![]() |
Same-Sex Marriage
1) Marriage is NOT a right. Not even opposite-sex marriage is.
Marriage is a privelege that states extend to their citizens in order to advance a state interest. The states have an interest in people bearing children in a civilized manner and raising them in a safe environment, which is through marriage. Homosexuals cannot bear children without outside assistance so allowing them to marry does not advance the state's interest. Testing people for fertility before marriage would be expensive and therefore wouldn't advance the state's interest. 2) Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it talk about marriage. I hate people who believe in same-sex marriage, yet want to limit gun ownership (which by the way, IS in the Constitution). Also these liberals claim that the death penalty is unconstitutional when that is also in the text of the Constitution (it defines treason and says its punishable by death). 3) Cases like Loving v. Virginia are irrelevant to the same-sex marriage debate. Allowing inter-racial marriage does not interfere with the state interest of civilized child bearing, unlike same-sex marriage. Also, the pro-gay marriage crowd wonders why 70% of African-American voters vited Yes on Proposition 8. It's because you keep degrading their civil rights movement by comparing it to your own movement. Black America sent you a message in 2008: stop comparing us to you! 4) The benefits associated with marriage (i.e. tax, inheritance) are not what is at question. I am talking about the institution of marriage, not the benefits it comes with. Marriage is an institution that is deeply rooted in religion. American states decided to regulate marriage so that no one church would dominate. Many states have civil unions and domestic partnerships that address the issue of benefits associated with marraige. gay activists don't see them as sufficient. They want the institution of marriage. In short, no one has an absolute right to marry. The state extends that privelege to groups that can advance its interests through marriage. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
I dont really see why people wont allow same sex marriage. :O
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
But why this same sex marriage matters the rest of us~
I mean, why do we have to interfere in their matters, but, I also do think that it is............you know what I mean to say, but, NO OFFENCE PLEASE. |
While you could have chosen some less harsh words for it, you're pretty much right in every regard.
I still think it's kinda silly that gay rights groups are heavily comparing their movement to the African American movement of the last generation. Last I checked, homosexuals aren't being denied service at restaurants, made to attend inferior schools, and ride at the back of metropolitan buses. Hell, in most states, they're not even denied the right to the benefits of civil unions. Nowadays they're just complaining that their civil unions aren't the same as a religious marriage semantically. |
OK before I say anything I'd like to bring up the US constitution. Being from the UK I find it hard to understand the whole "unconstitutional" thing. In the UK, we amend our constitution almost every year in order to keep up as society changes. I'm not at all getting on at Americans here but, why can't you do the same?
Regardless of same-sex marriage being "unconstitutional" it is a right. Yes governments allow marriage to promote the idioms you stated, but it is also just seen by the public as a recognition of devotion. You should have the right to it regardless of your sexuality. |
Wow, rude much?
Anyway, I think we should let gay people do the same things as straight people. It doesn't hurt anyone, what the hell is the big deal? No one should care if they get married. Marriage is a joke nowadays, anyway. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
That doesn't seem to mention anything about same-sex marriage. So... yeah. Quote:
Quote:
Like... ever That being said, I only support same-sex marriage if the privileged is earned fairly, not through forced propaganda and absurd comparisons like is currently being done. |
Quiet you. I am going to engage in a same-sex marriage, and there is nothing that you - or anybody for that matter - can do about it. Now, does anybody have any plausible ideas of how to resurrect Abraham Lincoln?
|
I am gay and I'm a christian, and modern christianity (Church of england anyways) doesn't forbid homosexuality.
God loves you no matter how your chemistry works, and there is no fair reason to exclude same sex couples from marriage. Besides what harm will it do to anyone? None at all, just let Gay people get on with their lives and you get on with yours. Incidentally I think the person who tarted this thread is just trying to start an argument and cause offense. I'll leave you with Wanda Sykes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4oGKm8Upp8&feature=fvw |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The origins of marriage as an actual sacrament rather than contract date back to Paul in Ephesians [23-32 iirc.] Marriage had long been around though. One of the earliest recordings of it is in Hammurabi's code. Wives were essentially sold as property. Dowry, etc. You can read more about it here. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
http://i32.*.com/2vjueyb.jpg
Do some people just look in Other Chat and decide "Oh there's not an active thread on gay marriage so it's my duty to make one?" Seriously? Time and time again we've realized that this thread in particular is a bit controversial for PC and creates general BAW and flames. One thing goes wrong in this thread and it's locked. Just putting that out there. Let's make this a civil discussion. |
Quote:
Marriage is a legal process now, and to say that same sex partners can not get married because its a religious institution is the same as saying non-religious people can't get married. And they can. So whats up with that? |
Quote:
Point being, at this present time no, they cannot "have" a child, period, unless of course you meant to include adoption. |
I don't get what's wrong with Same Sex Marriage. I may be straight but they are people too. People should love who ever they want, and the world should accept it. I'm straight and I think there is nothing wrong with Same Sex Marriage at all. We are all human-beings. I may be 14 but I mean what I say. Look at Ellen Degenerous and Porche.
|
Quote:
First off, people are not "just wired that way". From what I see, it's a combination of innate tendencies that seem to emphasize homosexuality, enforced by possible judgement by peers, sexual confusion, and the fact that homosexuality is becoming more of an accepted thing. I'd like to say here that these are not at all universal, and anybody can have any of these signs and others I did not list. First Corinthians 6:9-11: Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. I don't bring this up to hate on any given person, but to prove that it's there in the New Testament, and that it's not of God. I don't know what kind of church you go to, but if you really are a Christian, you are supposed to take this seriously. Am I wrong? I don't hate you for being gay, I promise. I don't hate you for having a different opinion and calling yourself Christian. However, to me, this is literally serious business. You are in no way obligated to, but if you want to continue this, I'll accept a few VMs. |
I don't see why people even care if gays marry. Marriage is more a symbol of comitment to another now than anything, and if two men/women love each other enough then let them, it's not difficult. And don't try "unconstitutional" as an arguement; the constitution is always being violated.
|
Ugh. Whatever I say in this thread is going to be offensive, because there isn't any difference between a homophobe or a racist or a sexist, so I guess I'll just leave you at that. My posts will be along the lines of "have fun being on the wrong side of history" or "your prejudice is based on your religious beliefs and therefor it is unconstitutional to enforce religious ideas by law, which is what is going on now." If anyone wants to argue that this is not based on their religious beliefs (Åzurε already has admitted that it is), then that's a different debate.
|
Quote:
Exactly, like I've said before, Freedom of Religion is the same as Freedom from Religion. Marriage has become synonymous with going to last step in feelings of love, which explains the want by the same sex community to gain this opportunity, as domestic partnerships or civil unions haven't gained that status. Its also become a legal process, by which refusing to offer the same service to a specific minority group because of religious beliefs, is unconstitutional. The Constitution doesn't give them the right, I know. I also know that no one has the right to it, but that works in my advantage. It means that refusing to offer the service to same sex partners on grounds of religion rather than something like economic or age reason (which I have yet to hear a reasonable reason other than religion) is unconstitutional, and either everyone gets it or no one gets it. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
I was referring to how the Bible has been used in the past to justify stuff that is now legal/kosher today [e.g., women not being property now, interracial marriage, etc.] :p Quote:
That was kinda my point as well. Adoption, or artificial insemination. Or, just natural insemination. I've known of it happening. :) Quote:
Quote:
|
I always thought the jury was out on this debate...
I'd like to say first off that this is a religious debate. Don't even bother bringing law into it, because the Bible also says (in Genesis) that we have control over all animals and can do with them our own will. And I dare anyone here to say that animal cruelty is acceptable and that we shouldn't have laws against it. So, the religious side of the argument flies out the window on basic reductio ad absurdum (and that's about 75% of the argument right there). What do we have left? Bearing children and having a family. Well, that's nice, but like some people have mentioned (by the way, Erik Destler, will you marry me? :P), if that's the argument, then we shouldn't allow sterile people to be married. They can't have children either. So, I believe the child bearing argument flies out the window too. Oh, and let's not forget the "family values and morals" debate. Okay, so let's have psychological tests before marriage is performed. Anyone who is sub-par can't get married, or if they show signs of serious mental illness, obviously they wouldn't be able to raise a family based on the social norm. Alright, we have next the idea that marriage is a privilege as pointed out by the OP (a religious privilege, it should be noted). Alright, I can buy that... if it didn't have so much legality in it. Marriage is not just a commitment thing, it's got a crap load of paperwork that works to help the security of the family (this is why divorce can be so difficult, or take so long, to work out). And saying that financial security is only attainable by a man and woman combo, then that's in conflict with constitutional rights right there. And if you disagree with that, then you're probably a bigot, saying some people are more deserving of something than another. :P So, that argument flies out the window. And that being said, we must also include into the debate a church-marriage and a court-marriage. Personally, I'm straight, and I'd never get married in a church. I'd probably burst into flames the moment I step foot in it, so in that sense, I personally don't see why a gay couple would want to either, especially since the church is such a discriminating organization. But a court marriage is different, and if that is illegal to a gay couple... isn't that just flat out discrimination? Again, saying some legal paperwork is more suited for A than B. That's saying A is more worthy than B. And when A and B are composed of human beings, that's just unacceptable in my eyes. Personally, and truthfully, I find no legal/political/religious debate as absurd as this one. This is a case where I can not even comprehend how someone could be against it. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
For all any of us knows, Jesus did condemn homosexuality himself. You don't think the Bible records everything he did of said, do you? Fact is, there's no way to tell. And the Old Testament puts homosexuality on the same level as prostitution. Though, I've been rolling this over in my head. I think this topic is changing my opinion a little bit. 'O' horror of horrors! More research will be done when I have a moment. I'm curious as to the antiseptic thing. EDIT: Quote:
However, in saying that it's a religious issue I feel you're absolutely correct. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Basically this kind of dates back to Sodom and Gomorrah. Quote:
But why? The act of what they were doing was homosexual, yes - it was with other men. But it was not out of love, or even lust really. What the men of Sodom and Gomorrah were practicing was purely primal domination. For example, often when a new dog encounters another dog, they will . . have their way with it to show dominance. These men were showing their dominance over each other and defying God. They were living corruptly by doing so. So, in response to these men, Lot offered his two virgin daughters instead. However, it was more humiliating, at the time, if the men were 'raped' rather than women: I mean, how else do you show sheer dominance over a household than taking advantage of the head of it? Also, I have to say that that's also mistranslated. [the part about Paul] Read this. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
EDIT: And selective reading seems to be all that the religious right does. As with the passage against homosexuality being in conflict with the "God loves everyone" parts. There are so many contradictions in the Bible, it's really quite hard to show that the Bible converges to a set opinion/moral. |
And, a lot of stuff was mistranslated as well. :)
Read this for more info ^^ |
Quote:
I fact I don't even oppose same-sex marriage. I just don't think it's a civil rights issue. You could argue that more couples to adopt children serves the state's interest. |
It says in the bible that man and man or woman and woman shouldn't be in the same relationship (together), so it shouldn't be, I oppose it more than communism. It is a sin, always will be.
|
Quote:
Quote:
(Because, like I said, this is a religious debate... since one side is totally founded on religion and the Bible, you can not debate this without bringing religion into it somehow... and that's why I doubt we will ever truly win. :P) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Yes sexual reproduction is impossible, but a family can be brought together through adoption. A child doesn't necessarily need parents that look like them (although it helps). I mean my friend was adopted by Lesbian couple and he is a nice well adjusted individual. I mean child rearing is really irrelevant. I mean I would rather be the child of a gay couple and have a pleasant life in a middle class or high income area than the child of a straight couple that is in the projects and abusive. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
The funny thing about Christianity is that Christians put more faith in the 9001 most likely corrupt men that have had a role in writing, editing, and/or compiling the bible throughout the past 2000 years instead of the one man that their religion is named for. If you read just the gospels, the stories and anecdotes about Jesus' teachings and works, and then compare them to say, the entirety of the old testament, you'll be getting a lot of mixed messages. As a philosopher, Jesus preached that all you had to do on earth to gain God's grace was to love one another as He has loved us. The high priests and popes in the interim years took it upon themselves to keep adding more to the "requirements to be saved" list so that more people need their "spiritual guidance" and the result being more money and more power to the priests. The hateful attitude towards homosexuals being just one of many.
I was raised Catholic and while I'm not the most devout Catholic nowadays, I still consider the basics of the religion to be truth. Even I was able to figure out that the scare tactics used in the early days of the church were wrong and just a ploy to increase the church's power. As such, the religious element of this debate is highly irrelevant. XD ...that being said though, jury's still out on my personal stance. I have no problem with court-issued civil unions amongst same-sex couples, but I think it's best to leave the decision of religious marriages to the individual churches/synagogues/mosques/etc...as archaic as it is, a lot of religions see marriage as just a sacrament to offer the blessings of bearing children, and since same-sex couples can't produce children biologically...yeah... |
Quote:
I... I think I've reached the end of my knowledge on this subject >>; Lol |
did you post this just to get people mad? you must not have anything better to do than to start arguments.
|
Quote:
Not to mention donations to a sperm bank and other options... |
I am shocked and appalled by the amount of homophobic rubbish I'm seeing on this thread.
I honestly thought the world was moving on from silly prejudices. Anyway, back on the topic, if your a straight person (and I can't stress this enough) how on earth does gay marriage effect you? It just doesn't. If you don't like the idea of marrying someone of the same sex then don't marry someone of the same sex. As for those that do, just leave us alone and mind your own damn business! In other words: If you are straight this issue has no effect on your life, so you have no business talking about it. Don't poke your nose where it ain't wanted and try concentrating on your own problems instead of making life hard for everyone else with your biggotry! Quote:
If there is one thing we can be sure that God does not tolerate, it's hatred itself, which you seem to be full of. God is love. So why would God be scornful towards a loving relationship? He wouldn't. News flash: God doesn't descriminate against people for how they were born. Also I would like to say once more, the person who started this thread was clearly asking for trouble, and has posted before on threads to do with Gay issues... This person has a definite fixation with homosexuality. Why? Why the hell do you care FreakyLocz14? What is your fixation with us gays? |
Wait, let me get this right. If you get married once, have a kid, get a divorce, you can't marry again and still be in possession of that child since it's not technically "yours" because of its half-blood? Because, that's what this thread is essentially saying in a few places.
Anyway, here's my argument in bullet point format, since I've already spent too much time on writing it out in nice paragraphs for people to read:
|
Quote:
You claimed to be a Gay Christian in one of your earlier posts, and you plan on getting married in the church? Good luck with that. This doesn't reflect on my personal views, but I thought it might be interesting to mention. I knew a guy in high school. Quite gay and a very strong Christian. whenever a gay marriage debate popped up, he would be on side of opposition. As a gay Christian, he viewed it as a sin to go celebrating his homosexuality and all that. He even vowed that he would be a virgin for life if that's what it took to get to Heaven. Obviously, even in your particularly awkward demographic, opinions are scattered. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The reason I was calling out the gay-bashers was because certain posters like the one I quoted earlier were straying off the topic and simply attacking homosexuality in general. In addition I never expressed in any way whether or not I intended to marry in the future, only that it's not fair that gays shouldn't be allowed that. The Church of England doesn't condemn homosexuality. Although gay marriage isn't authorised yet as a ceremony, there is such a thing as a civil union with a blessing, which clearly shows a sound preparation for gay marriage when the time comes for reform. Clearly you just read into what I was saying what you wanted to read. Besides my belief in God is my own, I don't need to be a fundamentalist to follow the principles of Jesus and the Gospel. Nor am I prepared to condemn myself to a life of loneliness simply because I've been spoonfed religious dogma that makes little sense, like your friend decided to do. My point is this, why should the rules be different just because somebody is born different. God loves us all equally, so why should gays receive anything less than straights? Besides the main point of what I was saying is, why do straight people even care if gays want to marry or not if it has no effect on them, and you've failed to answer that question. Nobody has answered this question yet at all. P.S. quoting my reply as "Wall of text annoying spaced like such" Just shows you can't be bothered to provide valid counter arguments, and reflects the level of maturity you're bringing to the discussion. It's also rude. |
The obvious solution to this problem is for governments to stop recognizing marriages of any kind and to recognize only civil unions in their place. Anybody can get a civil union. If you also want a marriage on top of that then that's your choice and you can go to whatever religious institution will have you. Marriage is all personal anyway, right? The government can encourage reproduction (or whatever silly excuse people image it has in encouraging heterosexual unions only) with civil unions just as easily as with marriages so there's no harm to the state. Even if you think marriage is a religious thing then you shouldn't care if wider society recognizes it as sacred. Wanting people to recognize your legal rights is a completely separate thing.
Everyone gets what they want. Everyone goes home happy. |
In case nobody gets why I don't like this discussion, this page kinda says it all. I'm making one more post, and I won't be addressing everything. VMs still welcome, don't expect instant responses.
Richard Lynch: Selective reading is not required, but that's another discussion. We've all heard "Love the sinner, hate the sin", right? Cliche it may be, but it's the truth. The possessor of the sin is unholy, but not hated. "Men are superior to women, slavery, etc. etc." Another common issue I have a remedy for. Jonah's case is fun to explain. Erik Destler: Why Can't I Own a Canadian is near-irrelevant. The first paragraph says the person in question is a Jew. I understand why you brought it up, but it doesn't apply to Christianity. And neither did I forget about those lines of yours. On the note of inaccuracies the original Hebrew/Greek is the way to go. Still have some meditating to do on this one... I'm sorry I didn't answer all of everyone's objections, but what do you really expect? While I feel I've discovered many answers, I've not found every one and I don't have tons of time for this. As was previously stated, I could still stand a VM or two. Just saying the door's open. Cheers. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Sorry if I came off as overly irritable in my last post. I do that sometimes. =/ |
In my state, Califonia, same-sex couples already have all of the legal rights of marriage under California Family Code section 297.
So obviously they want something more than just legal rights. They want to force acceptance of their lifestyle on the general public. |
The way I see it is, this should be a purely legal issue void of all religious arguments. That being what is the difference between a man/man or women/women couple getting married versus a man/women couple getting married?
And if you were to bring religion in to this discussion. So what if homosexuality is a 'sin'? Jesus died on the cross to forgive us of our sins. God is loving and accepting, he's not going to damn someone to hell for committing a 'sin'. Also I suggest you read this thread explaining why homosexuality is not a sin. Quote:
|
I mean, how can being gay be a sin? I mean consider the following:
Sexuality is a combination of genetics and environment: Mostly the former. I mean if you are born a certain way then how can it be consider evil? Your God, made the person the way they were so does that mean that God intentionally made some people by default sinners for just being? If it is a sin that makes it a choice so does that mean up til puberty all humans were bisexual and chose to be gay or straight? : Okay as a Bisexual, I have to say that I was born this way, but I don't think the whole world was and then chose. Sexuality would literally be moot if that was the case. For Christians, are we really allowed to pass judgment on one another because of a 2000 year old book? : Okay, I'm a athiest, but I went to Catholic school after Lutheran school, so I'm pretty well versed on Christianity. Remember the following quote by Christ himself "Yee who is without sin cast the first stone." I mean let's bite for a moment and humor those who consider being gay a sin (Remember I can't by default consider it a sin XD). Who among us hasn't done something offensive? I mean we can't persecute people for their "faults." We are not letting people get married and have a nice life because of a book: Yes, I understand it is the backbone and substance of the Christianity? But you know what really is the thriving force? The people! People, gay, straight, bisexual who just believe in a higher being. I mean I believe if you just believe in God you deserve to get married. If you are a tax paying, law abiding, (and I suppose) God fearing being, why can't you get married? The reason, because of a book that is grossly been misinterpreted and translated so many times that it could have been completely different meanings 2000 years ago. (Never mind that not everything in the bible is suppose to be taken literally). Sex couples and Different sex couples in Raising children: I made a point earlier that honestly, its not the sexuality that matters but the quality of parenting. I mean a key in this argument is that people who are gay can't properly raise children because of their sexuality. I mean what does sexuality, other than possibly modeling, really do in parenting? Alright, I've said my piece. I don't mean to incite any flame wars or offend anyone just wanted to get some points out there. |
Quote:
The irony comes from the fact that devoted homosexual couples will engage in such activities regardless of whether or not they're allowed to get married, at which point, the only people that suffer are the chaste homosexual couples that are a-okay by the Bible. XD Quote:
|
I don't even understand why people are against same-sex marriage. It doesn't really hurt anyone, and it's not like someone's forcing something on you, they're just opening up the option for others who may want to do that. I understand that some people may feel that it's morally wrong, but doesn't that just mean those people shouldn't do it? That seems sufficient to me.
|
Quote:
Also I mean it's not that ironic, I mean we have those basic human needs. Gay, bi, straight, you need to fulfill those needs. I mean yeah I get what you are saying, Many Christians deem it deviant behavior, but I mean it's the same Christians who go around having pre marital sex and engaging in other things "God" would deem unsavory to say the least. XD |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Homosexuals have hidden motives behind wanting same-sex marriage legalized besides legal "equality". They want to use the institution of marriage instead of being glad they get the same rights under civil unions/domestic partnerships not because they want the rights, but because they want to force acceptance of their lifestyle. Quote:
I find it funny that the pro-gay marriage crowd are the first to say Christianity shouldn't be brough up in this debate yet they are first ones to bring it up. |
Quote:
Quote:
Personally, I think a lot of this lies within the oblivious state-of-mind people in general maintain in regard to mistranslations of the Bible. :C |
So some people want Marriages to be scrap just because homosexuals can't get married. Hypocritical much?
|
I think everyone should be able to get married, tbh. And yeah, my thread on marriage was pretty much... more trolling-ish opinions, but really, as long as the two people are over 18, they should do whatever they want to. Cause if you love someone you should be able to marry them. Who cares about all the technicalities of religion, etc, -insert everything else this thread mentions-, love shouldn't be like that. :(
But yeah, homosexuals should be able to get married~ ...just as long as they're not related already. D: (I mean same applies to hetro's, but yeah.) |
Quote:
You are implying that homosexuality is a choice. That's like calling being black or asian a "lifestyle". As I can tell you I did not choose to be gay, In fact I spent most of my teenagers years trying to be straight. Needless to say it didn't work because I was simply born this way. Nobody choses their sexualtiy. To claim that they do is just ignorance. In fact we've already seen evidence demonstrating that it's not a "lifestyle" choice, presented by Timbjerr: Quote:
So please clarify what you mean by "lifestyle". Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
And I'm sorry but marriage =/= love. Marrying for love is such a new concept. Marriage is really for financial security, inheritance, child bearing, etc. And in the case of royalty, to make sure the crown stays in the family. |
I see or have no problems with same sex marriage.
Atheists get married, people who can't have children get married, and so does any one else who wants to be united with the person that they love. It doesn't always have to be about religion, and there are more documents then the Constitution, thats not the only important one. I think that any one who wants to get married should be able to get married. Not for the fact that they want to have children or be united under god, but for the simple fact that they love their significant other and want to be a part of that persons family for the rest of their lives. And even if marrying for love hasn't always been the case, people have been thinking that way for a long time and its time to get used to it. That sure is better then getting married to someone who you can't stand just to obtain financial securities. Thats definitely not good for any child, to see their parents fighting or not getting along or loving each other. |
I'm not even going to read anyone's post here. Here's my stand point:
Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone. Anyone who has a problem with it is just looking to stir up trouble. Think if it was allowed; how would everything be different other than the fact that gays would be allowed to wed. Love is love. There's nothing anyone can do to stop it. The world is fulllllll of hypocrisy, and whenever people fight against gay marriage, it's prominent. Give me ONE legitimate reason why it's "wrong." kthx EDIT: Quote:
|
Quote:
I was stating the frame of mind of the fundamentalists who do take everything in the Bible at face value, not reflecting my personal views. XD Also, three-way = sodomy, which is often erroneously associated with homosexuality, so I can see how circular logic works either way. =/ |
Sodomy is actually any sex other than heterosexual intercourse that would result in reproduction. Homosexuals and heterosexuals can both engage in sodomy but homosexuals can only engage in sodomy.
|
Need I even post here, it should be pretty obvious what my views are. Any couple should be able to get married if they want to, regardless of gender. If Brittany can marry someone and divorce them mere hours later why can't two people of the same sex who genuinely love each other marry?
|
Quote:
You're back peddling. A lifestyle by definition is a choice you make on how to live your life. So please, I'll ask you more specifically. What do you mean by "force acceptance of their lifestyle"? How can one force acceptance. I can't control your thoughts, so I can't make you accept anything. It's impossible. a suggestion, if I may: If you don't like a gay "lifestyle", then perhaps you should stick to being straight. What other people do with their lives is none of your business. Secondly, if you're going to argue that marriage is all about legal issues, then you must relinquish your claim that this is solely a religious debate. You can't have it both ways. |
God. Just. Allow. Gay. MARRIAGE! Just do it. In my twelve years. I have seen... about... 200 couples that are Gay or lesbian, KISSING. Not other stuff. I might of seen like 50000000 OF any gay Signs.
|
Quote:
ALSO, I brought up Christianity for those who use the Christian faith as their argument. Not just for you. |
Ah, we have yet another same-sex marriage debate.
Allow me to put in my own personal information; I am a male, who is homosexual. I fully intend to marry, and have children (in whatever way is most convenient at the time, e.g. In-Vitro or Adoption). At most have five kids. Marriage is a term defined too many times. Re-definition after Re-definition has made the true explanation of this word, well, into a bunch of scribbles and humorously shaped letters. That is because, people have stuck their fingers into it with opinions. I am a person, which takes information, and forms opinions all the time. Quite frankly, I would have overlooked this thread if I weren’t. But ever since grade school, we have been shown the difference between opinions and fact. Which is, Fact is always real. It is undeniable truth, which has been proven many times. And an opinion, is merely just a judgmental view on the subject, and not necessarily true, unlike fact. The conflicting opinions from numerous parties have used up all their ink writing down what they think is “marriage”. And that is how, that when we open up the dictionary, we see that typhoon of unreadability next to “marriage” n. All those opinions have made the definition of marriage just like humans. Flawed. Because no one can agree to disagree, and let things lye, and allow for peace to fill the tension. Marriage is not a religious matter. Beside, if it was, it is no longer. Marriage has existed (or at least companionship) before religion has. No religion has the right to say it’s theirs. And besides, there is a separation of church and state, and since marriage has turned into more of a state-recognition thing, it is state. And since state and church are separated, religion has no ties into it. And, the policies of America (at least) is freedom. We’re a free country, correct? Well marriage is not a right, yes. I’ll take your view on that marriage is not a right, for the sake of argument. However, it is a freedom. If you withheld a freedom, then my dear, you are breaking the first rule of the country. Freedom. It is not something that should be voted upon. If it is, then heterosexual marriage should be voted upon. It’s only fair, and serving justice, another country rule. Homosexuality is not unnatural. It happens in nature all the time, just go look at some gay penguins or lesbian bunnies or something. Heterosexuality is not unnatural. It happens in nature as well, just go look at some straight bears or straight peacocks or something. Love exists, between Males and Females, Males and Males, and Females and Females. And Marriage that contains no love, it is unhappy. Sirs and Madams, this is the only fact we have of Marriage. We shouldn’t allow that to be corrupted too by denying people of locking their love. And same-sex marriage doesn’t corrupt the sanctity of marriage. It never did. Divorce does that, but apparently, we can accept that. Why? Feel free to comment. |
@Freaky, I disagree with the presumption that marriage is deeply rooted in religion. Marriage has always been more social/societal than religious.
Marriages were, in cultures far and wide, about status and economics. Brides with dowries, marriages to make peace between warring groups, etc. Even today it still has economic and cultural overtones. While you don't need marriage to back up your claims that your son is rightfully yours and can inherit your chiefdom (well, most of us don't, since most of us don't have chiefdoms), you still have tons of economic ... stuff ... that comes with marriage. Taxes and such. Marriage also still affects your interactions with people and in some places even has legal repercussions. Think of places in the world were you are considered a criminal for having sexy time outside of marriage. Even in places where you wouldn't get lashed you can still suffer social ostracization. Whatever spiritual dimension marriage occupies it is small compared its social dimension. But if you, or anyone else, want to insist it's stepping on religion's toes then think about the religions that accept same-sex marriages. Either the gov't is stepping into religious territory by denying these religions the right to marry who they want, or religions in general are stepping out of the religious sphere and into a political one when they try to say who can and can't be married. And your whole "civil unions have the same legal blah blah as marriage" separate-but-equal thing doesn't fly. Hasn't for half a century. See Brown v. Board of Education or the 14th Amendment. Imagine if you had two institutions with the same rights only they were called "marriages" and "dirty-****-pirate-unions". An exaggeration, obviously, but it illustrates the point that names are important. |
Quote:
Also, why is it always religion v. not religion with these kind of threads? |
Quote:
Quote:
If we provided civil unions/domestic partnerships to everyone and allowed it to be up the different religious denominations to determine whose union counts as a "marriage" that would be a good system. |
Quote:
I don't care how important people think the black civil rights movement was, we're talking about human beings and their right for equality on a whole. And I don't think marriage is the only thing out there. People are being murdered for being gay, they're being branded as animals and sub-human by the religious right. I believe gays are the most discriminated on group of people in this day and age. And the fact that some people would deny them equality because of some sort of genealogical vanity is just sickening. |
Quote:
Face it, the black vote on Prop 8 was a wake-up call to homosexuals who thought these kind of comaprisons would fly. |
Quote:
Okay, I'm black, I can freely admit that. If say we had the same ideals we did back before the civil rights movement, this thread would turn into a hate thread. People being killed for being gay is illegal and you will be tried to the fullest extend of the law. What you are implying is that gay people have no rights at all. I mean though I support gay marriage, you can't compare right to marriage to right to not being treated like a human being. |
Quote:
That's excatly my point. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
^Civil Unions already exist...you know that right?
|
Quote:
I feel being denied marriage is a form of discrimination, and thus is treating gays as a lesser lifeform, which is in conflict with your last sentence. Sure, it's not as extreme as a slave trade, but it still treats the victim as substandard compared to the norm. The foundation for it, as many, many people have shown, is really quite lame, and I don't feel you can justify it with the legal hoo-hah that's been thrown around. You can't approach something like this with the notion of "degrees". You have to look past the extremeness or mundane-ness of the situation and see that everything is pointing toward the same idea: inequality. I just can not comprehend how anyone could even think about denying someone anything based on who they are. It's ludicrous! If this kind of stuff continues, and even worse, is embraced by the people, all I have to say is: Welcome to Nazi America, PokeCommunity. |
My question is: Every time we talk about marriage why does it always result into a religious debate??? Why is everyone a fool?
|
Quote:
Legally, me and you don't determine what laws are legal or constitutional, the courts do that. The U.S. Supreme Court hasn't declared same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional, has not declared DOMA unconstitutional, and state courts have upheld many of the laws, including California's Prop 8. I think the Court doesn't review them because they rightly see that the regulation of marriage is a state issue. Quote:
Quote:
Since the ratification of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, the Court has tried to perform a balancing act over what federal Constitutional law to apply to the states and what not to. The Court many times has said that the states are free to make whatever laws they wish unless they violate "fundamental fairness" and that's when the federal Constitution will step in. Black people were discriminated against so badly that the Jim Crown laws of the South and slavery before that violated the notion of "fundamental fairness". The fact that same-sex marriage is banned in some states apparently does not in the Court's eyes. Currently the Court sees the same-sex marriage debate as a state issue. It may change its opinion in the future but until then same-sex marriage bans are not unconstitutional. Different states (like Iowa) can declare them unconstitutional based on their interpertation of their state constitutions. Quote:
|
>.>"
You know what's interesting? The fact that eveyone is descriminated against for one reason or another. Why? because it's different then what they are. And People are afraid of things they don't understand. It's like a dog and thunder. The dog has no idea what thunder is or how it's created, so it will freak out more and wimper at the thought. But why must everyone force their ideas onto lives of other people? Why must the general public choose which sexes can get married? And guys, how did we get into talking about Black individuals and slaves? But it does have a point here, I have to say. Blacks were treated horribly. They were inequal. Now, you have to realize that in other countries (especially the middle east), Homosexual males and females are being killed under the law. Now see the similaries? Inequality. It's sad to see many groups, are treated the same way as this. Society needs to get over itself. |
Quote:
Quote:
Law should be altered to meet the fairness of the individual, not the other way around. |
Wow, I thought nobody would approach this topic here. This is the only topic I absolutely refuse to discuss on the internet, just because I see anyone that disagrees with me as a complete monster, and they see me that way too.
These discussions don't go anywhere except to make peiople angry as far as I have experienced... |
Quote:
You got me Freaky, it was us homos all along trying to turn your kids gay! Ah well you've clearly defeated us. It's time I returned to my homo lair to hatch my next evil plot! ...seriously, do you even hear yourself talk? Get real. There you go again saying "way of life". That's like saying "I can't believe all these blacks/asians spreading their black/asian way of life". For the last time it's not a "way of life" it's part of your biology. It's like saying having blue eyes is a "way of life". Also if you're going to make this argument whilst talking to me stop saying "they" and say "you" instead, because you are addressing my demographic. Actually if you started doing that, it kind of means your telling me what my own opinion is. Are you trying to tell me what my own opinion is freaky? If so that's really silly of you. Anyways Homosexulaity is normal if you happen to be gay, so why shouldn't a message of normalcy be spread? To me being straight isn't normal. Also why shouldn't kids learn about gays? So they can grow up to be ignorant of other people like you? Gays exist, and telling kids that we don't is just stupidity. |
Well done Locz, a very good definition of why this doesn't work from a non-religious point of view.
At those of you who are homosexual and intend to marry, one of the issues here is that marriage, by definition, is between opposite genders. Is it necessary to redefine the word? Why not just get a legal union, provided that union contained the shared property/similar benefits of marriage? It's also important for people to understand that by the Constitution, locz is just speaking of the US Constitution, unless I'm mistaken. And, in my opinion at least, international law has no place in defining the US Constitution, so it doesn't really apply here. Another thing that people need to understand is that homosexuality is a mental illness. ... Now if you're done with whatever expression of outrage took place here (screaming at the computer screen, having your head explode, etcetera), I'll explain. I don't hate homosexual people per se, no more than I hate people with Down syndrome. I recognize homesexuality as a mental illness because logically, it is. Think about it. Your mind is running contrary to your body's wiring. Now you see one of the issues with normalizing homosexuality. Because you see, homosexuality is, if you will, communicable, and it is possible to not be born homosexual but become so later in life, through excessive exploration into...bedroom territory, if you will. Now I'm not trying to diss anyone in this discussion. I think one of the biggest problems in this sort of debate is that people tend to get far too emotional. I'm just stating my point of view, and look forward to viewing yours. Maybe I'm wrong, but maybe I'm not. Anyway, to round things off, if the majority of Americans don't want homosexual marriage legalized, it shouldn't be. Homosexual groups should focus on swaying individuals rather than politicians, and they might garner more sympathy. |
Quote:
Marriage is a shaky issue here. I can see how denying same-sex marriage can be seen as discriminatory but marriage has never been performed by the federal government. Ministers do not say "by the power vested in me by the United States of America", they say "by the power vested in me by the State of (insert State name here)". So the federal government is being careful on intruding on what has always been and still is a state function. We have passed laws at the federal level to ensure "equality" for homosexuals. We have laws prohibiting non-discrimination in employement, for example. Turing someone down for a job because they are (or they employer thinks they are) a homosexual "shocks the conscious"; as the Supreme Court would put it, therefore violating the notion of fundamental fairness that goes beyond states rights. Quote:
Also, schools should not instill their moral ideals on children. School is a place to study academic subjects, not ideological indoctrination. If you want to teach the history of the homosexual movement that's fine as long as opposing viewpoints and healthy debates are encouraged whenever issues of policy are brought up but to instill the idea that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality is up to the parents to decide if they want their children to believe that or not. |
Oh, btw, I do believe that kids should be told gays exist. The phrase "ignorance is bliss" doesn't really work in this case. I just don't think that, for instance, they should be educated as to the meaning of "anal lubricant" (I kid you not, this has happened).
... So why did this thread pop up when I searched for "Advance-Text?" *sigh* |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I agree young children shouldn't be taught sex ed in the first place, but sex ed for teenagers should be all inclusive regardless of sexual orientation, becuase some of those teenagers will be gay and they deserve and equal education about sex as a straight teenager. And for the last time! Homosexuality has nothing to do with morals or indocrtination. Homosexulaity is a part of human biology which last time I checked was a big part of a rounded education. How many times do you have to be told before it's clear to you. Homosexulaity is not a lifestyle or an opinion, it's a part of your physiology, like the colour of your eyes or your height. And that "opposing viewpoint" you're mentioning, that's called homophobia, which is a form of biggotry. It's not right to treat somebody differently for something they have no control over. Needless to say I think biggotry should be kept out of the classroom at all costs. |
Quote:
Quote:
Secondly, people oppose homosexuality for all kinds of different reasons. Many people are taught from a very young age that homosexuality is wrong, it's hard-wired into their train of thought. They do not just all of a sudden decide to "hate" homosexuals just like you assert homosexuals do not just all of a sudden decide to "choose" to be homosexual. And lastly, what you are calling bigotry should not be excluded from the classroom. I disagree with all this political corectness we are putting into our public school system. The fact that there are people who oppose homosexuality is just as much of a truth as the fact that homosexuals exist. We shouldn't present one-sided information in the name of political corectness but rather should present all sides of the issues so that students can weigh the arguments each side makes and decide for themeselves which side to be on. |
Quote:
I mean using the Civil rights movement you have to understand that people wanted rights for all so that people could be treated as the same? In what world do you live in that gays have to use different schools, restaurants, and even water fountains. I mean it's unequal, but when we start having complete inequality then I will see some validity there. No offense though. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:08 AM. |
![]()
© 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.
Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.