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)

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.


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.