Antineutrinos: Fact, or a Myth Perpetrated by the Right?

[barfle]

Really? source?

Really.

Really.

Really.

Really.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Shapley, are you just explaining again, or do you have an actual position on the several subjects under discussion?

Me, I figure ability and/or willingness to produce rugrats is incidental to a marriage - or are you suggesting that I not be allowed to marry? FWIW, I know gay couples who do a top-notch parenting job. I also know a number of straight people I wouldn't give custody of a geranium.

[barfle]

Community property can be taken care with such things as a will, which even married couples should have.

That has nothing to do with community property. That is right of survivorship, and wills are expressly for such matters.

I do not, even with the rapid advances of science we have today, see any possiblility that same-sex couples will be able to produce their own biological offspring.

And I don't see any possibility that the different sex couple of which I am a member will ever be able to produce our own biological offspring.

The question arises whether or not those churches which cannot, as a matter of faith, accept (and perform) same-sex marriages will be guilty of discrimination under the law, if such unions are legalized. Some legal scholars have said 'yes', which leads some of the oppositon to the legalization of such unions by the churches.

Or perhaps lose their tax-deferred status? But I'm not referring to what a church may decide to do, I'm referring to laws specifically prohibiting same-sex marriages, based on religious views of the morality of homosexuality.

If the answer is, indeed, 'yes', then they are very clearly imposing their morality on the rest of us, by attempting to use the legal system to alter the tenets of religious faith.

First, that's a mighty big "if." I have yet to see a church coerced into performing any rites on people who have not been accepted as members of the church.

If, however, they attempt to legislated that we have to call them that also, then they are attempting to impose their morality on us all.

YOU don't have to call them anything. And it does not affect YOUR morality to allow people who are close to each other to share the legal benefits of a family.

Marriage exists as a religious institution for certain purposes, and as a legal instutition for others. The government does, however, place restrictions and requirements on the religious instutition to bring into into compliance with the legal one. Blood test requiremetns, legal reporting requirements, licensing, etc., all are legal restrictions imposed on the religious community regarding marriage.

What's important to the couples involved is not a ceremony or the location in which it is performed. What is important is the recognition of each other as next of kin. If I am unable to express my wishes to a physician, for example, my wife has the right to direct my care, as well she should. That's because the government has recognized us as a family unit. If her gender had been different, such a relationship would be illegal in many places, and that's an infringement on the rights of people in that situation.

[piqaboo]

I do not, even with the rapid advances of science we have today, see any possiblility that same-sex couples will be able to produce their own biological offspring

You have a child who is not yours biologically - he is only biologically related to one half of your wedded pair. My wedded friends will also be having children - each biologically attached to only one half of the wedded pair. Therefore I do not see any validity in your argument.
But if you wish to continue to argue, then do you deny the rights of children adopted by hetero couples? They are biologically related to neither of the wedded pair called 'parents'. Why would the rights of children adopted by homo couples be different?

And why would marriage of any kind require the production or acquisition of children anyway? That places one heck of a burden on the barren couples out there. Some are barren by choice, but the % of couples who are biologically barren is surprisingly high in the population.
Are you arguing that Catholic couple who marry be forced to annul if they prove unable to conceive?

[Shapley]

I have a position on this, but I've not outlined it totally.

The impact of marriage on childbearing has nothing to do with childrearing ability, it has to do with legitimization of offspring. I specifically mentioned 'biological offspring'. The gay couples you mention may be rearing offspring, probably the offspring of one or the other, but not the offspring that result from the union.

I personally don't care whether or not gay couples 'marry', but I do care if someone says that the Catholic church has to marry them, or has to accept them as married, since it goes against the teachings of the Church. That concern extends to Catholic schools, BTW.

I believe in seperation of Church and State, and that couples can be legally married while not being religiously married, and vice-versa. The Church, for instance, does not (officially) recognize divorce. It is conceivable that a couple could thus be religiously married but not legally so.

Apparently some churches have seen fit to perform gay and other marriages that are not legally recognized. This would be another example of people being religiously married but not legally so. For opposite-sex couples, such unions may, over time, fall into the 'common law' marriage definition. How would 'common law' marriage be affected by the legalization of gay marriage?

V/R
Shapley

[Shapley]

And why would marriage of any kind require the production or acquisition of children anyway?

I've not said that it mandates the acquisition of children, but that the legitimacy of children produced by the union is the principle reason behind marriage, at least as a religious institution.

Adoption is a legal institution of its' own right, and should (but doesn't) exist independently of marriage. Since the marriage bond (wrongly, these days) represents an oath of commitment, it is used as a basis for adoptability in most states. But not all married couples can adopt, nor are all adoptions granted to married couples (though most are). Adoption grants legitimacy to non-biological offspring.

V/R
Shapley

[barfle]

The impact of marriage on childbearing has nothing to do with childrearing ability, it has to do with legitimization of offspring.

I guess I'm not sure what legitimization is all about. Some people seem to care, I guess.

I personally don't care whether or not gay couples 'marry', but I do care if someone says that the Catholic church has to marry them, or has to accept them as married, since it goes against the teachings of the Church. That concern extends to Catholic schools, BTW.

Where have you ever seen a church being required to perform any rite that it does not feel is valid? Has any priest ever been required to adminster the Eucharist to someone in a state of mortal sin? Has any bishop ever been required to confirm the faith of someone who has not been baptized?

[piqaboo]

Then why are you opposed to law allowing samesex marriages?
None of your responses or concerns addresses this.
My church didnt have to marry me, even tho I'm a member. It certainly couldnt have been forced to marry a non-member. (except possibly by the widespread public use of shame and scorn).

[Shapley]

Then why are you opposed to law allowing samesex marriages?

Where did I say I was. I've said I don't care as long as I'm not required to acknowledge the validity of the such unions in anything other than a strictly legal sense.

[barfle]

I've said I don't care as long as I'm not required to acknowledge the validity of the such unions in anything other than a strictly legal sense.

Exactly what requirement would you have to recognize MY marriage in anything other than a "strictly legal sense?" What requirement would I have to recognize YOUR marriage in anything other than a "strictly legal sense?" What recognition is required of either of us IN a "strictly legal sense?"

[Shapley]

You don't. I don't. At least not under current law. But there are currently no laws that define discrimination with regards to marriage, at least none that I am aware of. Once you open that can of worms, things can get messy. As I mentioned earlier - what about 'common law' marriages? How long does an opposite sex couple live together before being defined as a 'common law' husband and wife? Would we apply the same rules to same-sex couples, or would we need an affidavit testifying to consummation? Or would we simply eliminate the concept of 'common law' marriage altogether to make it simple?

[barfle]

But there are currently no laws that define discrimination with regards to marriage, at least none that I am aware of.

I'm not sure about Missouri, but I know Ohio passed a law banning same-sex marriage. For the life of me, I can't think of any reason for that beyond a desire to punish what the voters feel is perversion - and it's a "perversion" that only involves volunteers - there are no victims in the relationships, except those who want to make it as official as my relationship is. And how does anyone know whether my relationship is perverted or not?

As I mentioned earlier - what about 'common law' marriages? How long does an opposite sex couple live together before being defined as a 'common law' husband and wife? Would we apply the same rules to same-sex couples, or would we need an affidavit testifying to consummation? Or would we simply eliminate the concept of 'common law' marriage altogether to make it simple?

At the moment, I'm not sure why it's a concern. Common law marriages are simply two people who, without a ceremony, decide that they are a family, and that relationship is recognized by the government based on the length of their relationship. But I see that as a side issue that might become worth discussing once the situation becomes possible.

[Shapley]

As I've said earlier, I really don't have a dog in this fight.

I've never supported the idea of a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, although I understand the reasoning behind it. I consider marriage, in as much as it needs to be a government issue, to be a State government issue, not a Federal one. I think the States that want to allow gay marriage should be able to do so, and the States that want to prohibit it should be able to do so, as well. I realize the 'full faith and credit' clause might pose a problem, which the amendment supporters believe needs to be fixed at the Federal level, but which I think can be fixed at the State level.

It seems to me that some conservatives are always wanting to amend the Constitution to make it more conservative, which I think is a bad idea. They feel they need to do this because some liberals are very liberal in their interpretation of the Constitution, ignoring those parts they think are 'outdated', and using the 'living, breathing' interpretations to read into the document things that aren't really there. I, myself, like the Constitution just the way it is written, and wish we would worry more about applying it than changing it. I don't mind an amendment every now and then, if it is really needed (and I would strongly favour one giving the Senate back to the States), but I don't think marriage is an area where such tinkering is justified.

When I was growing up we used to have a saying. "You don't have to make a Federal case out of it." It was a way of saying that some things are too small or petty for the whole weight of governmental power to be employed in solving it. Sadly, we don't hear that saying much any more, because we, as a nation, no longer feel that anything is too petty for the Federal government to get involved in.

V/R
Shapley

[barfle]

I've never supported the idea of a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, although I understand the reasoning behind it.

I don't believe it's an issue just yet, but as I read the Constitution, it is supposed to be a guarantee of rights of the people and the states. We both realize how little of that guarantee actually remains, and another restriction to rights is just another chip in the foundation of liberty that is the reason this country rebelled.

I consider marriage, in as much as it needs to be a government issue, to be a State government issue, not a Federal one.

I'm not sure when this discussion became one of federal regulation. I seem to recall claiming that those fighting for the right to not believe were freedom fighters, and got a pile of challenges to that. I believe I have answered those challenges, and claiming that this is a federal issue is simply a side-step. It's a rights issue, no matter what the level we're considering.

I, myself, like the Constitution just the way it is written, and wish we would worry more about applying it than changing it. I don't mind an amendment every now and then, if it is really needed (and I would strongly favour one giving the Senate back to the States), but I don't think marriage is an area where such tinkering is justified.

I believe the Constitution is a heck of a good starting place, although I support universal suffrage and don't support counting slaves as a way to determine representation. But I definitely agree about the selection of Senators.

When I was growing up we used to have a saying. "You don't have to make a Federal case out of it." It was a way of saying that some things are too small or petty for the whole weight of governmental power to be employed in solving it.

Again, I don't believe it was either me or Haggis who brought the feds into the discussion. But as long as you brought it up, I recall one of the requirements for Utah to become a state was a state law banning polygamy. There is, unfortunately, a history of the feds getting involved in marriage.

[OperaTenor]

I liked this thread a lot better when it was about antineutrinos.

I find equivocation painful to watch anymore...

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

I liked this thread a lot better when it was about antineutrinos...

Oh, I don't know. It still might be. Antineutrinos are possibly imaginary, or irrational, or whatever else they'd have to be to account for the missing bits in the ubergeek physicists' calculations. We don't exactly know their personal habits: they might enjoy same-spin partners, or multiple partners. Or possibly even openly cohabit with neutrinos, antiquarks, and wavicles all at the same time.

Antineutrinos. Shameless barbarian infidel wretches that they are...

[OperaTenor]

Are you sayin' we need to invade another country or draw up a Constitutional amendment to put a stop to them?

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Naah. I shall offer them little antineutrino handbaskets. They can navigate on their own. I'm sure they have plenty of good intentions.

[Haggis@wk]

I never understood this "anti" / "pro" neutrino issue anyway. Can't we just get together, buy the world a Coke (at 7.25% overhead) and then sing a burbpy version of Kumbaya?

(Ed. “Kumbaya? Isn’t that a poisonous snake?”

Me. No, I think you are thinking of the Mamba

Ed. "Mamba? isn't that a festive Carribbean dance?"

Me. No, I think you are thinking of the Mambo

Ed. "Oh"

Me.

Ed.

Me.

Ed.

Me.

Ed.

Me. Well?

Ed. "You gonna eat the rest of that?"

[Shapley]

Barfle,

I suppose we disagree over gay marriage because you see it as a 'right' whereas I do not. I don't think anyone has a 'right' to be married. When churches perform the marriages, they set the criteria by which one can or cannot be married. When the State performs them, they set the criteria, based on laws voted on by the people, or their elected representatives. If the church or the State choose to honour custom and limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, so be it. If not, so be it, also.

I believe the State became involved because they wanted to encourage marriage among opposite-sex couples, so they granted certain legal benefits to those who marry. The State did not, and does not, want to encourage marriage amongst same-sex couples, so they do not offer the same benefits to them. It is not a matter of rights, it is a matter of what behaviors the State, through the elective process, chooses to encourage and what they do not.

I brought up the Federal issue because some conservatives have supported a Federal Constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage. It has been assumed on this forum (thought not specifically on this thread) that because I am a conservative, I support that effort. I have stated elsewhere that I do not, and I have reitereated that statement here. Apparently, OT thinks this is equivocating, although I don't see how. I believe I have been as clear as I can be about my view on this.

In my own opinion, I see nothing gained by the State encouraging same-sex marriage, and thus no reason to promote it. I also honour tradition, and tradition has not supported same-sex marriage, so again I see no reason to support it. Apparently some see my unwillingness to support it as opposition to it. I do not believe that I have stated that I oppose it, I just don't support it. In other words, I don't have a dog in this fight. Is that equivocating? I don't think so.

V/R
Shapley