Same-Sex Marriage

[FreakyLocz14]

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.

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]

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

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]

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

 

[Ho-Oh]

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]

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:

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".

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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.

@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]

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.