I am not advocating for any single religiously-based government. I like the Constitution - not what it has been interpreted to be, but what it was when it was formulated. Why? Because it attempts to allow for a variety of belief-sets. When you have a theistic government, it's pretty difficult to tolerate dissent and we've seen this all throughout history.

My only point was to note the lines of authority of the two different belief sets. A theist belief set places all governments of men in subservience to the deity so worshipped - regardless of the barbarism or dissonance of its precepts. An atheistic belief set places man as its own deity and the governments to be a derivative of it. An atheistic government built on the policy of man as the ultimate ruler can not countenance competition for that claim to authority with the divine. That to me is the real nature of the entire argument about government and gay "marriage" - WHO has the authority to write the rules regarding marriage.

I forget which of the Supreme Court justices it was, but one of them noted that at no time in recorded human history had the definition of marriage attempted to be changed by government itself - until now. If one considers the theism vs atheism argument presented, it seems to me to be a logical source of this disagreement, since historically, the vast majority of governments (usually monarchies) were theistic in origin. That's why this question has been so pivotal and why there is such concern about its outcome.

You are welcome to provide an alternate suggestion as to the source of the debate.

My answer was a response to the question: why can't government just give churches the authority to marry. My point was that authority can not be given unless it is first held.

In a theist society similar to the ones we have seen throughout history (and I am not advocating any particular one here, merely the existence), the ruler ruled at the behest of and subservient to the authority of whatever deity or religious system of that particular society. It matters not which one. If they divested any authority from themselves to the clergy or left things in the clergy's hand, it was a nod to that fact that their claim to authority was subject to "external" (shall we say) approval. So when such a government assigns authority to the clergy, it acknowledges its own roots and formation and derived authority.

The premise of an atheistic government is that right of government stems solely from man himself. It simultaneously denies the existence of any higher authority. If the atheistic government cedes authority to a religious institution for the administration of marriage, it is in fact undermining not only its claim to authority in the first place, but also ceding authority to the very thing it denies - religion. Thus while this solution may seem practical, I fail to see an atheistic government - a government which places itself as its own authority - doing this.

http://illinoisfamily.org/homosexuality/...

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/homose...

The second was also highlighted in an interview with Glenn Beck.

Lots more available just via a simple Google search. These were the first two. Search term: "gays admit their goal is to destroy religion"

Assertion: supported. Refutation: rebutted.

In legal terms, what they are arguing about is called unjust disparity of outcomes. It is the principle that in two equivalent circumstances, the law gets applied differently in the two cases, abridging the fundamental right of equality of treatment. The problem is that the two original circumstances aren't equivalent at all! One case is that of a human male and human female. The other some other pairing. Thus to call the circumstances equivalent is a farce voiding any claim on equality of treatment. That this has gone to the Supreme Court at all is merely a testament to me of how many people actually fail to recognize reality.

Does that proclude government from setting up laws that treat the two disparate circumstances in the same way? Not at all. If both are judged to have equal outcomes and value to society, this might be an entirely rational choice. But to argue that prima facie the original situation of a homosexual couple is equivalent to a heterosexual couple is complete and utter nonsense.

It is a partial philosophy, but a philosophy nonetheless because it acts as a foundational basis from which one derives values and make decisions about life. And one can't deny the overarching ramifications of the decisions based this lifestyle to either themselves or society. It wouldn't be in the Supreme Court if it were.

As to the source of the philosophy, it is nothing more than allowing one's emotions to determine one's course of action. Is it a logical philosophy? No. But is it uncommon? Hardly. Many people allow their emotions to rule their actions and focus their life's activities on one thing or another centered around that emotion. It could be power. It could be desire for wealth. It could be a fear of insects.

Scientists have admitted that they can find no genetic cause for same-sex attraction. I have a brother-in-law (married to my sister-in-law) and they have two boys. His identical twin brother, however, is attracted to men - not women. All that aside, however, it is not the proclivity which defines the individual, but the actions taken on conscious choice. One can have feelings toward squirrels but without doing anything, one does not become a ... whatever that would be. One does not become a heterosexual until one engages in sexual activities with a member of the opposite gender any more than one becomes a homosexual until one engages with a member of the same gender.

I'll point out that a very similar case can be made about homosexuals if your claim is accurate: their acts - just as the celibate - deny procreation.

I think the better question is one you hint at here: what IS the nature of that which we call a human being? Is it merely to procreate and further one's lineage? Is it to acquire wealth? Power? Prestige?

In order to claim that one is going against one's nature as a human being, one must claim to know what that nature is. That is a pretty lofty claim.

I agree that it isn't an entire philosophy, but a partial one. But because it is the set of values one uses to determine a large portion of one's life, I do think it entirely appropriate and accurate to label it a philosophy - incomplete as it is.

There are many partial philosophies out there in life that nevertheless rule peoples' lives. This is a good example of one which is threatening to affect all of society one way or the other. So to me, incomplete as that philosophy is, the extent of its reach is such that it should be treated as a philosophy.

Let's take this discussion from the sublime straight to the heart of the ridiculous. Since we're throwing out the notion that a 'marriage' is a legal contract between one man and one woman, why are we limiting ourselves to one man and one man or one woman and one woman? Why not three men, or two women and one man? Why not five? (How'd you like to be head of HR down at the mill if something like that caught on?)

OK, that reply is even more obtuse than the last one and I have no fucking idea what you're talking about. And your use of red herring is incorrect.

Tedious conversation with a person who speaks nonsense is now terminated.

No, I didn't know that! And I got to spend some time in Groton courtesy of the taxpayer.

Timelord, your conclusion is still based on Your Definition of the ceremonies and legalities and your all-encompassing conclusion is that Any Such Thing Shall Be and Will Always Be considered "a Marriage."

That's the roadblock.
I'd +1 your comments above, were it not for that. Sure, lots of people will call themselves 'married' even if they're gay and got the legal paperwork signed and their State grants them the Legal Rights.

But to get ALL worked up about the use of a term that can be Defined or Redefined legally and culturally is a red herring!

You can argue for different terminology, and I and many others may gather around and agree and support such a motion, but all that is is "consensus" and all That is is Agreement.

There is no inherent Underlying Truth behind the definition and usage of the term "marriage."

It's ALL 'agreement and consensus.' Until folks can let go of that anchor, ain't nobody gonna be happy with the progress...

So, how's Ireland look today? Different from last week? Catastrophe? Down the Drain? What's the current prediction for how soon they, too, fall into the ocean?

:)

SaltyDog, you may (or may not) find it amusing that there was a gay bar in New London, CT called The Salty Dog for many, many years! For all I know it's still there.

I don't give a purple monkey's behind what upsets anti-gay-marriage people. Their feelings are irrelevant. If an event takes place that confers 100% of the rights and responsibilities as marriage then it is a MARRIAGE and not something else.

I could agree with your proposal under this ONE condition, that EVERY event takes place that confers 100% of the rights and responsibilities as marriage that is NOT a religious ceremony must not be called marriage. Do you think that if a man and a woman exchange vows in front of a Justice of the Peace that they will tolerate being forced to call that a civil union? NO, they will call it a marriage.

How about a same-sex couple who have their ceremony in a church that recognizes such pairings, are they allowed to call it a marriage?

Your latest post is beyond confused. Here's the bottom line. In ANY ceremony that joins two people together and confers 100% of the rights and responsibilities as marriage and in which a heterosexual couple can call it a marriage, then a gay couple MUST also be able to call it a marriage. Anything less defies logic.

No, Timelord, the Problem IS with the Use of the term "Marriage."

Anti-gay marriage folks seem to hold the belief (position) that Any kind of Living Together With Legal Rights MUST be Called "Marriage," and that upsets them!

I have frequently suggested that the concept(s) be separated under the Law to cover "anyone who wants to sign a specific legal certificate gets ALL the legal rights accorded by Law(s).

If, separately or in addition, they wish to have a ceremony performed which "bonds them into Holy Wedlock," they should be free to do that, too, but ALL the Rights Under Laws came from the Legal Contract, independent of anything a Church Person says to them in front of a gathering of friends, relatives and annoying cousins.

If you keep tying the one to the other as "Marriage," the 'discussion' can and will Never End.

"The problem is that one side of the argument is attempting to equate one quantity with another: homosexuality with heterosexuality. This is prima facie false. "

?! Did you mean 'quality' or 'aspect' instead of 'quantity'??? Where are any assertions that homosexuality and heterosexuality Are Equal?

That makes no sense at all. You could say that both groups desire Equal Treatment Under Law or Equal Rights under Law, but there's Nothing in those statements or claims that implies that the Groups Are Equal.

and you saw the other posts at Atlantean Gardens, too?
http://atlanteangardens.blogspot.com/

Such a Source! .... [not].

Well, blarman, your first paragraph could be a completely logical justification for the behavior of most of the fundamentalist Islamists in the world, with ISIS a prime example: Their brand of Islam IS an all-encompassing social, legal, governmental System Of Living.

I, personally, am extremely opposed to their ways of 'recruiting members' and 'disagreeing with non-believers.'

How's that different?

Rand might have some juicy retort to an accusation about 'substituting the intelligence of man as their deity,' too.

If you want circular references, look into the claims of veracity Of The Bible... "It's true because the Bible says so! And the Bible says so because it's True! And the Invisible, Omniscient, Omnipotent Deity Said So, and THAT'S WHY it's all True."

I <3 atheism... :)

re: It has something to do with my 'not wanting to mess up' as opposed to my 'wanting to have fun beating the crap outta my opponent'

Could be, but you also might want to look into whether there's some unappealing downside to Being That Winner, too. Lots of ideas and feelings can influence performance....
:)

re: "Why is it a false claim when gay activists have gone on record saying that their exact cause is not for so-called equality, but to tear down the family and religion?"....

Talk about false claims?! Those are accusations leveled at any and all gay rights groups BY extremist religionists and conservatives who could no more prove those assertions than show the sun orbits around the earth...

Good try, though. Predictable, common and false.

I suppose that depends on what you think is likely to happen to the people "outed." If publishing their names means mob violence is likely to descend on them, that's evil and should be banned. If it only means they'll get less business from liberals, I'm OK with that. In-between results such as job loss? I wouldn't do that to anyone, but banning it would create a worse problem.

I agree with AG. People (but not the government) should be free to discriminate as they please. The boycott is a great weapon for liberty, not least because all sides are free to use it themselves.

No, most 'gay activists' are striving for EQUAL treatment, and red herrings like the 'business arguments' don't add in any positive way.

If a company's management decides that they, for ANY reason, want to Only Service Clientele who fit in some Defined Category or Description, SO BE IT! I say, let the marketplace decide if they've made a good or bad decision.

If a merchant doesn't want to sell a product or service to me because they Think I'm gay... or black or Jewish or Muslim or a libertarian, I'm happy to 'vote with my feet.'

And to support any other group I want... For example, Chick Filet and Hobby Lobby have never enjoyed the benefits of any sales of anything to me.

They're not suffering all that much without me. And neither am I.

I think you've got some bug up your butt over gays and the 'business argument' is an excuse for your opposition.

So, if all businesses were free of 'activist pressure' to serve gays if they didn't want to, would you [still?] oppose gay marriage?

And WHY?

Thanks for triggering a great discussion. Really!

.... unless you're living in a Reality Distortion Field that lets you believe that the "sins" YOU define somehow create a tangible, observable detriment to YOUR life (even if the 'sinners' live a thousand miles away from you.

Ah, the arrogance and hubris!

Sorry, but that didn't make any sense to me.

Since the government IS involved in legal shit that applies to Anyone and Everyone who is "married," that does not strike me as any logical reason to deny homosexuals the Right To Marry!

Their 'goal,' unless I completely misunderstand it, is to avail themselves of any and All legal rights that Couples Get through the Marriage License "process."

I have never heard a coherent, logical set of reasons to deny them access to those rights.

What I have observed is a root system which inevitably goes back to someone's Holy Book as the Be-All/End-All Source of Truth for Their Side of The Argument.

And from this atheist's POV, that's really ... hilarious, stupid, illogical and VERY A=/=A.