Evidence for God from Science

http://news.yahoo.com/three-daddies-cal ... ealth.html

If 2 men or 2 women can marry, why not 3 of them or 4 or an X number of combinations? I see this heading towards a legal contract type of relationship between multiple parties. You want total separation of church and state then this is the ultimate solution. Forget about the federal or state and local governments calling it marriage, it's a legally binding contract between parties that spells out exactly the terms and responsibilities including those of taxation, child rearing and custody, inheritance, division of assets upon contract termination or nullification, etc. etc. The government will have no role other than to standardize the contract language, so as to ensure individual rights, most notably those of the children's, nothing else and nothing more. Marriage will be strictly a religious ceremony that has no impact whatsoever on social rights. Welcome to the future.

Sounds fine to me.. Logistical restrictions will keep large (4+) groups to a minimum among responsible parties, and most people will prefer monogamy because of emotional strain from additional parties. The only legal tricks that present problems here is having to divide rights and responsibilities among multiple partners and if that diminishes the arrangement.

I personally don't see the concept of "gay marriage inevitably leads to polygamy." This article isn't even citing polygamy as its main reasoning for "multiple parenthood." It's talking about a situation where two adoptive parents become unable to care for a child and the biological father is told that he can't become the child's legal guardian despite being her father and having a relationship with her. The guy who wrote the law even says that his law is not likely to be utilized very often because situations of a child with relationships with multiple (3+) parents is rare.

On the main point about gay marriage inevitably leading to polygamy...what kind of crap is that? It's nothing but a political stance taken to knock down gay marriage. It's sensationalism that sounds bad at first but has no merit once you get deeper into what you are saying.

What you say about marriage being a legal contract with the government is true. Right now, marriage has two components in the US for most couples: The legal side which includes benefits and rights from the government, and the religious/spiritual side, which means nothing to the government and is only for personal reasons. Marriages are conducted in numerous religious venues these days, or absent of religious context. As far as I'm concerned, the government should only be interested in the legal side, and not force religious marriage rules on everybody. You can have your Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu wedding if you want, but it has no legal bearing on you or anyone else. Why is that so ridiculous?

The natural progression of same sex marriage is same sex divorce.
Welcome to equality, suckers !!

* divorce lawyers laughing all the way to the bank*

Ivellious wrote:What you say about marriage being a legal contract with the government is true. Right now, marriage has two components in the US for most couples: The legal side which includes benefits and rights from the government, and the religious/spiritual side, which means nothing to the government and is only for personal reasons. Marriages are conducted in numerous religious venues these days, or absent of religious context. As far as I'm concerned, the government should only be interested in the legal side, and not force religious marriage rules on everybody. You can have your Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu wedding if you want, but it has no legal bearing on you or anyone else. Why is that so ridiculous?

I'm not from the US, but what you say is universal for all secular countries - a government protects marriage and awards it benefits and rights - why? Because marriage leads to children, and children are the future of any society, so it's in a country's best interest for children to be raised in the best possible conditions, and experience shows that the best condition is the nuclear family. Why do you claim that keeping the definition of marriage heterosexual is necessarily a religious rule? That's straw man, a big one. Why don't you give me a good reason why the definition of marriage should be extended? What would be the benefits of that? Give me facts, instead of straw men and anti-religious propaganda. Thank you.

Reactionary wrote:

Ivellious wrote:What you say about marriage being a legal contract with the government is true. Right now, marriage has two components in the US for most couples: The legal side which includes benefits and rights from the government, and the religious/spiritual side, which means nothing to the government and is only for personal reasons. Marriages are conducted in numerous religious venues these days, or absent of religious context. As far as I'm concerned, the government should only be interested in the legal side, and not force religious marriage rules on everybody. You can have your Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu wedding if you want, but it has no legal bearing on you or anyone else. Why is that so ridiculous?

I'm not from the US, but what you say is universal for all secular countries - a government protects marriage and awards it benefits and rights - why? Because marriage leads to children, and children are the future of any society, so it's in a country's best interest for children to be raised in the best possible conditions, and experience shows that the best condition is the nuclear family. Why do you claim that keeping the definition of marriage heterosexual is necessarily a religious rule? That's straw man, a big one. Why don't you give me a good reason why the definition of marriage should be extended? What would be the benefits of that? Give me facts, instead of straw men and anti-religious propaganda. Thank you.

Mm, what seems fabricated is this argument that a marriage is for fostering procreation. That's never been legally expressed. If a society wants to foster procreation, then it should award benefits to parents not couples. If a society wants to foster a healthy environment to raise kids in, then it should listen to science and promote/support families that will support and raise children well (making up facts about the nuclear family not withstanding..) - no distinction between kids adopted as opposed to being naturally born needed unless we wish to elevate natural parents for some arbitrary reason (you don't).

Further, when imposing restrictions on who can get married, the burden of proof falls on those who would make restrictions, not vice versa. Why should it be that gay couples cannot get married if not for religious reasons?

My argument isn't anti-religious in the slightest. I'm arguing that there is no reason that the government should accept religious ideals to define government marriage. I fully understand that marriage in a religious context has a lot of importance to people of many religions. That is fine, but the government's marriage license has nothing to do with that.

I say that defining (government) marriage as purely heterosexual is religious because that is the only argument against non-heterosexual marriage. Literally every anti-gay-marriage organization that I have ever heard of uses the biblical description of marriage as their focal argument. Again, it's fine if Christianity wants to exclude homosexuality from its marriages. That's their choice. But using the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, or any other religious text as your reasoning for why the government should not extend the benefits of marriage to non-heterosexual couples is a religious rule.

I'd caution you against saying that "experience" shows that the nuclear family is the best possible situation for kids to be raised in, because all that says is that the western world has banned non-nuclear families for the better part of the last thousand years. If anything, children have only been raised by homosexual couples for the past few decades. And by and large, it can be seen that there is no reason to believe these homosexual couples are any worse at parenting than heterosexual couples. Again, you can be biased and just think that gay people can't raise children, but that's an unfounded belief.

Here are some good reasons for the extension of government marriage to non-heterosexual couples:

1) Marriage in the eyes of the government should not be bounded by conservative religious views. Those who choose to follow those religious views are free to express their heterosexual-ness in a religious setting if they choose, but it should not be a government-sponsored religious act. In the absence of religious restrictions, the government has no reason not to extend the rights and benefits of marriage to any adult couple that chooses to be wed.
2) It would have no effect on religious marriage. One could still be married in a church, by a pastor or priest, with all the traditions that their religion has. The government, however, would only be in charge of the legal aspects of marriage, distributing licenses, and providing the benefits. The separation of religious marriage and state marriage would have practically zero effect on either side of the equation.
3) Marriage is a term that is not only used by Christians. It is a universal term. Once again, this includes people who do not believe in banning gay marriage. Therefore, the term "gay marriage" has nothing to do with Christianity, much like a "Hindu marriage" has nothing to do with Christianity.
4) I find it odd that so many people demand that gay marriage must be an "improvement" on marriage or else it should not be allowed. I don't intend to claim that gay marriage is better than heterosexual marriage, or that they will be more successful, or that they will raise "better" children, or that there will be extra "benefits" for their children...rather, I don't think there will be any difference at all. At worst, they should be equal in all ways across the board.

Also, on a quick note about the "marriage is only for children" thing...By this logic, transgenders, neuters, those who are sterile, those who don't want to have kids, and so on should be banned from being married too. Marriage is about a relationship between two people, not some implicit expectation that you procreate or else.

I have no issues with the government issuing a marriage license to gay couples.
Governments are voted on by people and if the majority don't like that, then they will take care of that eventually, democracy at work.
I have issues with ANY group telling a religious organization that THEY have to do it ( allow gay marriage) if it is against their doctrines.

But Paul, I don't think anyone is demanding that the christian church marry gay people. If a church wants to, I know they can, but I would never expect them to if they didn't believe in it. If anything I advocate for exactly what you just said...that the government should give marriage licenses to gay couples if they want one and that religious marriage should be a separate and more personal option that a couple can take part in.

PaulSacramento wrote:I have no issues with the government issuing a marriage license to gay couples.
Governments are voted on by people and if the majority don't like that, then they will take care of that eventually, democracy at work.
I have issues with ANY group telling a religious organization that THEY have to do it ( allow gay marriage) if it is against their doctrines.

I definitely agree with this - the government doesn't have the power to do this however (nor can it do much if a church is against interracial marriage for some reason). I do, however, think churches should have gay marriage, but that's an ongoing discussion for another thread.

Ivellious wrote:But Paul, I don't think anyone is demanding that the christian church marry gay people. If a church wants to, I know they can, but I would never expect them to if they didn't believe in it. If anything I advocate for exactly what you just said...that the government should give marriage licenses to gay couples if they want one and that religious marriage should be a separate and more personal option that a couple can take part in.

Not yet, but look at Sweden ( I think its Sweden) where the state said the Church must allow gay marriages ( I think this is only applicable to the state church though).

PaulSacramento wrote:

Ivellious wrote:But Paul, I don't think anyone is demanding that the christian church marry gay people. If a church wants to, I know they can, but I would never expect them to if they didn't believe in it. If anything I advocate for exactly what you just said...that the government should give marriage licenses to gay couples if they want one and that religious marriage should be a separate and more personal option that a couple can take part in.

Not yet, but look at Sweden ( I think its Sweden) where the state said the Church must allow gay marriages ( I think this is only applicable to the state church though).

State church? That doesn't sound secular..

Well, to be fair, if the church is part of the state and getting state funding, then yes, I figure it is their responsibility to either follow government laws of cut ties with the state.

Byblos wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/three-daddies-cal ... ealth.html

If 2 men or 2 women can marry, why not 3 of them or 4 or an X number of combinations? I see this heading towards a legal contract type of relationship between multiple parties. You want total separation of church and state then this is the ultimate solution. Forget about the federal or state and local governments calling it marriage, it's a legally binding contract between parties that spells out exactly the terms and responsibilities including those of taxation, child rearing and custody, inheritance, division of assets upon contract termination or nullification, etc. etc. The government will have no role other than to standardize the contract language, so as to ensure individual rights, most notably those of the children's, nothing else and nothing more. Marriage will be strictly a religious ceremony that has no impact whatsoever on social rights. Welcome to the future.

Byblos, I don't see any other way but this leading to legal polygamy. If under state law, the definition of marriage can be changed to accommodate same sex unions, then how could the state then say consenting polygamists can't " marry"? That would be the same discrimination that same sex couples are so much against.