Semantics is a very strange thing that people often get hung up on. Language is a tool, a means to an end, not an end in itself.

For this reason, I could care less if it's called marriage or a civil union. However, as a tool in the context of legal functionality, it's much easier to expand the definition of marriage in the context of law rather than try to create a whole new term. I believe our distinction here between marriage and gay unions is functionally meaningless and that anyone here that feels "marriage" is under attack needs to take a close look at every difference between what the law says, what they say, and what their religions say. These three entities often disagree on the meaning of many things, such as sin, yet few would advocate that every sin they believe in should be written into law or that law should dictate how religions feel about sin.

Right now, the word "marriage" is being used as a tool to discriminate. This is what I don't like. I have nothing against the definition of marriage, just the way it is being used in the context of law to discriminate. If I could be guaranteed that a different term could be used that would be treated the same in the context of the law, I would be happy with this, but I find this prospect unlikely.

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

I understand your objection now in that regard, but in my view treatment is the right word. I understand it upsets you, but I view being gay as a disorder, given this and supporting evidence, something can be "fixed" so that they can have their own offspring if they want and raise children in an ideal, two parent home if they want. However, I view accepting treatment as optional, as I would for a mental disorder, or anything else similar. I am against State enforcement of most anything. I am a libertarian.

Marriage is a religious institution built upon the goal of raising children in an optimal fashion. Raising children is of no comparison to minor matters of appearance.

Agreed. The State should never have gotten in to the business of regulating marriage. But, it did. It began interfering with the religious institution and now, if you support enforcing a redefinition of marriage, then you want to interfere more at the same time you say the government shouldn't be messing with religion.

Whats wrong with separate but equal? I agree with you. Gay unions or whatever gays want them called should have equal rights and benefits under the law. Homosexuals insisting on changing the definition of marriage is just like if homosexuals insisted on being called heterosexual. Homosexuals should make their own name up for their partnerships and do their own thing with it, form their own traditions, if they don't want to receive treatment and become normal, live a normal life and have the ideal situation to raise children within.

__________________
Qur'an:8:39 Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.
Qur'an:8:67 It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land.
Qur'an 8:12 I will terrorize the unbelievers...Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.
Qur'an 9:5 Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.

This is obviously something we may never agree on as it becomes subjective at this point. I don't define homosexuality as an inability to reproduce, many homosexuals do in fact have children. Further, much like a blond hair, blue eyed person is technically weaker towards the sun than a black person, I don't view the distinction to be serious enough to call turning a white person black as anything more then cosmetic, not a treatment. I view homosexuality the same way, just "cosmetic" as it relates to behavior.
Perhaps to religious institutions and "family rights" groups it is, but this is certainly not how it functions in society. Any axe murder, child molester, and ex convict can get a marriage any time they like without any problems, yet I don't think the state has any reason to believe these people will make good "families". Any infertile or elderly person also has the right to marriage regardless of the fact that they can't reproduce.

If the government wants to give rights to people to support families, perhaps they should only give those rights to people once they actually have a family. In other words, no rights for marriage, only rights for families with children. Otherwise it just looks like this is being used as a flimsy cover for upholding discriminatory rights only for straight married couples.
I'm messing around with the legal definition, religions can continue to call marriage whatever they want. The law and religions don't have to agree on everything, there is a separation in church and state. Instead we now have the situation where religion is enforcing their views and definitions on law.
Your ideal situation for children has yet to be proven incompatible with gay families. The last evidence you gave compared married couples with single and divorced people having children out of wedlock, it did not take account of gay families. In addition, remember the example of the child molester and axe murderer being able to get a marriage with all the rights included... so these are also ideal situations?

And nothing is wrong with separate but equal assuming it actually is equal. As I said before, words and language are a tool, a means to an end, not an end to itself. If unions between a man and a woman and a man and a man function the same with regard to how the law treats them, then there is no reason to need to distinguish the two in law. Instead, however, people are enforcing the definition of marriage and using it as a tool to discriminate as no other union is recognized in law.

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

I view gay adoption as bad for children. Sorry. I don't mean any offense. My interest is only in raising children in the best fashion so that we have the best society possible. We can certainly agree to disagree.

Ahh, you are justifying one abuse of marriage with others. None of it is right.

What you are advocating is "stealing the name." Again, marriage is a religious institution that the State is interfering in for certain purposes it deems are important for the common good. So, what you are saying is that well since the State started regulating this religious institution we can now just take the name and apply it to anything we want. I find it petty and cheap.

Actually, I never looked up or cited the studies I was referring to. Its not worth the time to me. Sorry. I have seen some evidence but it regardless, it would take a great deal of evidence to convince me that homosexual parents could ever possibly raise children as well as a stable, two parent family. It defies common sense so as far as I am concerned, it requires you to prove it.

I support equal rights and benefits, equal treatment under the law- in all things. If you fought for that, I support you. But, co-opting the word marriage is in my eyes just a back-door attempt to get revenge against anyone who has ever mistreated gays and a disrespectful infringement on religious traditions. In the end, if the State would get out of regulating marriage entirely, I would support anyone's right to call whatever they want whatever they want. I can not ever sanction State enforcement of interference in a religious institution making some people accept this misappropriation and distortion of religious tradition by force of law. Its actually kind of evil in my opinion, though not the most serious issue the world faces by far.

__________________
Qur'an:8:39 Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.
Qur'an:8:67 It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land.
Qur'an 8:12 I will terrorize the unbelievers...Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.
Qur'an 9:5 Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.

People are often under the misconception that people are either gay or not gay. Some people are "somewhere in the middle" and have produce their own biological children, even though the lean more to homosexual tendancies. Further, children can come into existance in ways other then between two married people. We have formal ways of making money to survive, it's possable to do the same to reproduce if it became necessary for a homosexual.The question of what is the "best" way is still up for debate.
Not exactly. To your perspective, you might see this as an abuse. To me, I see it as proof that the law doesnt actually recognise marriage because they view it as a necessary institution for family. Otherwise they would be stripping such people of their marriage rights.
This is exactly what I'm saying, and this would not be the first time. The law and churches disagree on many things. Every law passed that does not directly enforce something straight out of the bible is an example of law taking it upon itself to define legal matters inconsistant with the bible. there would be a lot more stonings in the streets if god's law was enforced.

To put it shortly, law has stolen the idea of "justic" from god's hands already.
http://www.healthyminds.org/glbissues.cfm

"How Do the Children of Gay/Lesbians Parents Fare?
Many gay men and women are parents. For example, estimates of the numbers of lesbian mothers range from 1 to 5 million and with the number of children ranging from 6 to 14 million. Most gay parents conceived their children in prior heterosexual marriages. Recently an increasing number of gay parents have conceived children and raised them from birth either as single parents or in committed relationships. Often this is done through alternative insemination, adoption or through foster parenting. Numerous studies have shown that the children of gay parents are as likely to be healthy and well adjusted as children raised in heterosexual households. Children raised in gay or lesbian households do not show any greater incidence of homosexuality or gender identity issues than other children. Children raised in nontraditional homes with gay/lesbian parents can encounter some special challenges related to the ongoing stigma against homosexuality, but most children surmount these problems."

Courtesy of the american psycheatric association. Perhaps you'd like me to dig into some more specifics, but at a certain point it's like trying to prove god doesnt exist.


Well, then this is just an area where we will have to disagree again. I see language as a tool, it can be used for good or bad. I think if gay and straight unions function the same in the law, then it is not good or bad to use one word to define it, it's just easier than maintaining two words. I don't see the need to protect a word because it's not the word you are protecting, it's the institution... and any religious group can still maintain their view on the institution even in disagreement with the law because it would be a very strange place indeed if law and religion were made to always agree.

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

Its been a good discussion and I respect your viewpoint. I do not believe it is possible for a gay household to raise children as well as a stable, healthy mother and a father. Your link cites no scientific study or data to the contrary though I must admit I didn't look closely. Can you quote specific evidence like high school graduation rate, college graduation rate, crime rate etc versus non-gay raised kids or any other reasonable measure of raising good citizens?

Bottom line, you shouldn't try to steal the word marriage. If you can't come up with your own name and your own traditions, you don't deserve to be married in my eyes, to put it bluntly. Its plagiarism, its shallow, its disrespectful, its misappropriation, a violation of intellectual property and just kind of sleazy. Call it gay unions, call it gay partnerships, call it gay nirvana, call it something else and then insist on equal rights under the law, something actually worth fighting for and then you will have my support.

But, I'm afraid I've lost interest and will agree to disagree. Nice chat and best wishes. I will read your response and maybe say thanks or something.

__________________
Qur'an:8:39 Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.
Qur'an:8:67 It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land.
Qur'an 8:12 I will terrorize the unbelievers...Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.
Qur'an 9:5 Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.

I dont think you will ever have to worry about the use of the word Marriage not within your hearing range anyway

All the talk about gay parents raising kids made me wonder if that tended to produce gay children. I didn't find anything on that in the brief bit i was looking but I did find the following.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus4.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm

Which seems to indicate that homosexuality is related to genetics but isn't the whole story.

Of course with the Greek thing indicates that people can become gay(i.e. some people simply are gay, but some people who aren't can become so, or at least engage in the practice). Hence why the parent thing would be interesting to find.

That was a link to a website maintained by the American psychiatric association giving a summary statement of their understandings based on their research. I stand by their statements as a reputable organization. However, if you would like more links that dig deeper, try these out:

This is the official policy statement of the APA with their reasoning.
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html

I looked further into one of the sources they references to find this article describing a study the health of children from homosexual families. The article is available for purchase, but the abstract confirms the purpose and outcomes.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...4.2004.00823.x

Perhaps you might appreciate the summary study published by the APA. It's rather long, but you seemed to want more detail. Their conclusions are evident in their official policy statement given above. http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgparenting.pdf

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

Huh. This I didn't expect (From your last link)

I wonder how much that effect might skew other studies? I.e. as expected X% identified themselves as straight, but maybe 30% are having gay sex.

I'm also rather surprised they focused on lesbians in these studies instead of gay males, or at least an even mix.