The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Off-Topic (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   Same-Sex Marriage (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=220359)

FreakyLocz14 May 29th, 2010 12:58 AM

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.

Ninja Caterpie May 29th, 2010 1:22 AM

Quote:

In short, no one has an absolute right to marry. The state extends that privelege to groups that can advance its interests through marriage.
I'd like you to see this:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Alright, it does say "men and women", but, y'know, it's still a right.

loliwin May 29th, 2010 1:26 AM

I dont really see why people wont allow same sex marriage. :O

FreakyLocz14 May 29th, 2010 1:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninja Caterpie (Post 5838385)
I'd like you to see this:

Alright, it does say "men and women", but, y'know, it's still a right.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights =/= United States Constitution or any state constitution so it is irrelevant.

Ivysaur May 29th, 2010 1:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 (Post 5838392)
Universal Declaration of Human Rights =/= United States Constitution or any state constitution so it is irrelevant.

Actually, most states writing a Constitution after 1948 included that Declaration as legally binding. For instance, my own country, Spain.

Alkaide May 29th, 2010 1:33 AM

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.

Timbjerr May 29th, 2010 1:39 AM

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.

The Cynic May 29th, 2010 2:30 AM

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.

Nancy Botwin May 29th, 2010 2:47 AM

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.

FreakyLocz14 May 29th, 2010 2:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Went (Post 5838395)

Actually, most states writing a Constitution after 1948 included that Declaration as legally binding. For instance, my own country, Spain.

The term "state" I used meant one the 50 states in the United States. I am relating the same-sex marriage issue to U.S. constitutional law. Although you are correct that some states have adopted parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That's why we have some states that allow same-sex marriage, some that allow only civil unions or domestic partnerships (which is the majority of states) and some that offer no recognition to same-sex couples at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Cynic (Post 5838466)
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.

Since the U.S. is a federal system, we haven't amended our Constitution since the early 1990's. Individual state constitutions are amended far more often. This is because the states have way more authority over its citizens daily lives than the federal government does. Some states even allow their constitutions to be amended by a simple majority ballot vote while the federal Constitution requires a difficult 2/3 ratification process.

Dawn May 29th, 2010 4:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninja Caterpie (Post 5838385)
I'd like you to see this:
Quote:

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
Alright, it does say "men and women", but, y'know, it's still a right.

I'm sorry but...
That doesn't seem to mention anything about same-sex marriage. So... yeah.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nancy Botwin (Post 5838485)
Marriage is a joke nowadays, anyway.

Woah now. Marriage is what you make of it. I'd appreciate you not stereotyping my parent's marriage and my future marriage.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Timbjerr (Post 5838400)
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.

While I personally am both bisexual and in support of same-sex marriage, I agree that it is being forced upon the nation through the above. I believe this to be wrong. Furthermore I'd like to point out the truth in marriage being a historically religious thing. That being said, it's not a right. It's not something people can just take and force either. That's like playing dirty in sports. You can win, but it'll never be the same or as good as someone who does it fairly.

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.

TheUltimateSacrifice May 29th, 2010 5:22 AM

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?

Porygon-Z May 29th, 2010 6:01 AM

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

professor plum May 29th, 2010 8:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 (Post 5838353)
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.

I beg to differ. A homosexual couple can have children some how. But, you know, marriage is definitely for children. That's why people who can't bear children and the elderly can't get married.
Quote:

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 (Post 5838353)
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)

Okay, and? I don't see how this is even relevant to your point.
Quote:

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 (Post 5838353)
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.

However, before interracial was legalized, most of America was against it.
Quote:

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 (Post 5838353)
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.

Really? Because if the religious roots were at question, why do we have Divorce [Divorce is frowned upon in the Bible - let's not even tackle the subject of remarriage! That's ~adultery~!]? Why do we have interracial marriage? [Deuteronomy 7:3-4 is an example of the Israelites being commanded to not do so] Why are you, as a woman, even posting here? [Women are often given the shorter end of the stick in the Bible - e.g. Genesis 3:12]
Quote:

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 (Post 5838353)
In short, no one has an absolute right to marry. The state extends that privelege to groups that can advance its interests through marriage.

In short, your argument is faulty, and relies on circular logic that homosexuality is a choice -> Homosexuality is a sin -> The Bible is Unchanging.
Quote:

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.
Because they're not the same thing. Most states? Hardly.

Quote:

Furthermore I'd like to point out the truth in marriage being a historically religious thing.
You're kidding, right?
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.

Callandor May 29th, 2010 8:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Porygon-Z (Post 5838748)
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

Okay, first off, the way I saw it, the creator of this thread started this thread to provoke a meaningful discuission in your favor. At least that's how it seems to me. If I am wrong, please, inform me immediately of my mistake. Second, while I am not opposed to gay marriage, I don't see the point in paying in any form, other then rent and/or any bills, to live with someone for the rest of your life. That's just me though. There are plenty of people that put value in this big expensive ceremoney that says to the world "We want to live together for the rest of our lives", apparently, more then actually living together for some odd amount of years. And I am sorry if that last comment offended anyone. That's just how I feel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erik Destler (Post 5839046)
Why are you, as a woman, even posting here?

Because she made the thread? Anyway, how does being a women have anything to do with it?
Quote:

Originally Posted by Erik Destler (Post 5839046)
Homosexuality is a sin -> The Bible is Unchanging.

So your saying It's worng for two men/women to love each other? Why?

Chibi-chan May 29th, 2010 8:28 AM

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.

lx_theo May 29th, 2010 8:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 (Post 5838353)
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.

Wow. I'm not religious and hope to marry someday, so does that mean I'm not allowed to get married as well?

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?

Dawn May 29th, 2010 8:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erik Destler (Post 5839046)
I beg to differ. A homosexual couple can have children some how.

I'm afraid it's biologically impossible for two men to have a child. Research the biological definitions of male and female. You'll see what I mean. As for two females. Theoretically, I guess it's possible. But we sure as heck don't have that technology, and I question whether anyone would ever bother creating such technology since normally it's a rare thing to find in species as complex as humans or even most mammals. (It's FAR more common in things like single celled organisms.)

Point being, at this present time no, they cannot "have" a child, period, unless of course you meant to include adoption.

AngHeartsDrew May 29th, 2010 8:37 AM

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.

Åzurε May 29th, 2010 8:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Porygon-Z (Post 5838748)
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.

I don't like posting in these threads. I am anti-gay, and as such know what other people have to say about me. But when you said you were Christian, well...

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.

Fox♠ May 29th, 2010 8:44 AM

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.

Yamikarasu May 29th, 2010 8:48 AM

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.

lx_theo May 29th, 2010 9:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yamikarasu (Post 5839111)
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.


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.

Tinhead Bruce May 29th, 2010 9:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Callandor (Post 5839050)
Okay, first off, the way I saw it, the creator of this thread started this thread to provoke a meaningful discuission in your favor. At least that's how it seems to me. If I am wrong, please, inform me immediately of my mistake. Second, while I am not opposed to gay marriage, I don't see the point in paying in any form, other then rent and/or any bills, to live with someone for the rest of your life. That's just me though. There are plenty of people that put value in this big expensive ceremoney that says to the world "We want to live together for the rest of our lives", apparently, more then actually living together for some odd amount of years. And I am sorry if that last comment offended anyone. That's just how I feel.

It's because society still sees marriage as the "next step". People will still scoff at those who are living together or who have had sex and are not yet married, or who will never get married. We feel the need to get approval from some sort of governing entity before we make a commitment. I see it as ludicrous, but that's the way things still work.

Quote:

Because she made the thread? Anyway, how does being a women have anything to do with it?
He's proving a point. Women were often looked as lesser beings and not worthy of having an opinion in the Bible, and he's showing the flaws of using biblical references as an argument.

Quote:

So your saying It's worng for two men/women to love each other? Why?
No, of course he isn't. I don't think you're understanding what he meant at all. He's addressing a circular argument, and you cut his quote to make him look like he's the one who is anti gay marriage. As far as I understand, he is, in fact, gay.

professor plum May 29th, 2010 9:07 AM

Quote:

Because she made the thread? Anyway, how does being a women have anything to do with it?
Whoa, whoa, whoa! You totally missed the point of that part of my post XD;
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:

I'm afraid it's biologically impossible for two men to have a child. Research the biological definitions of male and female. You'll see what I mean. As for two females. Theoretically, I guess it's possible. But we sure as heck don't have that technology, and I question whether anyone would ever bother creating such technology since normally it's a rare thing to find in species as complex as humans or even most mammals. (It's FAR more common in things like single celled organisms.)

Point being, at this present time no, they cannot "have" a child, period, unless of course you meant to include adoption.
..er...obviously.
That was kinda my point as well. Adoption, or artificial insemination. Or, just natural insemination. I've known of it happening. :)

Quote:

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.
Quote:

Originally Posted by GodHatesShrimp.com
1) Paul is not God.

2) When Paul is citing this list of sins he is doing it to make the point that the Church in Corinth is free of these sins, which were listed in the Torah, because of their faith in Jesus. Paul's letter to the Romans spells out in excruciating detail how the law no longer applies to Christians because they have died to sin and been risen in Jesus. In other words, these categories were good enough for our Hebrew forebears as they went, but as Jesus says to the tricky scribes, Moses gave those laws (specifically speaking of divorce) because the people's hearts were hard. Jesus clearly demands a higher mode of ethical conduct; in repeated instruction and parables he contrasts what people were taught with what he says. Therefore, Paul's personal feelings about what kind of people will inherit the kingdom of God, taken as a blanket condemnation of certain behaviors, is not only contrary to Paul's own teachings on the matter of justification, but deeply opposed to the spirit and teaching of Christ.

3) What Paul is giving a list of, in both verses that you cite, are examples of depraved conduct, as he sees it. His point is that when people turn their backs on God, they are prone to act in all kinds of sick ways; his point is not to list things that Christians should mark in their notebooks as being the "newly revised Levitical code". Paul is saying, "You guys used to do all kinds of crazy ****, but now that you have Jesus, you've got your act together." I would say that there is a big difference between lustful, furtive couplings and a committed, healthy relationship. The notion of a committed, healthy homosexual relationship was utterly foreign to early Jews and Christians, as was the notion of abolition [of slavery], racial intermarriage, antiseptics, and all sorts of other things that we take for granted today.

4) Jesus never mentions homosexuality in the Gospels, not once. If it was so important that we had to clamp down on it anywhere and everywhere it rears its terrible head, don't you think he would have at least, you know, brought it up? There is on the other hand, a specific condemnation of divorce in the Gospels, spoken by Jesus, and yet I don't hear Focus on the Family saying anything about divorce.[/size]


Richard Lynch May 29th, 2010 9:34 AM

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.

Åzurε May 29th, 2010 9:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erik Destler (Post 5839153)
1) Paul is not God.

Nope. But God is. Haven't we gone over Divine inspiration before?

Quote:

2) When Paul is citing this list of sins he is doing it to make the point that the Church in Corinth is free of these sins, which were listed in the Torah, because of their faith in Jesus. Paul's letter to the Romans spells out in excruciating detail how the law no longer applies to Christians because they have died to sin and been risen in Jesus. In other words, these categories were good enough for our Hebrew forebears as they went, but as Jesus says to the tricky scribes, Moses gave those laws (specifically speaking of divorce) because the people's hearts were hard. Jesus clearly demands a higher mode of ethical conduct; in repeated instruction and parables he contrasts what people were taught with what he says. Therefore, Paul's personal feelings about what kind of people will inherit the kingdom of God, taken as a blanket condemnation of certain behaviors, is not only contrary to Paul's own teachings on the matter of justification, but deeply opposed to the spirit and teaching of Christ.
Paul didn't exactly say "imho, thieves aren't going to heaven" there. He said "Do not be deceived", rather in the way Jesus said "I tell you the truth". It was an authoritative statement made by one of Jesus' closest followers. Additionally, it's not just "The law does no longer apply", it's that we can make mistakes and still be considered perfect by God. Saying "Forget this, so long as I say I'm Christian I can do whatever I want." It defeats the purpose and isn't true to that higher mode of conduct.

Quote:

3) What Paul is giving a list of, in both verses that you cite, are examples of depraved conduct, as he sees it. His point is that when people turn their backs on God, they are prone to act in all kinds of sick ways; his point is not to list things that Christians should mark in their notebooks as being the "newly revised Levitical code". Paul is saying, "You guys used to do all kinds of crazy ****, but now that you have Jesus, you've got your act together." I would say that there is a big difference between lustful, furtive couplings and a committed, healthy relationship. The notion of a committed, healthy homosexual relationship was utterly foreign to early Jews and Christians, as was the notion of abolition [of slavery], racial intermarriage, antiseptics, and all sorts of other things that we take for granted today.
The intended purpose of the passage means little in this instance. Paul cites homosexuality as sin, regardless.

Quote:

4) Jesus never mentions homosexuality in the Gospels, not once. If it was so important that we had to clamp down on it anywhere and everywhere it rears its terrible head, don't you think he would have at least, you know, brought it up? There is on the other hand, a specific condemnation of divorce in the Gospels, spoken by Jesus, and yet I don't hear Focus on the Family saying anything about divorce.
Focus on the Family is not God.
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:

Originally Posted by Richard Lynch (Post 5839211)
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.

I think you're a tad off base here, selective reading always bugged me. We're also instructed to care for all that God has given us. Biblically we are wholly superior to other animals, and as such are to care for them, emphasis on "care".

However, in saying that it's a religious issue I feel you're absolutely correct.

Callandor May 29th, 2010 9:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erik Destler (Post 5839153)
Whoa, whoa, whoa! You totally missed the point of that part of my post XD;
I was referring to how the Bible has been used in the past to justify stuff that is now legal/kosher today

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tinhead Bruce (Post 5839152)
He's proving a point. Women were often looked as lesser beings and not worthy of having an opinion in the Bible, and he's showing the flaws of using biblical references as an argument.

No, of course he isn't. I don't think you're understanding what he meant at all. He's addressing a circular argument, and you cut his quote to make him look like he's the one who is anti gay marriage. As far as I understand, he is, in fact, gay.

Um, yeah. I'm sorry about that. I totaly missed that. I see it now, and sort of agree with you now.

professor plum May 29th, 2010 10:00 AM

Quote:

The intended purpose of the passage means little in this instance. Paul cites homosexuality as sin, regardless.
Read the last three lines again please :)
Quote:

The notion of a committed, healthy homosexual relationship was utterly foreign to early Jews and Christians, as was the notion of abolition [of slavery], racial intermarriage, antiseptics, and all sorts of other things that we take for granted today.
It's just as to what was accustom to the time.
Basically this kind of dates back to Sodom and Gomorrah.
Quote:

4But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
8Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
9And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.
This is basically the surmise of why it's bad and a sin.
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:

Originally Posted by Sample
Literal Translation- . In the New Testament, the two verses 1 Corinthians 6:9 & 1 Timothy 1:10 are often mistranslated as condemning homosexuality in English Bibles (but not in the Roman Latin Vulgate Bible or the 1545 German Bible of Martin Luther). Mistranslation is based on two ancient Greek words "malakoi" & "arsenokoitai" (Greek letters "ARSENOKOITAI " literally, "male-beds"), which was a new word used by Paul (Saul) at the time and not a common term for homo-sexuality. Because Paul was speaking in a religious context, the word "arsenokoitai" has been translated as referring to male-pimps or customers in temple prostitution, a common practice in so-called pagan rituals widespread in Temple Cult worship of the time. [The minor term "malakoi" (used to describe "soft" clothing) is non-sexual and has been translated as "effeminate" (KJV), although others state "weaklings" or "morally weak, lazy" men.]

It's quite interesting, actually ^^
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?
I would think if He did, it would be recorded just seeing as how He is the Son of God, etc.

Quote:

And the Old Testament puts homosexuality on the same level as prostitution.
And on the same level as other menial things such as eating shrimp. See this for more

Richard Lynch May 29th, 2010 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Åzurε (Post 5839228)
EDIT:

I think you're a tad off base here. We're also instructed to care for all that God has given us. Biblically we are wholly superior to other animals, and as such are to care for them, emphasis on "care".

However, in saying that it's a religious issue I feel you're absolutely correct.

That's true, but that was just one example (and the passage I referenced - I think it's Genesis 2:something) has been used in an attempt to justify animal cruelty. It's just one of many, many passages in the Bible that are dangerous to "follow to its logical extreme". As Erik Destler has cited, the Bible also states quite openly that men are superior to women, that slavery is acceptable, and that a man was swallowed by, and lived in the stomach of, a giant fish. I'm just showing why it's not a good idea to list the Bible as an argument against homosexuality in general. :\

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.

professor plum May 29th, 2010 10:05 AM

And, a lot of stuff was mistranslated as well. :)
Read this for more info ^^

FreakyLocz14 May 29th, 2010 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erik Destler (Post 5839046)
I beg to differ. A homosexual couple can have children some how. But, you know, marriage is definitely for children. That's why people who can't bear children and the elderly can't get married. Okay, and? I don't see how this is even relevant to your point. However, before interracial was legalized, most of America was against it. Really? Because if the religious roots were at question, why do we have Divorce [Divorce is frowned upon in the Bible - let's not even tackle the subject of remarriage! That's ~adultery~!]? Why do we have interracial marriage? [Deuteronomy 7:3-4 is an example of the Israelites being commanded to not do so] Why are you, as a woman, even posting here? [Women are often given the shorter end of the stick in the Bible - e.g. Genesis 3:12] In short, your argument is faulty, and relies on circular logic that homosexuality is a choice -> Homosexuality is a sin -> The Bible is Unchanging. Because they're not the same thing. Most states? Hardly.


You're kidding, right?
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.

That's funny because I never once said that homosexuality is a choice or is it a sin in my original post. I never even mention religion save the part where I said "The institution of marriage is deeply rooted in religion." which is true. (I never said specifically Christian religion, just religion in general) but my argument was made from a non-religious point of view.

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.

NikoBelic999 May 29th, 2010 10:20 AM

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.

Richard Lynch May 29th, 2010 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 (Post 5839280)
That's funny because I never once said that homosexuality is a choice or is it a sin in my original post. I never even mention religion save the part where I said "The institution of marriage is deeply rooted in religion." which is true. (I never said specifically Christian religion, just religion in general) but my argument was made from a non-religious point of view.

But what you have to ask yourself is... if religion were out of the question (abolished, or never existing), would this even be a recognized debate? I doubt it.

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.
I think it's partially a civil rights issue. There's a lot more founded in arguing for gay marriage based on civil rights than arguing against gay marriage based on the Bible. I think I understand where you're coming from, though. You're saying that you can not form a foundation for pro-gay marriage based on civil rights, right? Well, perhaps... but where's the idea that you can't base allowing someone to take part in a legal act, which marriage essentially is when boiled down to the bone, (or judging someone in general) based on ancient medieval religious writings? No one seems to bring that argument up. haha

(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)

Bluerang1 May 29th, 2010 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chibi-chan (Post 5839059)
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.

I know right. I was thinking that we finally got rid of this...

Akio123 May 29th, 2010 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PkMnTrainer Yellow (Post 5839083)
I'm afraid it's biologically impossible for two men to have a child. Research the biological definitions of male and female. You'll see what I mean. As for two females. Theoretically, I guess it's possible. But we sure as heck don't have that technology, and I question whether anyone would ever bother creating such technology since normally it's a rare thing to find in species as complex as humans or even most mammals. (It's FAR more common in things like single celled organisms.)

Point being, at this present time no, they cannot "have" a child, period, unless of course you meant to include adoption.

What the person was saying is that a gay couple can adopt like you said at the end. I mean who is to say that a gay couple cannot raise a child as well as a straight couple? Also you are neglecting artificial insemination.

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.

Fox♠ May 29th, 2010 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NikoBelic999 (Post 5839303)
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.

What does opposing the reds have to do with a 2000 year old book written as a moral guideline at the time?

Rich Boy Rob May 29th, 2010 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Åzurε (Post 5839098)

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.

Are you saying that the homosexual penguins in that german zoo have been forced into it by "judgement by peers"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Åzurε (Post 5839098)

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?

Just thought I'd point out that the Church of England isn't the only one that picks and chooses what rules to enforce; The Catholic Church and most others don't enforce the laws stated in Leviticus that none of these may be eaten by any Jew or Christian:

Quote:

Abalone
Alligator
Ape
Bear
Cat
Catfish
Cheetah
Clam
Cockatoo
Crow
Dog
Dolphin
Eel
Elephant
Fox
Gecko
Gibbon
Hedgehog
Horse
Hyena
Iguana
Jaguar
Kangaroo
Koala
Kookaburra
Leopard
Lion
Lobster
Lynx
Magpie
Parrot
Penguin
Prawns
Quokka
Quoll
Rhinoceros
Ratel
Raccoon
Rat
Scallop
Seal
Shark
Squid
Squirrel
Snake
Starfish
Skunk
Tasmanian Devil
Tiger
Turtle
Umbrella bird
Viper
Wallaby
Wolf
Wombat
Worm
X-ray fish
Yapok
Admittedly some of them are hardly common delicacy, but have you ever had pork? Bacon? Ham? Then you are no better than he is, as this is also the area where it forbids the following:
Quote:

incest, bestiality, same-sex relationships among men
Also note "same-sex relationships among men"

Timbjerr May 29th, 2010 12:52 PM

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...

Dawn May 29th, 2010 1:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erik Destler (Post 5839153)
..er...obviously.
That was kinda my point as well. Adoption, or artificial insemination. Or, just natural insemination. I've known of it happening. :)

Artificial insemination doesn't really apply to gay men though. Then I tried to apply that to two woman and .. um.. okay so I have no idea whether that's considered a homosexual couple "having" children since technically the male is not one of the couple.

I... I think I've reached the end of my knowledge on this subject >>; Lol

jon328 May 29th, 2010 1:03 PM

did you post this just to get people mad? you must not have anything better to do than to start arguments.

Akio123 May 29th, 2010 1:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PkMnTrainer Yellow (Post 5839594)
Artificial insemination doesn't really apply to gay men though. Then I tried to apply that to two woman and .. um.. okay so I have no idea whether that's considered a homosexual couple "having" children since technically the male is not one of the couple.

I... I think I've reached the end of my knowledge on this subject >>; Lol

You know what a surrogate mother is? I mean many women get the egg implanted within their bodies for a same-sex couple (male).

Not to mention donations to a sperm bank and other options...

Porygon-Z May 29th, 2010 1:36 PM

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:

Originally Posted by NikoBelic999 (Post 5839303)
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.

You sir clearly have no idea what God is about. God is love.

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?

Gymnotide May 29th, 2010 1:48 PM

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:
  • Marriage is overrated. It is dated and over-ceremonialized. It bears little to no significance. If two people are together and genuinely love each other, choosing to skip marriage has no effect on the relationship, outside relations, and the rest of the world. What does being married get you? Nothing much, except a different last name if you're a female (which still leads to issues regarding gender equality), and reinforcing gender roles. Solution: Leave marriage to the religious folk. They see it as a religious rite of passage and they're damn near fanatical about it (now, I use "they" here in a vernacular sense, in that I refer to a great portion of the religious population; I understand that there are people in the world who aren't this way, but it can't be denied that religious profiling still plays a large role in society). There's no point in getting oneself worked up over such an unnecessarily sensitized topic.
  • Religious homosexuals should reconsider. If your religion doesn't acknowledge you, then maybe you should reconsider. I understand the gravitas of all this "hope" and "glory of God" nonsense, but you can still believe in whatever you want without being institutionalized.
  • "Sacred" is subjective. I could worship trees and say that making paper is a sacrilege to my gods, and therefore have reason to discriminate against any one who uses paper. Of course, in doing so, I become an anathema. The only reason why Christianity / other religions don't experience this is because of how regrettably mainstream it is. Just understand, though, that not everyone completely understands why you worship (mainly because there isn't really a reason, unless you count self-denial).
  • Don't ask, don't tell. Really, what does having two people of the same gender get married do to you in the long run?
  • The "children" argument is moot. Having children is completely unrelated to marriage. Being married doesn't make a person any better a parent, nor does it alter the state of the children in question. Two unmarried people can raise a child just fine if they want to -- in the end, all that matters is the will of the people.
  • Yes, homosexuals can have children. Adoption and surrogate mothers are options. If you argue that the children don't actually belong to them, then what about heterosexuals who follow the same path?

Timbjerr May 29th, 2010 3:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Porygon-Z (Post 5839654)
Wall of text

annoying spaced

like such

What are you looking at? I don't see very much gay bashing going on in this thread. It looks to me like you're the one fishing for flames here. :P

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.

FreakyLocz14 May 29th, 2010 3:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Lynch (Post 5839306)
But what you have to ask yourself is... if religion were out of the question (abolished, or never existing), would this even be a recognized debate? I doubt it.



I think it's partially a civil rights issue. There's a lot more founded in arguing for gay marriage based on civil rights than arguing against gay marriage based on the Bible. I think I understand where you're coming from, though. You're saying that you can not form a foundation for pro-gay marriage based on civil rights, right? Well, perhaps... but where's the idea that you can't base allowing someone to take part in a legal act, which marriage essentially is when boiled down to the bone, (or judging someone in general) based on ancient medieval religious writings? No one seems to bring that argument up. haha

(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)

You can't avoid bringing up religion in a discussion of marriage. Like I said, before, the institution of marriage is deeply rooted in religion. This is a fact that we cannot change unless we find away to go back in time.

Porygon-Z May 29th, 2010 4:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timbjerr (Post 5839790)
What are you looking at? I don't see very much gay bashing going on in this thread. It looks to me like you're the one fishing for flames here. :P

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.

Trust me, a flame fight is the last thing I want. What I would like is to see this thread locked and this discussion to end. But the most valid point I raised you chose to ignore. Why do straight people care about gay marriage?

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.

Esper May 29th, 2010 5:55 PM

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.

Åzurε May 29th, 2010 7:37 PM

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.

lx_theo May 29th, 2010 7:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scarf (Post 5840098)
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.

I can just see the riots if someone tried that. People whine. And they whine a lot. About everything.

Timbjerr May 29th, 2010 8:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Porygon-Z (Post 5839889)
Trust me, a flame fight is the last thing I want. What I would like is to see this thread locked and this discussion to end. But the most valid point I raised you chose to ignore. Why do straight people care about gay marriage?

...

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.

That's the question of the hour I guess. The best shot I can make is that fundamentalists acknowledge that homosexuality is a sin, and are attempting to bar same-sex marriage to save the souls of the gays that could be tempted by Satan into marrying an then committing sodomy. It's a weak explanation at best and highly flawed, but it's the only halfway legitimate argument that side of the debate can offer.

Sorry if I came off as overly irritable in my last post. I do that sometimes. =/

FreakyLocz14 May 29th, 2010 8:22 PM

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.

Silver May 29th, 2010 8:33 PM

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:

Originally Posted by Timbjerr (Post 5839790)
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.

Also just going to point out that this isn't as hard as it used to be. I know personally that my pastor embraces gay couples that wish to get married in our church.

Akio123 May 29th, 2010 9:19 PM

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.

Timbjerr May 29th, 2010 9:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akio123 (Post 5840432)
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?

According to the book of Leviticus (where the fundamentalists pull the justification for their prejudice from), being gay isn't a sin. Engaging in deviant sexual activity is a sin. I just feel the need to clarify that every time I see someone make that misconception.

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:

Originally Posted by Akio123 (Post 5840432)
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."

Like I said earlier in the thread. Fundamentalist Christians are particularly humorous because they put more faith in a book that's been edited 9001 time throughout human history by men that care less about philosophy than maintaining their hold on power than they do in the words of their messiah whom the religion is named after. XD

twocows May 29th, 2010 9:58 PM

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.

Akio123 May 29th, 2010 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timbjerr (Post 5840449)
According to the book of Leviticus (where the fundamentalists pull the justification for their prejudice from), being gay isn't a sin. Engaging in deviant sexual activity is a sin. I just feel the need to clarify that every time I see someone make that misconception.

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



Like I said earlier in the thread. Fundamentalist Christians are particularly humorous because they put more faith in a book that's been edited 9001 time throughout human history by men that care less about philosophy than maintaining their hold on power than they do in the words of their messiah whom the religion is named after. XD

I meant being as an in engaging, I should have been more clear. Also it's just fundamentalists I mean a lot of Christians who don't sure the puritanical beliefs as Fundamentalists believe the same thing. Only it's just not wanting gay marriage instead of outright HATING gays.


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

FreakyLocz14 May 29th, 2010 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silver (Post 5840371)
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.


Also just going to point out that this isn't as hard as it used to be. I know personally that my pastor embraces gay couples that wish to get married in our church.

You cannot discuss marriage without discussing religion. The institution of marriage is deeply rooted in religion (like I've been saying the whole time). We can discuss the legal rights associated with marriage without discussing marriage itself to avoid religion; however, that would mean thAT civil unions or domestic partnerships would suffice in achieving the "equality" goal if it's really all about rights and benefits.

lx_theo May 29th, 2010 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 (Post 5840504)
You cannot discuss marriage without discussing religion. The institution of marriage is deeply rooted in religion (like I've been saying the whole time). We can discuss the legal rights associated with marriage without discussing marriage itself to avoid religion; however, that would mean thAT civil unions or domestic partnerships would suffice in achieving the "equality" goal if it's really all about rights and benefits.

It wouldn't though, because refusing marriage (a legal process, like I've said) based on religious reasons is constitutional. Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships have two problems, they are seen as a different thing than marriage and they don't have the societal prowess marriage does. Benefits aren't the only thing that make marriage what it is. Religion is deeply rooted into it in context of history and tradition, but legally it can't be.

Akio123 May 29th, 2010 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 (Post 5840504)
You cannot discuss marriage without discussing religion. The institution of marriage is deeply rooted in religion (like I've been saying the whole time). We can discuss the legal rights associated with marriage without discussing marriage itself to avoid religion; however, that would mean thAT civil unions or domestic partnerships would suffice in achieving the "equality" goal if it's really all about rights and benefits.

Nobody is denying the fact that marriage is rooted in religion, but refer to my earlier post. I mean like its rooted in religion from old precedents in a really old book that was (mis)translated over 9000 times.

FreakyLocz14 May 29th, 2010 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lx_theo (Post 5840513)
It wouldn't though, because refusing marriage (a legal process, like I've said) based on religious reasons is constitutional. Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships have two problems, they are seen as a different thing than marriage and they don't have the societal prowess marriage does. Benefits aren't the only thing that make marriage what it is. Religion is deeply rooted into it in context of history and tradition, but legally it can't be.

What I said before, you're kind of proving here.
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:

Originally Posted by Akio123 (Post 5840518)
Nobody is denying the fact that marriage is rooted in religion, but refer to my earlier post. I mean like its rooted in religion from old precedents in a really old book that was (mis)translated over 9000 times.

If the book you're talking about is the Christian Bible, you're missing the point. I said marriage is deeply rooted in religion, I never said specifically Christian religion. Believe it or not, other religions have history and traditions on the institution of marriage; not just Christianity. Marriage is rooted in religion itself, not just Christianity. Therefore, your views on Christianity are irrelevant to this discussion.

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.

professor plum May 29th, 2010 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timbjerr (Post 5840449)
According to the book of Leviticus (where the fundamentalists pull the justification for their prejudice from), being gay isn't a sin. Engaging in deviant sexual activity is a sin. I just feel the need to clarify that every time I see someone make that misconception.

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

Lalalala

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aforementioned Website about Mistranslations
Similarly, for Leviticus 18:22, the wording of the original Hebrew is very different from the KJV form:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind:
it is abomination." [Leviticus 18:22, King James Version]
However, the original Hebrew for Leviticus 18:22 reveals a different 3rd meaning:

"We-et-zakar lo' tishkav mishkevey 'ishshah" [Lev 18:22 Hebrew, Latinized]
("And-with a-male NOT lie-down in beds-of a-woman") [Lev 18:22 literal translation]

So, the Hebrew Leviticus 18:22 mentions: someone + a male + a woman; hence, a forbidden 3-way.

Those 2 infamous Leviticus verses actually mention other women or wives, rather than male-male relationships, as is often the misinterpretation & mistranslation.

Leviticus, as mentioned, was mistranslated ):

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

Bluerang1 May 30th, 2010 12:04 AM

So some people want Marriages to be scrap just because homosexuals can't get married. Hypocritical much?

Ho-Oh May 30th, 2010 3:16 AM

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.)

Porygon-Z May 30th, 2010 3:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 (Post 5840652)
but because they want to force acceptance of their lifestyle.

Please clarify what you mean by "lifestyle".

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:

Originally Posted by Timbjerr (Post 5839790)
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.

Are you telling the guy in this story chose to be gay just so he could punish himself? I think not.

So please clarify what you mean by "lifestyle".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timbjerr (Post 5840344)
Sorry if I came off as overly irritable in my last post. I do that sometimes. =/

It's a heated debate so, no hard feelings. :p

Rich Boy Rob May 30th, 2010 4:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forever (Post 5840956)
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.)

This is pretty much my view on the subject. Love should be the only factor in marriage, not sexuality or religion.

FreakyLocz14 May 30th, 2010 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Porygon-Z (Post 5841007)
Please clarify what you mean by "lifestyle".

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:



Are you telling the guy in this story chose to be gay just so he could punish himself? I think not.

So please clarify what you mean by "lifestyle".



It's a heated debate so, no hard feelings. :p

I said "lifestyle" not "lifestyle choice". Please read more carefully.

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.

KejiBebi May 30th, 2010 11:23 AM

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.

Dawg 2005 May 30th, 2010 11:33 AM

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:

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14
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.

Speak for yourself.

Timbjerr May 30th, 2010 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erik Destler (Post 5840661)
Lalalala

Leviticus, as mentioned, was mistranslated ):

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

I didn't say that Leviticus hasn't been mistranslated. In fact, between this thread and its twin religion thread, I try to come off as very cynical about the Bible in general. :P

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. =/

FreakyLocz14 May 30th, 2010 1:07 PM

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.

Sneeze May 30th, 2010 1:56 PM

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?

Porygon-Z May 30th, 2010 3:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 (Post 5841658)
I said "lifestyle" not "lifestyle choice". Please read more carefully.

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.


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.

Benjamin510 May 30th, 2010 3:17 PM

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.

Akio123 May 30th, 2010 4:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 (Post 5840652)

If the book you're talking about is the Christian Bible, you're missing the point. I said marriage is deeply rooted in religion, I never said specifically Christian religion. Believe it or not, other religions have history and traditions on the institution of marriage; not just Christianity. Marriage is rooted in religion itself, not just Christianity. Therefore, your views on Christianity are irrelevant to this discussion.

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.

Alright, then let's look at Paganism, Old Mayan religion, and other religions in which men would engage in intercourse with young servant boys till they were married or chose to be with said servant boys. In which older cultures and religions would allow it.

ALSO, I brought up Christianity for those who use the Christian faith as their argument. Not just for you.

Weatherman, Kiyoshi May 30th, 2010 4:53 PM

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.

Esper May 30th, 2010 6:42 PM

@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.

.Gamer May 30th, 2010 7:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erik Destler (Post 5839046)
Why are you, as a woman, even posting here?

Just posting to say, "Wait, Locz is a girl?"

Also, why is it always religion v. not religion with these kind of threads?

FreakyLocz14 May 30th, 2010 7:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Porygon-Z (Post 5842228)
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.

They don't settle for alternatives to marriages because it's not the legal rights and benefits they want, they want to send a normalcy message abut their homosexual way of life. That's what I was trying to say. Look at these groups who said "Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools" yet a month after the election a county not too far from where I live passed a gay ciricculum for grammar school children over their parent's objections. Homosexuals have a hidden agenda here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scarf (Post 5842649)
@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.

Brown v. Board of Education speaks on racial segregation and segregated schools. Never have I seen seperate schools for homosexual children so that ruling is not being violated. On a more personal note, it's comparisons like these that cause our black brothers and sisters not support the homosexual rights movement. In California, blacks voted 70% to ban same-sex marriage. Alot of them were motivated to do so by constant comparisons to the black civil rights movemnt because such comparisons diminish the importance of that movement.

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.

Richard Lynch May 30th, 2010 7:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 (Post 5842702)
On a more personal note, it's comparisons like these that cause our black brothers and sisters not support the homosexual rights movement. In California, blacks voted 70% to ban same-sex marriage. Alot of them were motivated to do so by constant comparisons to the black civil rights movemnt because such comparisons diminish the importance of that movement.

Wow, that's like... hypocrisy to the 10th degree.

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.

FreakyLocz14 May 30th, 2010 8:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Lynch (Post 5842720)
Wow, that's like... hypocrisy to the 10th degree.

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.

It's not an executable offense to be a homosexual or even a crime at all in the United States. Blacks; however, were property and slaves and had no legal rights. To compare the severity of the alledged discrimination of homosexuals to that blacks suffered is an insult to my fiance and anyother black person living in the US.

Face it, the black vote on Prop 8 was a wake-up call to homosexuals who thought these kind of comaprisons would fly.

Akio123 May 30th, 2010 8:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Lynch (Post 5842720)
Wow, that's like... hypocrisy to the 10th degree.

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.

Yeah but here is the thing.

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.

FreakyLocz14 May 30th, 2010 8:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akio123 (Post 5842785)
Yeah but here is the thing.

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.

you can't compare right to marriage to right to not being treated like a human being.

That's excatly my point.

Akio123 May 30th, 2010 8:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 (Post 5842787)
you can't compare right to marriage to right to not being treated like a human being.

That's excatly my point.

No, but this thread everyone has different points. FreakyLoc, the one thing I agree with you on is that you can't compare marriage and basic human rights.

Esper May 30th, 2010 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 (Post 5842702)
They don't settle for alternatives to marriages because it's not the legal rights and benefits they want, they want to send a normalcy message abut their homosexual way of life. That's what I was trying to say. Look at these groups who said "Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools" yet a month after the election a county not too far from where I live passed a gay ciricculum for grammar school children over their parent's objections. Homosexuals have a hidden agenda here.


Brown v. Board of Education speaks on racial segregation and segregated schools. Never have I seen seperate schools for homosexual children so that ruling is not being violated. On a more personal note, it's comparisons like these that cause our black brothers and sisters not support the homosexual rights movement. In California, blacks voted 70% to ban same-sex marriage. Alot of them were motivated to do so by constant comparisons to the black civil rights movemnt because such comparisons diminish the importance of that movement.

I'm not talking about schools, but the part of Brown v. BoE with the idea of "separate but equal" and how the court found that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. I'm arguing that there's legal precedent, or whatever the term is, against banning same-sex marriage. I know you like to talk in legal terms. I'll add that a ban is also unlawful because it discriminates against someone's sex. If Bob wants to marry John it'll be denied because of John's sex (or Bob's) and only because of that factor. That's sex discrimination.

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.
It would be a good system.

Akio123 May 30th, 2010 10:22 PM

^Civil Unions already exist...you know that right?

Richard Lynch May 30th, 2010 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akio123 (Post 5842785)
Yeah but here is the thing.

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.

Oh, I agree (with all but the last sentence). Relative to the time, the black civil rights movement was more monumental. But my point is, I'm for equality in general. I feel even the most minute shred of inequality is worth fighting for, be it legal or ideological.

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.

Eldrei May 30th, 2010 11:15 PM

My question is: Every time we talk about marriage why does it always result into a religious debate??? Why is everyone a fool?

FreakyLocz14 May 31st, 2010 1:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scarf (Post 5842948)
I'm not talking about schools, but the part of Brown v. BoE with the idea of "separate but equal" and how the court found that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. I'm arguing that there's legal precedent, or whatever the term is, against banning same-sex marriage. I know you like to talk in legal terms. I'll add that a ban is also unlawful because it discriminates against someone's sex. If Bob wants to marry John it'll be denied because of John's sex (or Bob's) and only because of that factor. That's sex discrimination.

It would be a good system.

It is not sex discrimination because John and/or Bob has the right to marry any person of the opposite gender they choose. There is no place on an application for a marriage license that says "You can't appy to marry if you are a man, the woman has to initiate the proceedings" or a space that asks for someone's sexual orientation. He can be as gay as the sky is blue and no one will stop him from marrying the woman of his choice.

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:

Originally Posted by Akio123 (Post 5842951)
^Civil Unions already exist...you know that right?

Not in all sttates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Lynch (Post 5842988)
Oh, I agree (with all but the last sentence). Relative to the time, the black civil rights movement was more monumental. But my point is, I'm for equality in general. I feel even the most minute shred of inequality is worth fighting for, be it legal or ideological.

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.

It's not a matter of degrees, it's a legal concept that the U.S. Supreme Court calls the Fundamental Fairness Doctrine.

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:

Originally Posted by Eldrei (Post 5843000)
My question is: Every time we talk about marriage why does it always result into a religious debate??? Why is everyone a fool?

You can't discuss marriage without discussing religion for the institution of marriage is so deeply rooted in religion.

Weatherman, Kiyoshi May 31st, 2010 4:47 AM

>.>"

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.

Richard Lynch May 31st, 2010 8:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eldrei (Post 5843000)
My question is: Every time we talk about marriage why does it always result into a religious debate??? Why is everyone a fool?

Because without religion, this debate would be moot and not exist. :P

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 (Post 5843217)
It's not a matter of degrees, it's a legal concept that the U.S. Supreme Court calls the Fundamental Fairness Doctrine.

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.

I'll say right now that I've never studied law. Nor do I ever intend to, really... but I think my point is that everything boils down to the inequality idea, and Weatherman summed it up well. You're right in that we have added laws to prevent slavery (although, I don't understand why we would even need a law for that; to me, it's just common sense). But anyway, if we can add and change laws to help protect the equality of someone with a different colored skin, why not someone of a different sexual orientation? I think that's just as much common sense.

Law should be altered to meet the fairness of the individual, not the other way around.

Aureol May 31st, 2010 9:01 AM

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...

Porygon-Z May 31st, 2010 9:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 (Post 5842702)
They don't settle for alternatives to marriages because it's not the legal rights and benefits they want, they want to send a normalcy message abut their homosexual way of life. That's what I was trying to say. Look at these groups who said "Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools" yet a month after the election a county not too far from where I live passed a gay ciricculum for grammar school children over their parent's objections. Homosexuals have a hidden agenda here.
.

Damn it foiled again!!

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.

trebornosliw May 31st, 2010 9:51 AM

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.

FreakyLocz14 May 31st, 2010 9:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Lynch (Post 5843975)
Because without religion, this debate would be moot and not exist. :P



I'll say right now that I've never studied law. Nor do I ever intend to, really... but I think my point is that everything boils down to the inequality idea, and Weatherman summed it up well. You're right in that we have added laws to prevent slavery (although, I don't understand why we would even need a law for that; to me, it's just common sense). But anyway, if we can add and change laws to help protect the equality of someone with a different colored skin, why not someone of a different sexual orientation? I think that's just as much common sense.

Law should be altered to meet the fairness of the individual, not the other way around.

The thing is, the Supreme Court and Congress dn't want to just go creating laws willy-nilly. The Civil War sentiment of states rights is still alive and well in this country believe it or not. Although the 14th Amendment does allow federal law to be applied to the states, the feds have been careful only to apply it when absoluteley neccessary to preserve "fundamental fairness". To just go about applying federal laws to the states left and right defeats the need to have a federal form of government.

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:

Originally Posted by Porygon-Z (Post 5844036)
Damn it foiled again!!

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.

Children that young don't need to be taught such mature topics. Sex is a reality of life as well but the schools wait until an age they think children are old enough before they begin sex education. If we are to teach homosexuality in schools, it shouldn't be taught before children go through sex ed.

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.

trebornosliw May 31st, 2010 10:01 AM

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*

Rich Boy Rob May 31st, 2010 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 (Post 5842780)
It's not an executable offense to be a homosexual or even a crime at all in the United States. Blacks; however, were property and slaves and had no legal rights. To compare the severity of the alledged discrimination of homosexuals to that blacks suffered is an insult to my fiance and anyother black person living in the US.

Ahem. I raise you the laws of sodomy/buggery. You're right, black people were made slaves and had no rights and yes that is terrible. However, just as terrible is the fact that until (relatively) recently if a man (note man) had intercourse with another man or committed buggery with a woman it was punishable by death from it's introduction in 1533 up until 1861. Also gross indecency was punishable by imprisonment from 1885.

Porygon-Z May 31st, 2010 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 (Post 5844139)
Children that young don't need to be taught such mature topics. Sex is a reality of life as well but the schools wait until an age they think children are old enough before they begin sex education. If we are to teach homosexuality in schools, it shouldn't be taught before children go through sex ed.

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.

First off, you never said anything about the age of the children in the first place, so naturally I assumed you meant in sex ed for teenagerss.

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.

FreakyLocz14 May 31st, 2010 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Boy Rob (Post 5844251)
Ahem. I raise you the laws of sodomy/buggery. You're right, black people were made slaves and had no rights and yes that is terrible. However, just as terrible is the fact that until (relatively) recently if a man (note man) had intercourse with another man or committed buggery with a woman it was punishable by death from it's introduction in 1533 up until 1861. Also gross indecency was punishable by imprisonment from 1885.

Those laws are a thing of the past, just like racial discrimination laws are a thing of the past.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Porygon-Z (Post 5844253)
First off, you never said anything about the age of the children in the first place, so naturally I assumed you meant in sex ed for teenagerss.

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.

The automatic assumption that anyone who disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle is a bigot is a logical fallacy. First of all, just because one opposes issues like same-sex marriage does not mean one automatically hates all homosexual people, they just disagree with a matter of policy. The "bigot" card is one homosexual activists play when they have no more logical things to say.

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.

Akio123 May 31st, 2010 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Lynch (Post 5842988)
Oh, I agree (with all but the last sentence). Relative to the time, the black civil rights movement was more monumental. But my point is, I'm for equality in general. I feel even the most minute shred of inequality is worth fighting for, be it legal or ideological.

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.

You decided to bring up Gay Marriage verses people being killed in the streets, blasted with hoses, and being killed for being black. People are killed for being gay, yes it is unequal, but only a select few for being gay as making someone lesser.

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.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 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.