I remember the website.

I did want out, so I'll politely step out because I am aware of my own misunderstandings and faults in this discussion!

Not sure what you are replying to. But yes, my argument is that same-sex marriages aren't marriages, and shouldn't be called such. They are something else entirely. (as would be any other coupling of people for any purpose, they would be different things, that should be called different things. However, a civil union, could most likely cover any such coupling or bonding of people)

I was responding to this.

I think Esano summed it up nicely.

My secondary point was that if you support redefining marriage to include same sex couples. Then you would be a hypocrite to not also support same family couples, or trans-species couples.

My point is not to be alarmist. My point was to say that those people who are calling me (or anyone who is anti same sex marriage) bigoted, are hypocrites.

I think I'm going to pull out with Dylara. I've watched this run in circles. If this were Lusternian influencing, both of you would be well past willful by now.

I shall leave you with this:

XKCD Caption: What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!

OH... I was talking about my personal life there. How I and my community view marriage and its purpose and its function. Its not related to this conversation at all.

I am no such thing. I think anyone should be able to walk down to the courtroom and arrange long-term joint living conditions, even completely independent of the presence of a romantic relationship.

So, I found the document, and was rather shocked to learn that I've gone ten years without looking at a Canadian map. How did you guys sneak Nunavut in without telling the rest of the world about it?

And you believe those long-term joint living conditions should be called marriages?

Cause if you don't, then we are in 100% agreement.

p.s. whats the name of the document/website?

I don't care what they're called. I care more that it's not there.

http://www.statcan.ca/start.html

Ok, two things.

1. We should start a national campaign somehow. Seriously.

2. My god, how do you navigate that much dated, jargon based info, with search boxes!!! (I need a massive table of contents or an index)

So basically you're just arguing with everyone and leaving out your ACTUAL VIEWS so that you can only be targetted for your arguments, not for what you actually believe.

Tricky. Deceitful. Unfair.

But life is unfair, I suppose.

I see it this way...

1. You cannot force your views on others. It's immoral and, if done on a personal level, can be seen as harassment.

1.I. In the case of Gay Marriage, people who are homosexual being able to marry isn't forcing
its views on anyone. It just means homosexuals can get married. And if you're not homosexual,
nothing to worry about, right?

1.II. Views includes all views you have acquired, including religion. As such...

2. The Separation of Church and State must be upheld. The law is there for a reason, and it's not so it can be ignored.

2.I. You can argue the founders of the US were Christian. You can try to argue that the US was
founded on Christian Values. But so long as the US Constitution says, "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...", then
those arguments, true or not, are completely debunked.

3. It's better for kids.

3.I Find me a homosexual male who's gotten another homosexual male pregnant, or a
homosexual female who has gotten another homosexual female pregnant, and I'll show you
someone who isn't really male and someone who isn't physically "correct". So, what happens
is you have a whole bunch of people bound together in marriage that don't need contraceptives
because they're not getting pregnant. As diamondais had said, the earth has a ridiculous
population, it's not like the whole earth'll die out.

3.II Should a homosexual couple wish to have children, they can adopt. They have a host of
choices, from plenty of heterosexuals who give up their child to Adoptive Services. And
homosexuals, like heterosexuals, have the possibility of being good parents.

3.II.A If homosexuals are allowed to marry, that in turn allows if one spouse is to die,
the other spouse can take care of the child. Otherwise, the child might just be put back
with the family that had given them up, or put into foster care, or be made to wait to be
adopted again.

Do you really believe this to be wise?

Under the heading "Find Statistics" on the left side, click on "By Subject."

EDIT: Only trend I can find by eyeballing things is that being of Eskimo or Inuit descent makes you more likely to have children out of wedlock, but it also makes your marriage less likely to end in divorce. I'm just not motivated enough to take a calculator to find a 5-10% difference between charts tonight.

How is this tricky deceitful or unfair?

I'm giving you my "actual views" in regards to what I think the government and society should do. I'm just not telling you what my personal, interfamily views are. My personal family views have no bearing on what I think the government of the county I live in should do. Some choose to have thier personal views affect what they think government should do, and I fully support them doing so. I just don't personally don't wish to do so. (Mainly because my personal views are so universally unpopular, that there is no point in doing so)

As to your points. (thank you for labeling them)

1. I agree, and thats why I don't think minority groups should make it their business to redefine culture. They should work on ways for making their culture accepted and livable (such as civil unions, or making fridays their day off), but they should not be in the business of attempting to redefine the general culture and terms. (as in calling Friday "Church day", or calling civil unions "marriages") (When I take off of work for Rosh Hashana, I don't call it a national holiday, I call it paid vacation. This would be an example of "separate but equal". There just so happens to be a number of days legally mandated for "paid vacation" as there are Jewish holidays in which I can't work. I don't know the history of it, but I doubt it is coincidence)

2. Completely agree... however I'm not sure what the relevance to the conversation is. (You won't find a single reference to god or christianity in the legal arguments against same sex marriage)

3. You have the argument backwards. (as far as I understood it from the articles) Well, actually the argument has changed over the past 8 years, ever since the studies have actually been done. The argument now, as I understand it, is that marriage is used as a device by the state to protect against the failure for unmarried couples who accidently have children, to raise those children. There are more teenagers in the country having unprotected sex, then there are same sex couples. If "marriage" is now no longer something that people who have children do, but is now just something committed partners do, then the fear is that more children will be born out of wedlock, and abandoned to the state, because of a change in culture regarding the function of marriage. Because now, there will be no societal pressure for people who have children out of wedlock to get married and have commitments to those children. (these sorts of studies would not have been possible if some states or countries never declared same sex marriages as marriages, btw. So it is definitely a -new- argument)

If what is being said about all the thousands of rights regarding health care etc, and taxes is correct, then 100% I think its a wise idea. There are plenty of redundant social agencies which take care of children regardless of marital status or number of children.

While I haven't done this research myself, Yeralih's player has told me that all (not mostly all--just plain all) arguments against the legality of same-sex marriage are religious. Frankly, I trust her research more than mine, especially when she's doing it for a class she enjoys, so I'm just going to cite her as my source and leave it as-is.

EDIT:

It's the "we" more than the "national campaign" that's at issue. Do you really believe that to be wise?

If eskimos view civil marriage as anything similar to how I view civil marriage, then these findings would support the other studies I read about. I.e., if Eskimos don't feel culturally attached to the marriage as defined by the state, then they would be less likely to follow the trends of the rest of the country in regards to marriage. This sort of thing is likely fine for minority groups, as the affect on the government is minimal, but if the majority of the country felt that disconnect it would cause problems from the states' point of view.

I'm not a Law major or anything, but I've talked it over with a few Law majors from my school before. Also, I've done research on my own. It really is the case that the arguments against the legality of same-sex marriage are religious.

Just read the link I posted to earlier. It makes the arguments and isn't religious in nature. Also, are you really going to trust a statement like that from a class? I highly doubt the professor would be willing to bring up a argument based on non religious basis, as that would ruin the thesis of the university's position.

as for the "we", I don't even know how its possible to do, so I wouldn't know if its wise or not. But someone should certainly do such a thing.

Wow, first link on google... what a shock!

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:qHf9O...;cd=1&gl=us

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&...G=Google+Search

What were you saying?

Edit: I havn't read the argumen preseneted, so there is no reason to discuss it, I'm pointing out that non religious arguments exist

It's her own research, not her professor's. It's not my place to tell you about her personal life, but suffice it to say that she can happily co-exist with religion and certainly doesn't share my desire to see religion removed from the public sphere. Anyways, you've only posted one link that would apply, and I'd like to quote the end to you:
Glen Lavy is senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations dedicated to protecting religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage and the family. ADF and Lavy have been involved in same-sex marriage across the country, including the recent decision from the California Supreme Court.