelling peoples when they attempt to sap our life force, which is located in the urban jungles.

[Suska]

Its more like we don't think it's right to deny people rights given to us by man's own laws.

Again, marriage is not a right. More like a rite, it embodies the sanctity and prudence required for lasting and harmonious personal bonds.

I think the main focus should be saving the Earth from the destructive forces of capitalism

I don't have a problem with this as a general goal. I don't believe the foundation for organizing is individual but relational, starting with faithful couples. Without the prospect for a genuine bond - a bond which we don't call weakness, but faith, we can't have anything more than selfish individuals. In order for the individual to have a stake in any future, any nation or even a community there must be productive families - a positive outlet for sexuality. Hedonism is completely hostile to that, it is plainly competitive mating instead of cooperative. In such an environment - as in capitalism - the vast majority of people will be rendered useless and a few rendered all powerful. Every form of hedonism attacks all optimism for love.

Interesting (weird) paganism Donald. I'd like to hear more.