Gay Marriage

[TheRealFolkBlues]

I always laugh at people's argument for the legalization of gay marriage is separation of church and state. How is a church exercising its property rights a violation of separation of church and state? Wouldn't supporting the government forcing churches to marry a gay couple be a violation of separation of church and state?

People bring up it's discrimination to deny gays marrying. Well, the Bible clearly states that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and woman only and that homosexuality is abomination. The Bible is pretty much the Constitution in all Christian churches and Christians choose to follow their God's laws. Forcing churches to marry gay couples not only angers God (in fellow Christians and my eyes anyway), it's a violation of the freedom of religion.

[Chocomage]

I see your points but I must say one thing, when gay's decide they want to get married who really has the right to stop it? The problem with Free Will is that you have a choice to do whatever you choose to do, and that is also clearly stated in the Bible, therefore if it counts as a sin or not is up to whoever someone believes in, I on the other hand believe that whether a sin or not it is still free will and no one has the right to take someones freedom away. Also on a side note even if it is a sin, Jesus died on the cross to clear every mortal man woman and child of sin, so if it is a sin they ask for forgiveness and are forgiven. I am a follower of the Christian faith and truly feel that Gay marrage is no one elses business except for the people who choose to be involved in such a thing. BTW my policy on gays is Don't get me or my spouse involved and I have no problem with it.

Now with that said when the Goverment gets involved with the church we have a Roman Empire again, so the whole pushing its boundries with property rights is just a defense that warrents the church away from doing something that we have been taught is wrong. Really I believe that the goverment has no place in the church and that the church should have no say in the goverment, with the two seperated we avoid a conflict in which we have a dictatorship who claims to be working in the name of God.

[Henriksson]

Show us some actual proof of God, then we can talk.

[TheRealFolkBlues]

I see your points but I must say one thing, when gay's decide they want to get married who really has the right to stop it?
A church exercising their property and first amendment rights.The problem with Free Will is that you have a choice to do whatever you choose to do, and that is also clearly stated in the Bible, therefore if it counts as a sin or not is up to whoever someone believes in, I on the other hand believe that whether a sin or not it is still free will and no one has the right to take someones freedom away.
Marriage is not a right. Also on a side note even if it is a sin, Jesus died on the cross to clear every mortal man woman and child of sin, so if it is a sin they ask for forgiveness and are forgiven.
Doesn't mean He still hates homosexuality (not the homosexual) and still hates violating the institution.I am a follower of the Christian faith and truly feel that Gay marrage is no one elses business except for the people who choose to be involved in such a thing.
If a church wants to marry a gay couple, that's their choice. Gays, however, should not expect me to accept their way of life though.Show us some actual proof of God, then we can talk.
Irrelevant.

[killshot]

Marriage is more of a legal argeement than a religous institution. Married couples recieve tax benefits. Gay couples are being denied these benefits because of an archaic tradition started by the church. The church is infringing on the right's of gay couples.Marriage is not a right.
But equal treatment for all citizens is. If straight couples are allowed to marry, then the United States government needs to be legally required to allow gays to marry. Otherwise, homosexuals are being denied equal treatment.

[Henriksson]

Irrelevant.
I don't see how. You think you can stop Gay Marriage by saying God exists, even though there is absolutely no evidence for that?

[DarkWarrior]

but I must say one thing, when gay's decide they want to get married who really has the right to stop it?
Says that they aren't the ones who defined marriage in the first place. Whether or not we have free will is irrelevant. People can't get married if they don't meet the requirements.Show us some actual proof of God, then we can talk.
Marriage was a religious institution first. If you don't believe in God, you shouldn't be advocating marriage.I don't see how. You think you can stop Gay Marriage by saying God exists, even though there is absolutely no evidence for that?
There is no evidence to say that He doesn't, either.

Anyways, my stance is that there needs to be some legal recognition of a gay couple, but not quite on the same level as marriage, simply because marriage also extends somewhat to include dependents (children). I also think that those arguing "Separation of Church & State" on the marriage issue should also be advocating the drop of the term "marriage" and find something else to use in its place. Until then, they are being rather hypocritical.But equal treatment for all citizens is. If straight couples are allowed to marry, then the United States government needs to be legally required to allow gays to marry. Otherwise, homosexuals are being denied equal treatment.
It's not an equal relationship, though, in the first place. So why the equal recognition? I'm not denying that they love each other, but half the point of a marriage is to have children. If they can not, at the peak of health, naturally have a child on their own, it's not equal to a marriage where, at the peak of health, the couple can. There needs to be recognition of that fact. It's being denied far too often.
Now with that said when the Goverment gets involved with the church we have a Roman Empire again, so the whole pushing its boundries with property rights is just a defense that warrents the church away from doing something that we have been taught is wrong. Really I believe that the goverment has no place in the church and that the church should have no say in the goverment, with the two seperated we avoid a conflict in which we have a dictatorship who claims to be working in the name of God.
Both are aspects of life that demand allegiance. They're rather intertwined. The question is more along the lines of "How much in each", and "Which comes first"?

[Henriksson]

Marriage was a religious institution first. If you don't believe in God, you shouldn't be advocating marriage.
Industrialization is reserved to the British. They were first, after all.

[Underling]

desu

[DarkWarrior]

Way to completely miss what I said there.

[Underling]

desu

[Henriksson]

You didn't seem to answer my post. Was it too hard to answer?

[darkarcher]

Industrialization is reserved to the British. They were first, after all.
No. Marriage was a social construct for millenia before the first British people.You didn't seem to answer my post. Was it too hard to answer?
Please don't be snide.

[Henriksson]

No. Marriage was a social construct for millenia before the first British people.
Now that's just talking nonsense. I was trying to make a point with that just because someone is first doesn't mean they have the sole right to it. If that was true, why are you still in America? Maybe it should be given back to it's rightful owners.Please don't be snide.
Please don't be snide.

[atemssoulmate]

There is evidence that same sex unions have occurred since the beginning of recorded history in Egypt, China, Greece, Rome and Japan. [11] Famous lovers include the Egyptian couple Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum and the Greek couple Harmodius and Aristogiton. The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period. [12] The rise of Christianity changed attitudes to same-sex unions and led to the persecution of gays. In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared that same-sex marriage to be illegal.[13] In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodoisus and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be burned alive in front of the public. [14]

Status of same-sex unions in Europe.
Same sex marriage bannedMarriage, as defined by the civil law, is currently available to same-sex couples in five countries. The Netherlands was the first country to allow same-sex marriage in 2001. Same-sex marriages are also recognized in Belgium, Spain, Canada and South Africa.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

So, Gay marraige was fine until the Catholic church got it's teeth into it.

[DarkWarrior]

You didn't seem to answer my post. Was it too hard to answer?
Because industrialization is irrelevant to this?err... you said a relationship incapable of bearing children is somehow inferior to one which can, and should therefore not be given the same recognition.
I provided qualifiers there that are actually the basis for my belief. If it can happen in the prime of health, then it should be recognized. Given especially that an infertile couple may not have been infertile at one point. Special cases, etc.So, Gay marraige was fine until the Catholic church got it's teeth into it.
Catholic church wasn't around during Sodom & Gomorrah. Whether or not the cities were burned down is irrelevant. There's negative painting there, and the places & records existed before the Catholic church.

[Underling]

desu

[atemssoulmate]

In Genesis 18, God informs Abraham that he plans to destroy the city of Sodom because of its wickedness. Abraham pleads with God not to destroy Sodom, and God agrees that he would not destroy the city if there were 50 righteous people in it, then 45, then 30, then 20, or even ten righteous people. The Lord's two angels only found one righteous person living in Sodom, Abraham's nephew Lot. Consequently, God destroyed the city.There are two prevailing views of the sin of Sodom in Christian thought. One is that the destruction of Sodom was due to inhospitality, as illustrated by the gifts of God to Abraham for his gracious action, contrasted with consequences of the behavior of the city's inhabitants. First we see hospitality and the way we should act, then inhospitality in that the people of Sodom seek to mistreat the newcomers. The second view is that the cities were destroyed for homosexuality.

Christian scholars and clerics often have good faith disagreements about the meaning of specific texts, with the writings on Sodom and Gomorrah being no different. The latter view, while being the most common in modern times, is actually the least historical. The word, "sodomy" which first appeared in the 17th century KJV was then used simply to mean wickedness. Modern scholars in favor of the "homosexuality" theory point to two major parts of the Bible;

First, they argue that "to know" is a Biblical euphemism for sexual behavior. Thus,

And 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.
—Genesis 19:5

, is interpreted as a militant solicitation for homosexual sex. Second, they argue that homosexuality is the "strange flesh" mentioned in the following passage,

Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
—Jude 1:7

The other view is derived from the classical Jewish perspective[citation needed], already mentioned, and other portions of the Bible. This view sees the sin of Sodom as being about general malice, xenophobia and inhospitality, and that if "to know" is intended to be a euphemism for sex, it is clearly a case of gang rape.

Thus, "going after strange flesh" may refer to sex with strangers, sex outside of wedlock, or possibly something akin to bestiality[2]

Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
—Ezekiel 16:49-50

This idea is paralleled in the Gospels when Jesus compares an inhospitable reception to Sodom:

If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.
—Matthew 10:14-15

No the Catholic church wasn't around then, but they used and abused the story to fit their needs.

[TheRealFolkBlues]

But equal treatment for all citizens is
According to this logic, we have to get rid of affirmative action and all hiring quotas.

Also, ever heard of separation of church and state?Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
Congratulations, you can use something that is complete editable.

[Underling]

desu

[Chocomage]

Well, I would also like to state that whatever is in the Vadican can totally denote all our ways of thinking. Some believe that it is the hidden books of the Bible where Jesus was a teenager, and kid. Others believe that it contains the story of Jesus with a wife. Yet others believe it hides the fact that Homosexuality is accepted in religion, no one knows just an interesting idea for all of you to ponder.

Also on a side note I would like to agree with what TheRealFolksBlues said, even if they do legalize it and all that fun stuff who is to say that people would except it? Most people I know have been raised to believe that a Gay Union is a bad thing, yet if we teach our children that it is okay then we change a generation. This is the key arguement on why Racism is still alive today, people learned to hate from their parents and thus hate that in which they have been taught to hate, while teaching the next generation to hate as well. Some day if they ever do decide to let gays get married then who is to say whether we should pass on the hate or just except that it is there, something we have to deal with day in and day out. For the record I lost a girlfriend who wanted a lesbian partner while still dating me, so this subject had me thinking this over for quite some time. On a final note why is it that society is more willing to except Lesbians then Homosexuals? The answer is simple if you search long enough.

[littlekuribohrulz20]

anyone should have the basic human right to marry someone who they love, even IF they are same-sex.However, since you must get married in a church, the church has the right to not wed people if they choose.The law cannot force churches to wed people if it goes against their religion.

[atemssoulmate]

since you must get married in a church
since when? perhaps in the middle ages, but not now. Lots of people get married in other places, including city hall. I mean, what about Las Vegas?!?!? Sure, they're calöled "chapels", but not much worshipping goes on their.

[agrajagthetesty]

I'm sticking my neck out here, especially as this is my first post in these forums other than my contribution to the introduction thread, but here we go...

Discrimination for religious reasons is still discrimination. Citing the Bible as an excuse to be bigoted is both a stubborn refusal to wake up to the times we live in, and a violation of the "love-thy-neighbour" spirit Christianity supposedly stands for. "Love-all-thy-neighbours-except-the-gay-ones" doesn't have the same ring to it, if you see what I mean. Also, please realise that not everyone is Christian, the USA was not founded on the religion of Christianity, and the Bible does not equal total truth and justice for everyone. People with other religions exist. People with no religion exist. Christianity should not dictate the lives of these people.

In any case, marriage is no longer a religious ceremony. It can have religious overtones, or it can take place in a registry office (which may be just a British thing, so perhaps mentioning them won't help, but moving on). Non-religious couples can and do marry, which pretty much proves that even though marriage began as a religious affair, it isn't any more. It's become simply an official recognition of mutual love and commitment. Wanting the right to that seems fair enough.

[araharu]

I stand wholeheartedly and unabashedly for gay marriage rights. I cite the 14th Amendment to the Constitution as my backing for this: everyone should have the same civil liberties as the last. Also, as the point has been brought up before, marriage is more of a legally binding contract nowadays than a religious ceremony. When (if) one gets married in a church, or by a justice of the peace, or WHATEVER, each person has to sign a contract before walking down the aisle. In a legal sense, they're married before they even get to the priest. If the Catholic Church wants no part of this, then that's fine, that's their right. But as a legal matter, marriage should have the same name, status, and legal benefits for it regardless of sexual orientation.

[Nina]

I don't understand how we can tell people to do something that is none of our business. I wouldn't appreciate some stranger telling me that I can't marry so and so. It's none of anyone's business if a gay couple marry. I heard that there may be some kind of financial strain on taxpayers associated with it or something that I don't quite understand, but in that case why not ban all marriages in general. All technicalities aside, I support gay marriage.

[atemssoulmate]

well, looking at the posts so far, it seems reason is winning over prejudice. Yeah! There's hope yet!

[Nina]

Yeaaah. Who wants to gay marry me? :3

[agrajagthetesty]

I would if I weren't already engaged to two other girls. <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley1.png'>

[Nina]

Then one more wouldn't hurt, right? lulz

[agrajagthetesty]

I guess not, especially seeing as I've bumped into you on a couple of threads now, and we always seem to agree with each other.

[Nina]

Yep. TLM agree-age means serious business. xD

[agrajagthetesty]

Absolutely. That plus gay marriage agree-age equals an engagement, obiously.

[Someguy]

Same sex marriage is not a big deal. If a church wants to get rid of it, they can do so in the confines of their religion. Religions should have no power over ANYTHING, in my opinion, outside of their establishments. If a gay couple can find a church/religion that recognizes them, they should join it and be done with it. And if anyone wants to argue that it's "not in God's will', then too bad! God gave all humanity FREE WILL...and if God is what people say, which is an ALL KNOWING being, he would have seen this coming and annihilated the capability to BE gay in the first place.

[DarkWarrior]

Free will does not mean one should endorse any action. That's bad logic.

[Someguy]

Free will means you have the ability to do whatever you want, within reason. God gave us the capability to be gay, argue with that.

[Feball3001]

Free will means you have the ability to do whatever you want, within reason.
Just because God gave us free will does mean that we should do it and it does not make it right either.

God gave us the capability to be gay, argue with that.

It is possible that it is the devils influence is pointing certain people to being gay. Just because God allows people to be gay does not necessarily mean that it is right.

[agrajagthetesty]

But just because you and some other people take "God's word" to be the only rules worth following, it does not mean that the rest of us have to. The Bible is not the law, and the law is not the Bible. Nor should it be, least of all because the Bible is full of contradictions anyway.

[atemssoulmate]

just look at what happens when you make religious writings the law - Taliban Afghanistan

[agrajagthetesty]

Well, I wasn't going to bring that up, but you said exactly what I was thinking.

[Someguy]

It is possible that it is the devils influence is pointing certain people to being gay. Just because God allows people to be gay does not necessarily mean that it is right.
Right, your going to use the "the devil made them do it" speech. If what your saying is true, then God is not as powerful as people think. Also, if God, as I have ALREADY STATED, was truly as all knowing as people say, He would have annihilated the CAPABILITY to be gay, thus avoiding the whole problem. If Satan is powerful enough to affect that many humans on so grand a scale, AND reprogram how God created humans, then Satan is more powerful than we currently think. Do you seriously believe that something as powerful as a GOD would REALLY care about if a guy slept with another man? Or a woman was with another woman? I don't think something as big and mighty as a GOD would care.
As humans, we are able to commit wrongs and rights as we wish. If we wish to be gay, we can. I myself am not, but I am a supporter of freedom of ALL reasonable beliefs and practices.

[Feball3001]

Right, your going to use the "the devil made them do it" speech. If what your saying is true, then God is not as powerful as people think. Also, if God, as I have ALREADY STATED, was truly as all knowing as people say, He would have annihilated the CAPABILITY to be gay, thus avoiding the whole problem. If Satan is powerful enough to affect that many humans on so grand a scale, AND reprogram how God created humans, then Satan is more powerful than we currently think.
Notthe devil did not make them do it but he puts the temptation there to do wrong, because God gives us a freewill he lets us do wrong weather it is on our own accord or if the devil was the one influening us. Satan is a fallen angel so he is powerful enough to influence and affect so many humans even on a grand scale. Because God gave us a free will he lets us do what we wanted weather it is wrong or write.Do you seriously believe that something as powerful as a GOD would REALLY care about if a guy slept with another man? Or a woman was with another woman? I don't think something as big and mighty as a GOD would care.
Yes I think that God cares about if people do this, we are his creation, his children so he cares about what we do. He would be un uncaring God if he did not care about what his children did.

[Someguy]

I don't think that people get what I'm saying.
If God really is GOD, then he is all knowing, and therefore would have seen this coming and made us incapable of being gay in the first place to avoid the mess, thus foiling Satan altogether and "protecting" us. Argue with THAT!

[TheRealFolkBlues]

Free will. Next.

[Someguy]

So I'm guessing you believe that being gay is a choice?

[TheRealFolkBlues]

possibly

[Someguy]

Ok.
I'm not going to deal with any idiot who thinks being gay is an option/choice, because it's not.
I'm above arguing with anyone on such a low level. And I'm not referring to any specific person, I mean if ANYONE in the conversation believes that, I drop the argument because it's like arguing with a brick wall. I'm done.

Please excuse the insults, if this is flaming, I do not mean for it to be. It is not directed at any person in specific. I had the same problem in Debate club in High school...dealing with a Right-wing Evangelical. It just angers me.

[TheRealFolkBlues]

"I'm not going to deal with any idiot who thinks being gay is an option/choice, because it's not."

Nice "argument".

[agrajagthetesty]

Honestly, why would anyone choose to be gay? They have to deal with ignorance and people trying to strip them of their rights, like you are. If it was a choice, nobody would be gay.

In any case, seeing as all your arguments are based on religion, I return to my previous point. Not everyone takes the Bible as the ultimate truth. If the only reason not to legalise gay marriage is based on the Bible, it certainly should be legalised, as there are millions of people of other faiths around, and prejudice for any reason is unacceptable anyway.

[Someguy]

Thank you, agrajagthetesty!

[agrajagthetesty]

Any time. I don't like to see someone struggling alone. :3

[TheRealFolkBlues]

Honestly, why would anyone choose to be gay?
Because they find it pleasurable. A gay guy would ask, why would any choose to be straight?They have to deal with ignorance and people trying to strip them of their rights, like you are.
Because I personally feel all sexuality is a choice? The ignorant thing to say would be me saying that homosexuals are just out to spread propaganda or that all they want to do is spread disease.people trying to strip them of their rights, like you are.
I'm stripping their rights because I believe the federal government has no right forcing churches to marry a gay couple against their own will? The only thing the federal government can do is recognize it, which is fine because of the 14th amendment, but when they say churches are being "discriminatory" because they're exercising not only their property rights, but their first amendment rights, that's where I draw the line.

[Someguy]

I'm stripping their rights because I believe the federal government has no right forcing churches to marry a gay couple against their own will? The only thing the federal government can do is recognize it, which is fine because of the 14th amendment, but when they say churches are being "discriminatory" because they're exercising not only their property rights, but their first amendment rights, that's where I draw the line.
I shall now quote myself to reply to this.Same sex marriage is not a big deal. If a church wants to get rid of it, they can do so in the confines of their religion. Religions should have no power over ANYTHING, in my opinion, outside of their establishments. If a gay couple can find a church/religion that recognizes them, they should join it and be done with it.

[Chocomage]

That is still one of the biggest Debates going on still, is being gay in your genes, in your head, or a self choice. Throughout history some of the greatest minds have been said to be gay, yet whether it is true or not is up to the eye of the beholder. Michelangelo was gay..... okay what proof? A guy saw him with another guy, you read some poor persons fanfic and took it for truth. I truly believe that the whole being gay thing gets throwing around too much as sort of an insult, a jab to say no this person was not perfect, this society has its flaws, ladidadida..... anyway what I am getting at is unless you are gay, and can sit down an ask yourself why it is you are gay, then I believe that whether it is a choice, or genetic, or in your head as lets say a mental illness even though those are too harsh of words for it, no one will ever be able to tell completely and stay honest. Minds change just as the body does, it gets educated to the point where it can remember and act on certain situations accordingly by reflex, a conditioned response, Therefore if it is mental or genetic we still should viably have the control to change it, whether they want to or not is up to them.

[darkarcher]

Being homosexual is definitely a choice that is based upon what a person thinks will make them happy. To say "I can't help it" is to degrade yourself to the level of a common animal that is completely based on instincts.

I'm not saying a person can't be born with natural tendencies, but to say that you must or cannot be gay due to your birth just doesn't make sense.

[Someguy]

So that means that being straight is also a choice?

[MrsSallyBakura]

I could choose to break up with my boyfriend and date a girl if I wanted to. I don't want to, but I could. So yes, that is a choice on my part.

I think what darkarcher said hit the point best because it doesn't claim that they can't love each other nor does it discriminate, but rather it shows them that there are other options. It's a lot harder for some people than for others to overcome those feelings, but it is possible. Not every choice out there is easy to make.
It probably sounds like those who are against gay marriage are insensitive... but just because someone wants something, it doesn't mean they should automatically get it. :/
God gave us the capability to be gay, argue with that.
You could justify any sin with that logic. God gave us the capability to murder too. Not that being gay is NEARLY as bad as murder, but you see my point.

[Someguy]

I will repeat this one more time, and I want to see what everyone has to say about it.Same sex marriage is not a big deal. If a church wants to get rid of it, they can do so in the confines of their religion. Religions should have no power over ANYTHING, in my opinion, outside of their establishments. If a gay couple can find a church/religion that recognizes them, they should join it and be done with it.
If you think a church should not have to marry a couple, you are correct...they don't. But what about the churches that ARE willing? Are you saying that they should not be able to wed the couple? If a church enables gay marriage within the religion, it should be able to do so.

[Brandi]

Love does not have an on or off switch. =/

EDIT: By the way I just joined today =)

[agrajagthetesty]

I could choose to break up with my boyfriend and date a girl if I wanted to. I don't want to, but I could. So yes, that is a choice on my part.
Yes, of course that's true. You can choose who you go out with. Nobody's denying that. But you can't choose who you're attracted to. Otherwise, why would people fall in love with their best friend's boyfriend, the popular kid that everyone wants, etc? People fall in love with an unattainable person all the time. If we could choose who we're attracted to, that wouldn't happen.It's a lot harder for some people than for others to overcome those feelings, but it is possible.
Tell me one reason that isn't based on religion why someone ought to try to overcome their feelings in the first place. Nobody has acknowledged my point. Not everyone is Christian. Even with Christians, not everyone is against gay marriage. That seems to me to show that homosexuality being a sin is up for debate anyway. Why should people try to fight their feelings if the only reason they've been told to do it is based on a certain interpretation of a book not everyone believes is true?A gay guy would ask, why would any choose to be straight?
Oh, come on. Being straight is FAR more convenient than being gay. You can marry with no fuss, adopt from wherever you want, you don't get told you've sinned just for falling in love, you're accepted by pretty much everyone, and you're in the most common category when it comes to sexuality. Seriously, people. <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley5.png'>

[atemssoulmate]

thanks for answering all this hooey. I can't be bothered, but you're saying exactly what I'm thinking, so thanks for taking the time.

[agrajagthetesty]

Heh, it's no problem really. I always tell myself I won't get drawn into these debates, but I've ended up here anyway, so I might as well do my bit.

Oh, and thanks for friending me! Right back at you. <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley7.png'>

[DarkWarrior]

But just because you and some other people take "God's word" to be the only rules worth following, it does not mean that the rest of us have to. The Bible is not the law, and the law is not the Bible. Nor should it be, least of all because the Bible is full of contradictions anyway.
No, but it is a guideline. And "contradictions"? Explain.Right, your going to use the "the devil made them do it" speech. If what your saying is true, then God is not as powerful as people think. Also, if God, as I have ALREADY STATED, was truly as all knowing as people say, He would have annihilated the CAPABILITY to be gay, thus avoiding the whole problem. If Satan is powerful enough to affect that many humans on so grand a scale, AND reprogram how God created humans, then Satan is more powerful than we currently think. Do you seriously believe that something as powerful as a GOD would REALLY care about if a guy slept with another man? Or a woman was with another woman? I don't think something as big and mighty as a GOD would care.
Except you really don't understand the teaching behind this.
1) The teaching is not that "the devil made them do it". The teaching is temptation by the devil, and then voluntarily acting on it by the person.
2) The teaching is also that God allows these things to happen, and allows us to make these decisions.As humans, we are able to commit wrongs and rights as we wish. If we wish to be gay, we can. I myself am not, but I am a supporter of freedom of ALL reasonable beliefs and practices.
That doesn't mean an action needs public endorsement.Also, if God, as I have ALREADY STATED, was truly as all knowing as people say, He would have annihilated the CAPABILITY to be gay, thus avoiding the whole problem. If Satan is powerful enough to affect that many humans on so grand a scale, AND reprogram how God created humans, then Satan is more powerful than we currently think.
See above.I don't think that people get what I'm saying.
If God really is GOD, then he is all knowing, and therefore would have seen this coming and made us incapable of being gay in the first place to avoid the mess, thus foiling Satan altogether and "protecting" us. Argue with THAT!
Again, the teaching is that we were given this as an option, and that life is a test of our wills & beliefs in order to get to Heaven. The ability is there because it's part of this test. I highly suggest you read up on the subject before you attempt to argue against it. Also, "Argue with THAT!" does not boost your reason any, and only makes you look arrogant.Oh, come on. Being straight is FAR more convenient than being gay. You can marry with no fuss, adopt from wherever you want, you don't get told you've sinned just for falling in love, you're accepted by pretty much everyone, and you're in the most common category when it comes to sexuality. Seriously, people.
You make it out like there isn't any reasoning behind this. Which there is, if you bother to look beyond the religious fanatics.

Sorry for lack of better responses. I've been a bit busy.

And guys, you can all ignore anything TheRealFolkBlues has said, as he was merely here to troll in the first place.

[agrajagthetesty]

No, but it is a guideline.
Of course it is. It's just not one that we all have to follow. Religious people are more than welcome to follow their guidelines, as long as they don't try to force them on everyone else- for example, by making gay marriage illegal. That's what I'm trying to say.And "contradictions"? Explain.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Contradictions.htmYou make it out like there isn't any reasoning behind this. Which there is, if you bother to look beyond the religious fanatics.
Reasoning behind what? If there's something I've missed, please explain.

[DarkWarrior]

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Contradictions.htm
I'd not take things totally out of context and then call them contradictions. Anyone can do anything by doing that.Reasoning behind what? If there's something I've missed, please explain.
The reasoning against gay marriage.as long as they don't try to force them on everyone else- for example, by making gay marriage illegal. That's what I'm trying to say.
Also, it was not legal in the first place, so...


Also, I'm going to make another point, and say that beliefs are the foundation of society. If no one "forced" their beliefs on things, then we'd live in a world where everyone sits and never ever discusses differences and/or opinions on things because they don't want to "force" their ideas on someone else. I dunno, something worth thinking about, I guess.

[agrajagthetesty]

I'd not take things totally out of context and then call them contradictions. Anyone can do anything by doing that.
Feel free to look them up for yourself. The website gives the chapters and verses those quotes were sourced from.The reasoning against gay marriage.
Oh, so you're saying that there are rational reasons to be against gay marriage? Why not explain them to me? I've already asked someone else to do that.Also, it was not legal in the first place, so...
Now here's where things get really tricky. What do you mean by "in the first place"? If atemssoulmate is right and Wikipedia can be trusted, gay marriage was legal right up until the Christian church banned it in the year 342. Also, lots of things weren't legal until relatively recently- take female suffrage, for example. Just because it used to be illegal, are you going to argue that it's wrong?If no one "forced" their beliefs on things, then we'd live in a world where everyone sits and never ever discusses differences and/or opinions on things because they don't want to "force" their ideas on someone else.
Despite the current hysteria concerning political correctness, I still support genuine, open-minded discussion on the grounds that discussion is not the same as forcing your opinions on someone. For example, both of us are debating, defending our views and attempting to provide good solid reasons why we believe what we do. Yet I would not accuse you of trying to force your beliefs on me, and I hope you would say the same about me.

[DarkWarrior]

Feel free to look them up for yourself. The website gives the chapters and verses those quotes were sourced from.
Maybe when I have time. That's a fairly big amount of passages, and I'm currently juggling about 30 things at once, and don't really have the time to check up on it. Since I can't, I really can't definitively say that the person is incorrect, but I do know that it's a horrible way to present oneself, taking things out of context.Oh, so you're saying that there are rational reasons to be against gay marriage? Why not explain them to me? I've already asked someone else to do that.
The thing is, I have. I've explained my viewpoint on Page #1.Now here's where things get really tricky. What do you mean by "in the first place"? If atemssoulmate is right and Wikipedia can be trusted, gay marriage was legal right up until the Christian church banned it in the year 342. Also, lots of things weren't legal until relatively recently- take female suffrage, for example. Just because it used to be illegal, are you going to argue that it's wrong?
Whether or not some cultures supported homosexual unions, clearly a good amount of people thought it was a problem, if it was abolished in 342.Despite the current hysteria concerning political correctness, I still support genuine, open-minded discussion on the grounds that discussion is not the same as forcing your opinions on someone. For example, both of us are debating, defending our views and attempting to provide good solid reasons why we believe what we do. Yet I would not accuse you of trying to force your beliefs on me, and I hope you would say the same about me.
Of course not, I just threw that out there as something to think about.

[agrajagthetesty]

Maybe when I have time. That's a fairly big amount of passages, and I'm currently juggling about 30 things at once, and don't really have the time to check up on it. Since I can't, I really can't definitively say that the person is incorrect.
Genesis 1:31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning- the sixth day.
Genesis 6:7 So the Lord said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, off from the face of the earth- men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air- for I am grieved that I have made them."

I sourced these quotes from my copy of the Bible- the New International Version. Now, obviously God has changed his mind between these two passages. But I thought God was omniscient? In that case, he would have known when he made the earth how the human race would turn out.

This particular debate seems irrelevant to the thread anyway. I only brought it up to further my point that the Bible ought not to be law. Since you seem to agree with me on that point, shall we end this part of the discussion here?I do know that it's a horrible way to present oneself, taking things out of context.
I'm not sure whether the person who made that list was trying to argue a certain point or whether they just wanted to make the list for the sake of it. In any case, you asked to see contradictions, so it seemed the perfect thing to show you. And some of those contradictions seem glaring to me. How much harm can taking something out of context do if the Bible genuinely says in one place that God dwells in temples and in another place that He doesn't? Which it does:

2 Chronicles 7:16 "I have chosen and consecrated this temple so that my Name may be there for ever. My eyes and my heart will always be there."
Acts 7:48 However, the Most High does not live in houses made by men.The thing is, I have. I've explained my viewpoint on Page #1.
I thought that your points concerning children and the religious nature of marriage had already been addressed. If not, I'll answer them again: some men and women, even at the prime of health, can't have children due to an injury or a disease they have since recovered from. Should they not be allowed to marry? And even though marriage began as a religious ceremony, it isn't any more.Whether or not some cultures supported homosexual unions, clearly a good amount of people thought it was a problem, if it was abolished in 342.
Except at that time the Church pretty much did what it liked, and its decisions did not necessarily reflect the views of the people. Even if that particular decision was supported, the public at that time believed a lot of things that we would never consider adopting as law now. I'll repeat myself: until the last hundred years or so, women were not allowed to have any say in government. Lots of people thought that they should not be given that right. Yet people who support that view now are seen as horribly bigoted. Why should denying homosexuals of their rights be treated differently?

[atemssoulmate]

agrajagthetesty, can I worship you?

[agrajagthetesty]

Ahahahah, I'm glad you agree with what I've said. (I'm guessing? <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley7.png'> )

[atemssoulmate]

oh yes. But, (and this is a little "but", unlike my butt which is big), arguing in this fashion with people who rely on the bible as their source of morals never leads anywhere, in my experience. They tend not to see the contradictions, even if they're spelled out for them, since they rely on belief, not facts.

When I worked in central London, I was occasionally "attacked" by bible-thumping Christians. Their fanaticism was a wonder to behold, but there was no real debating with them since, for them, fact didn't really matter when push came to shove. I tried quoting scripture at them, like they were doing to me, but they somehow couldn't hear it. Belief makes wonderful sensory filters.

That said, I find it fascinating to read what DW writes. I never actually encountered a person so totally opposite to myself. You, on the other hand, seem to be my long-lost twin.

[agrajagthetesty]

Yes, deep down I think I already knew that. I've had some experience in debates of this kind before, and although I thought I made some reasonable points, everything I said was completely ignored. But I'm a stubborn person, and I hate to give up, so I'm still striving to make myself heard here.

I'm sorry to hear you encountered people like that. It's quite rare for me to find such strong fanaticism in England, but that might be because I live in Cambridge, which is generally speaking a very intellectual and scientific area.

Expanding your range of experience and talking to people that you wouldn't normally find in your day-to-day life is half the point of the internet. At least, it is for me. When it comes down to it, I simply enjoy debating and sharing opinions with people- whether different from myself or very similar.

[Feball3001]

I enjoy debating with you, I have different points of view to you as you may have already guessed but you have points that are interesting and make a person think. I wish that I was better at putting down on paper (or typing into the computer on this mater) what I was thinking so that I could get my full point across.

[agrajagthetesty]

I'm glad to hear that. I was a bit worried that I would come across as rude. (I think that one of the most important things when discussing sensitive subjects like this is to be reasonable and polite.) And don't worry about your style of debate. So far you've managed to make your opinions clear, and it's something that can only improve with practice.

[Feball3001]

It would not be a very good debate if everything is all one sided that is what makes them interesting when they are not all one sided. And the stuff that I have wrote so far took me a while longer to work then my normal posts. I ended up cutting bits out of them because I could not word them proberly.

[agrajagthetesty]

That's no big deal. It's a good idea to review your posts. I always go through what I've typed a couple of times before I post it, just to check for mistakes and make sure that I've said what I want to in as succinct a way as possible.

[DarkWarrior]

I thought that your points concerning children and the religious nature of marriage had already been addressed. If not, I'll answer them again: some men and women, even at the prime of health, can't have children due to an injury or a disease they have since recovered from. Should they not be allowed to marry? And even though marriage began as a religious ceremony, it isn't any more.
I believe that there is a reason that it takes a man & woman to reproduce, and not two members of the same sex, and I believe that the differences between the parents' genders actually matters in a family. Because of this, I also do not support homosexual adoptions, whereas I do support heterosexual adoptions, something the an infertile couple is still capable of. This again follows my belief that that's half the point of a marriage, and which is why I do not support giving a homosexual couple dependency benefits, but I do support the other benefits of state-defined marriage for them.Except at that time the Church pretty much did what it liked, and its decisions did not necessarily reflect the views of the people. Even if that particular decision was supported, the public at that time believed a lot of things that we would never consider adopting as law now. I'll repeat myself: until the last hundred years or so, women were not allowed to have any say in government. Lots of people thought that they should not be given that right. Yet people who support that view now are seen as horribly bigoted. Why should denying homosexuals of their rights be treated differently?
The thing is, they aren't being treated differently. From my viewpoint, I believe that there should be some recognizing of a homosexual relationship. I just do not believe that it's a marriage in a true sense, because of the reasons previously stated. The difference, I think here, is also something we need to acknowledge. We're comparing individual rights with what is a right (or privilege, depending on your point of view), to couple as a group, and we need to look at the overall point of marriage. If you think that marriage is purely an expression of love, then you'd be right. But I disagree with that, hence my reasoning above.

[agrajagthetesty]

If you think that marriage is purely an expression of love, then you'd be right. But I disagree with that, hence my reasoning above.
And here we have the crux of our disagreement. I think that marriage ought to be about love, pure and simple, meaning that gay or straight, children or not, people should be allowed to marry and call it marriage. I also think that coming up with alternative names for a homosexual partnership is discrimination, no different from segregation.

Here's an interesting example, one that I haven't brought up yet: a fertile couple that simply doesn't want to have children. What, in your view, should be the procedure here?

[DarkWarrior]

Here's an interesting example, one that I haven't brought up yet: a fertile couple that simply doesn't want to have children. What, in your view, should be the procedure here?
Because they can possibly change their minds. You can't grill people over that, honestly. There are going to be exceptions to every rule, but the vast majority of the time, this really isn't the case.And here we have the crux of our disagreement. I think that marriage ought to be about love, pure and simple, meaning that gay or straight, children or not, people should be allowed to marry and call it marriage. I also think that coming up with alternative names for a homosexual partnership is discrimination, no different from segregation.
The thing is, it isn't segregation if you're defining marriage in the same way I'm thinking it is. It's a division based on what exactly the union is. I'm not suggesting that their love for each other is unequal, but the inability to have children does change the status, based on how I'm viewing the definition. Also, please explain the logic, then, of making marriage "all about love", and then extending dependency benefits to anyone who is married.

[atemssoulmate]

It's not an equal relationship, though, in the first place. So why the equal recognition? I'm not denying that they love each other, but half the point of a marriage is to have children. If they can not, at the peak of health, naturally have a child on their own, it's not equal to a marriage where, at the peak of health, the couple can.
So, your definition of marriage is the above. You then try to explain away all the problems with your argument, such as infertile couples, etc. No one's mentioned yet the obvious, ie. that marriage is not actually necessary for procreation.

The fact is that marriage has become, and is now, a legal convention for recognising the seriousness of a relationship between two people which has inheritance, tax, and benefits implications. Various churches and other people are authorised by the state to legalise marriages (that's the form filling bit of the ceremony), and people are married only when the legal forms have been signed, irrespective of what ceremony or lack thereof preceeded it.

Many religions have the concept of marriage and have marriage ceremonies, but none of these rites create a legally-recognised marriage without the legal paper signing bit. So....marriage is a legal event and who should be able to marry is an ethical question. Therefore, is it ethical to forbid certain people to marry based on a particular attribute? I'm reminded of not all that long ago when people with Down's syndrome were forbidden to marry and were also sterilsed so as not to produce offspring they were supposedly incapable of caring for. We changed that. As we, as a species, evolve ethically, we rights the wrongs of our ancestors. Slavery, segregation and women's suffrage spring to mind. I think it's about time we righted this wrong.

BTW, same-sex marriage is legal in several countries and the world hasn't ended as far as I know.

[Someguy]

If a single religion wants to ban gay marriage, let it...IN THE CONFINES OF IT'S ESTABLISHMENT. A church should have no say at all outside of it. Do we all agree here?

[atemssoulmate]

Well, I agree. All churches have the right to decide who they recognise as ministers, how they function as an organisation and who they want to allow to experience their marriage ritual. No probs. As long as it stays within the members of that church. No member of any church has the right to impose his/her beliefs on others.

Therefore, the views of the multitude of Christian churches should have no undue influence on the laws of a country. That also goes for any and all other religions.

So, same-sex marriage should be legal, but each church should be able to decide whether they want to perform their marriage ritual with a same-sex couple. It's just like the ordination of women debate in that respect.

[DarkWarrior]

So, your definition of marriage is the above. You then try to explain away all the problems with your argument, such as infertile couples, etc. No one's mentioned yet the obvious, ie. that marriage is not actually necessary for procreation.
My argument about dependency benefits with marriage pretty much applies to this point.The fact is that marriage has become, and is now, a legal convention for recognising the seriousness of a relationship between two people which has inheritance, tax, and benefits implications. Various churches and other people are authorised by the state to legalise marriages (that's the form filling bit of the ceremony), and people are married only when the legal forms have been signed, irrespective of what ceremony or lack thereof preceeded it.
It hasn't "become" that. It is currently the "politically correct" thing to believe that it is, but that doesn't make it fact.If a single religion wants to ban gay marriage, let it...IN THE CONFINES OF IT'S ESTABLISHMENT. A church should have no say at all outside of it. Do we all agree here?
Uh, question:
Why don't you address my points instead of constantly going on about religious involvement? I've pretty much not included any reasons based on religion in my arguments.Many religions have the concept of marriage and have marriage ceremonies, but none of these rites create a legally-recognised marriage without the legal paper signing bit. So....marriage is a legal event and who should be able to marry is an ethical question. Therefore, is it ethical to forbid certain people to marry based on a particular attribute? I'm reminded of not all that long ago when people with Down's syndrome were forbidden to marry and were also sterilsed so as not to produce offspring they were supposedly incapable of caring for. We changed that. As we, as a species, evolve ethically, we rights the wrongs of our ancestors. Slavery, segregation and women's suffrage spring to mind. I think it's about time we righted this wrong.
Thing is, the point is that whether or not it is what's up for debate here. You are acting under the presumption that it is a wrong, yet not backing your point any, except that you disagree with what churches are saying. Your arguments are solely based on "Church should have no say", but you give no reasons to support your logic. At all. You are doing exactly what you say you dislike about the church: pushing your beliefs on other people. I seriously want to see you argue your point without bringing up any churches, something you haven't done yet. You're spending far too much time tearing down the church, and far too little time defending your standpoint.BTW, same-sex marriage is legal in several countries and the world hasn't ended as far as I know.
Way to blow things totally out of proportion!
No one is arguing about it causing the end of the world, so your point here is void.

[agrajagthetesty]

Also, please explain the logic, then, of making marriage "all about love", and then extending dependency benefits to anyone who is married.
I'll say right here that I know very little about the legal aspect of things, such as benefits, tax etc. All I've concerned myself with is the moral aspect, and in my opinion, coming up with a different set of rules for homosexual couples than the rules for heterosexual couples is segregation. Apparently in your opinion it's not. This comes down to our different views on the purpose of marriage. However, I think that it is fine for homosexual couples to adopt, in which case dependency benefits for these couples would make sense.A church should have no say at all outside of it.
I agree, but I'll go a step further and repeat my original point way back on page 1: religion is no excuse to be bigoted. Treating certain people differently because of their sexuality is prejudice, and I don't think it should be allowed at all. Obviously I don't suggest forcing churches to marry gay couples, because that would be just as bad. It just makes me sad to see prejudice still alive in the world. Also, it really irritates me that certain passages of the Bible are quoted endlessly (like the ones concerning homosexuality) and others are completely ignored (such as not being allowed to eat meat from pigs).

[darkarcher]

such as not being allowed to eat meat from pigs
Just going to point out that laws like that were removed with the justification of Jesus Christ, supposedly. Carry on.

[agrajagthetesty]

Just going to point out that laws like that were removed with the justification of Jesus Christ, supposedly.
...Since when? I never heard about that. So Jesus dying removed half the laws of the Old Testament? <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley5.png'> Which laws exactly?

[darkarcher]

That law was originally purposed both as a health issue and because it was to be symbolic of Israel keeping itself pure from so-called "heathen nations." Under the New Testament, the sacrifice of Jesus extends to all people, thus removing this symbolism and replacing it with the "Great Commission," which orders Christians to share the gospel with all people.

A similar law was that sacrifice was required for salvation. This law was also symbolic because it shows that there is a consequence for our sin that must be paid for, pointing forward in time towards a savior in the form of Jesus. It was not the sacrifice itself that brought salvation, but the repentant attitude of the person sacrificing. That is why in the Bible God accepts sacrifices at some times and not at others: it is based upon the condition of the soul being repentant or not. Once Jesus came, he became the symbolism for this same point, and the sacrificial laws became unnecessary.

[atemssoulmate]

Which laws exactly?
my personal favourite is "Of the creatures that live in water these may be eaten: ... Every creature in the water that has neither fins nor scales is prohibited to you." Lev 11:9-12. That's means we're not supposed to eat crabs, lobsters, oysters, mussels, shrimps, etc. So, if we ignore this, why can't we also ignore the rest of it?It hasn't "become" that. It is currently the "politically correct" thing to believe that it is, but that doesn't make it fact.
Um... you need to check that because that is a fact, not just some PC invention. I worked for a church and helped administer weddings, and the couple wasn't legally married until the little paper was signed. Fact.Why don't you address my points instead of constantly going on about religious involvement? I've pretty much not included any reasons based on religion in my arguments.Thing is, the point is that whether or not it is what's up for debate here. You are acting under the presumption that it is a wrong, yet not backing your point any, except that you disagree with what churches are saying. Your arguments are solely based on "Church should have no say", but you give no reasons to support your logic. At all. You are doing exactly what you say you dislike about the church: pushing your beliefs on other people. I seriously want to see you argue your point without bringing up any churches, something you haven't done yet. You're spending far too much time tearing down the church, and far too little time defending your standpoint.
OK, now I'm confused. So, your argument has NOTHING to do with churches AT ALL. OK....so can you, in a simple sentence, state the reason why you think same-sex marriages should not be legal? Because if it's the procreation argument, it's (a) full of holes, and (b) based on religious beliefs, hence our discussion about churches (which propagate religious beliefs).

[DarkWarrior]

I can't present my opinion, in a single sentence, on this issue, simply because it's a bigger point than that. Not to mention that I've already made my position clear.

My procreation argument is not "full of holes", and is not based on religious beliefs. If you read carefully, while my views often parallel that of the current religious beliefs, that is not wholly the case, nor have I used any religious beliefs in my arguments.Um... you need to check that because that is a fact, not just some PC invention. I worked for a church and helped administer weddings, and the couple wasn't legally married until the little paper was signed. Fact.
Uh, what does that have to do with anything?my personal favourite is "Of the creatures that live in water these may be eaten: ... Every creature in the water that has neither fins nor scales is prohibited to you." Lev 11:9-12. That's means we're not supposed to eat crabs, lobsters, oysters, mussels, shrimps, etc. So, if we ignore this, why can't we also ignore the rest of it?
Old Testament law often is more tied into what the Jewish belief follows, not the Catholic/Christian organizations. The Catholic/Christian groups have a looser set of laws, regarding all that was in the Old Testament. Some is kept, but a lot isn't. Again, you really need to understand these things before you cite them for arguments.

[atemssoulmate]

Old Testament law often is more tied into what the Jewish belief follows, not the Catholic/Christian organizations. The Catholic/Christian groups have a looser set of laws, regarding all that was in the Old Testament. Some is kept, but a lot isn't. Again, you really need to understand these things before you cite them for arguments.
I know that, that's why I find it amusing. It's like the Christian church went shopping at a market...ooooh I have THAT one and THAT one, but THAT one's inconvenient, so I won't take that, or that, or that.....The funniest are the fundamentalist Christians who believe that every single word of the entire bible is law (and have told me exactly that), and then sit down to a nice prawn cocktail starter. That cracks me up. That actually happened to me.

Leaving that aside,I can't present my opinion, in a single sentence, on this issue, simply because it's a bigger point than that. Not to mention that I've already made my position clear.
OK use a couple of sentences, because it seems you have not made your position clear if you think we are bringing up irrelevant issues to counter you argument.

[Namus]

Gay marriage is bad.

[darkarcher]

Namus, that can get you censored from this forum. All points must at least have supporting arguments.

[Exael]

Um... you need to check that because that is a fact, not just some PC invention. I worked for a church and helped administer weddings, and the couple wasn't legally married until the little paper was signed. Fact.

Uh, what does that have to do with anything?
That a church and a priest is essentially unnecessary?

[agrajagthetesty]

This law was also symbolic
As atemssoulmate has already said, it's interesting that some laws and even some biblical legends are taken to be symbolic, while others are taken entirely at face value. It's even more interesting to see that different people interpret the same laws in totally different ways. There are the Christians that are too embarrassed to deny evolution and claim that the story of Adam and Eve was symbolic, and then there are the ones that take it as literal fact. It's amazing to see the lengths that people can go to to protect this book.The funniest are the fundamentalist Christians who believe that every single word of the entire bible is law (and have told me exactly that), and then sit down to a nice prawn cocktail starter.
That would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic.

[DarkWarrior]

OK use a couple of sentences, because it seems you have not made your position clear if you think we are bringing up irrelevant issues to counter you argument.
I have. The thing is, for whatever reason, you're assuming religious points in my arguments, when there really weren't any in the first place.I know that, that's why I find it amusing. It's like the Christian church went shopping at a market...ooooh I have THAT one and THAT one, but THAT one's inconvenient, so I won't take that, or that, or that.....The funniest are the fundamentalist Christians who believe that every single word of the entire bible is law (and have told me exactly that), and then sit down to a nice prawn cocktail starter. That cracks me up. That actually happened to me.
There are going to be people like that, yes. But the New Testament & its events are fundamental to the Catholic faith, when the Old Testament merely presents a loose guideline, and is more symbolic. Different Christian denominations are, of course, going to dispute that, but for what it's worth, this is the case. Also, your point on "convenience" is a little twisted, given that it'd be a lot more convenient for the church to follow popular political tide.

[Underling]

desu

[DarkWarrior]

you're argument that their capability to produce children is the engine behind this inequality is flawed, as it could apply to many heterosexual couples
I've addressed this, actually.you say that, but you're assertion that same-sex partnerships are unequal to traditional ones can only be based on religious beliefs
Not totally. The church is opposed to any recognition, and I'm for recognition without dependency/any other child support benefits.

[atemssoulmate]

Not totally. The church is opposed to any recognition, and I'm for recognition without dependency/any other child support benefits.
OK, but your argument is based on what, exactly?

[Underling]

desu

[atemssoulmate]

thank you thank you thank you thank you

[DarkWarrior]

I don't see how, you described infertility as a "special case", but homosexually could just as easily be referred to the same way... and like i said, it may be possible in the future, what would your stance be then?
I've explained what I think on the infertility issue as well, actually. (http://www.yugiohtheabridgedseries.com/forum/f24/t2952/p3/#p77)and support benefits aren't a fundamental part of marriage, i don't see how "recognition without dependency/any other child support benefits" is any different from full recognition, it's a separate issue...
But that's also what marriage entails. It's part of the same issue simply because the benefits are available.

[Underling]

desu

[inamerica55585]

Frankly, I see no reason that two men can't get married,
but why should people have to express their love in a legal and binding contract?
I mean if two people have genuine love for eachother, than why should you have to prove it by getting married? <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley1.png'>

[agrajagthetesty]

I mean if two people have genuine love for eachother, than why should you have to prove it by getting married?You're possibly the most reasonable person here. Congratulations, sir.

[inamerica55585]

thank you. you know the funny thing about this is that I'm a minor and I frankly don't get the whole marriage thing. the whole thing is just superfluous or much ado about nothing. marriage is just a reiteration of what the two persons in question have already affirmed. I don't really understand the legal standpoint or what benefits you recieve. I just think marriage is overrated. <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley1.png'>

EDIT: something I really wanted to say about post 94. so according to those fundamentalist christians, if you wear a poly-cotton blend, I can stone you to death. if you grow two different grains in one field, I can stone you to death. you say the entire bible is law while eating a cheeseburger. WHAT IS THE OLD TESTIMENT NOT IN THE BIBLE? I'M JEWISH! I KNOW THESE THINGS! I'M A MINOR AND I KNOW THESE THINGS!

[Underling]

desu

[atemssoulmate]

it also has big implications for custody of children, inheritance, etc.

[Henriksson]

Er... you don't have to get married in a church. Maybe in the so-called "churchandstateseparation" (sarcasm) of America it is so, but in actual secular countries in Europe that is not the case. My parents, for example, weren't married in a church.

[lilliejean]

I completely agree with inamerica55585, and several others on this thread.
I heard that new laws are going to be put in place for couples living together (but not married) which are similar to the policies for married couples. Though... it was on seperation settlements so it might not have anything to do with this topic. I don't know if it said anything about custody or inheritence.
I don't know if I want to get married when I'm older... but others do so I'm definitely not against same-sex marriage.

[inamerica55585]

well the thing is are we talking about legal marriage or holy matrimony?
because you don't have to get married in a church, temple, mosque, or wherever the hell your religon practices. you can get married in a courthouse by a justice of the peace. this takes religon pretty much out of the equation.
and that makes things way easier <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley1.png'> .

[GelynnaCaladon]

Separation of church/state was due to England's Catholic church being a part of crowning the next King. Otherwise it really hasn't been properly executed anymore.

I'm find with homosexuals being around me as long as they don't disrespect me. However, I look at animals and wonder why they haven't displayed homosexual tendencies.... Just my thoughts. But to each his own. I've been friends with gay/les, but I'm not sure I could tolerate a wedding. I'm sure they'd understand. I wouldn't force them to my own either :)

[Henriksson]

Separation of church/state was due to England's Catholic church being a part of crowning the next King. Otherwise it really hasn't been properly executed anymore.

There goes "America is the only country in the world" again...

[GelynnaCaladon]

Um, Henriksson, your comment just made no sense to what I was talking about. Try reading the post more thoroughly instead of copying part of a post, adding some randomly ignorant comment under a quote, ok? If I thought America was the only country in the world, I wouldn't have half my friends being English, nor acknowledge that I'm Asian. Apparently you haven't read your history properly.The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state", which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Basically, it means no religion in general can be made the "official" religion, as it was back when Catholicism was the official Religion to crown the King of England. Note that I said England. If you didn't read it the first time in my post, that's your problem of being slightly illiterate. Do realize I'm talking about the time period when Anglican was still fairly new, but still crowned their Kings. The pope would crown the King, symbolizing "god's" divine blessing. They were Anglican, not Christian. Christianity is based of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Only half of the Catholics and Anglicans hold to that, a different sect.

See, if you knew your history, you'd understand the roots of Seperation of Church and State. It's in England, and when the founding fathers of America wrote the Constitution, it was based off their experiences in England. These men were Deists, NOT Christian. They believed in A god, not the God of Christianity.

So, Henriksson, please don't spout off about some country that you have no clue on it's history, culture, and so on. There are stupid people in every country, yes. I'm sure you're doing a great job representing your own right now. My Swedish friends would be appalled by your behavior.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, on to the actual topic.

Marriage for legality reasons are done in the courthouse for the most part. Sure, people get married in a church. Christians do it to symbolize their oaths being taken before God. Regardless, legally you have to sign a Marriage License, or you're not married. In many cultures, marriage is consumated through.. well, you all know that one. In the far, far past, they didn't even have a ceremony to go through. You just claimed that person as your mate. So, in reality, marriage is based on two people binding themselves together.

But the thing is, how many Gay/Les are truly Gay/Les? How many aren't just following some fad, and how many are real? Medically there are people born bi-sexual, and are forced to choose, resulting in a man personality trapped in a woman's body, and vice versa. But how many just reject being Hetero because the opposite sex has shunned them? In the end, I always wonder. I can't say I support a fad. But if someone really is that way, let them do what they want. After all, I'm not the one judging them.

[agrajagthetesty]

I look at animals and wonder why they haven't displayed homosexual tendencies
Actually, they have.But how many just reject being Hetero because the opposite sex has shunned them?
I've been tempted to tell this story for a while but have held back because normally I frown on "personal experience" arguments, but just this once I think I'll go for it all the same. I am female, and heterosexual. I go to an all-girls college, and I would very much like to have some romance in my life. As I like to consider myself open-minded, I often think how much easier it would be for me to find someone if I were a lesbian- I'm surrounded by girls every day, and I understand the female mind much better than the male mind. I would think about getting a girlfriend, if it weren't for the simple fact that I'm not attracted to girls. So I'm just going to carry on waiting, because dating someone you're not attracted to is dishonest. I think my situation is similar enough to what you said to use as an example- I haven't exactly been shunned, but I don't come into contact with the opposite sex. It would be convenient if I could change my sexuality, but that's just not the way it works.

Phew. I hope I managed to get my point across, because that's some personal information right there.

[Heartfout]

DarkWarrior, heres what I have a problem with. What you are basically saying is that homosexuality should be allowed to have marriages (leaaving religon out of this purely), but not be allowed child support benefits.

So, gay male couples who can't have kids outside adobtion won't have child benefit support.
I doubt that will get many complaints.

Lesbian couples, who could feasible have access to IVF (and in fact here in Britain do), and can also adobt kids however is a different story.

And before you start on how Families need to be kept together with roles for both parents, allow to me to tell the tale of my childhood. When I was growing up, in the city of Oxford, my mum was our families breadwinner, while my dad stayed back home and looked after me and myy brother. This resulted in my sterotypes getting twisted from alot of people consider normal by this. I thought it strange that my friend's mothers looked after them. Does this not say that different genders can fill in the other gender's sterotyical role? But even so, it's highly unlikely that a kid won't have role models for either gender somewhere in their lives, unless the family lives in a cave.

So, in other words, gay couples shouldn't have child benefit, unless they adobt (in which case a different benefit should come into play) or a lesbian couple apply for IVF or other forms of artifical fertilisation (where legal), in which case they should be able to get benefit. Clear?

[littlekuribohrulz20]

Gay marriage is bad.
mabye you say so.But please tell me what's wrong with it? that's right nothing.The only reason you might think it's bad is because most people have a male/female marriage.Or mabye because the bible says so.But think before you say something so bold and stupid. this world's view on people is just....wrong. But I'll save that for a "sterotype" thread.

[agrajagthetesty]

this world's view on people is just....wrong. But I'll save that for a "sterotype" thread.
OH THE IRONY.

Anyway, LKR, it might be an idea for you to back up your argumetns with some form of evidence or logic. Just saying.

[Amber]

Frankly, I see no reason that two men can't get married,
but why should people have to express their love in a legal and binding contract?
I mean if two people have genuine love for eachother, than why should you have to prove it by getting married?
I agree. I think our society has planned out our typical lives for us -- you're born, you start school, graduate, go to college/university/etc., get a job, find your "soul mate", get married, have kids, and so on. I believe a lot of people think that getting married is the only way to show the world how much you love your partner, when it really isn't.

However, if people do want to get married (gay or not), it should be legal. The church should choose whether or not they wish to marry the couple because I do think it is unfair if they are forced to do something against their beliefs. You would not want someone to force you to do something you believed is immoral, so why should the church be made to?I look at animals and wonder why they haven't displayed homosexual tendencies
[link="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html"] I think National Geographic is a pretty reliable source, but take from it what you will.

And as for the whole "being gay is a choice" thing, I have always thought this belief to be a bit bizzare. As someone else previously said, why would someone want to go through all of the discrimination that gay people put up with? I think being gay is a chemistry thing that you can't change -- the same kind of chemistry that controls what things you are attracted to. Some people like people with brown hair, others like people with blonde hair. Some people like the same sex. This theory has never been proven, to my knowledge, it is simply my opinion.

[Mullon]

This thread is creeping me out.

[Amaryllon]

First of all: I just registered here for this thread.
Next: I'm gay.
And now, for all of you who think being gay is a matter of choice: For the last time, IT'S NOT !!!
I certainly didn't choose to be gay, but I am.
I definitly don't care whether churches want to marry homosexual couples or not, because for me it's not neccessary, BUT I do care about my rights! And aslong as homosexual marriage is not allowed homosexuals do not have the same rights as other people.
So regardless of what you believe, I hope you will all agree, that all people must have the same rights.
And also regardless of what you believe, you will notice that that's not the case as long as homosexual marriage is not allowed.

Any more questions?

[DarkWarrior]

DarkWarrior, heres what I have a problem with. What you are basically saying is that homosexuality should be allowed to have marriages (leaaving religon out of this purely), but not be allowed child support benefits.
Exactly.So, gay male couples who can't have kids outside adobtion won't have child benefit support.
I doubt that will get many complaints.
Actually, it would.Lesbian couples, who could feasible have access to IVF (and in fact here in Britain do), and can also adobt kids however is a different story.
Just because they have access doesn't mean they should use the access. I'm not a big fan of IVF myself in the first place anyways.And before you start on how Families need to be kept together with roles for both parents, allow to me to tell the tale of my childhood. When I was growing up, in the city of Oxford, my mum was our families breadwinner, while my dad stayed back home and looked after me and myy brother. This resulted in my sterotypes getting twisted from alot of people consider normal by this. I thought it strange that my friend's mothers looked after them. Does this not say that different genders can fill in the other gender's sterotyical role? But even so, it's highly unlikely that a kid won't have role models for either gender somewhere in their lives, unless the family lives in a cave.
Saying that a child needs a mother and father is not stereotypical. I agree that there are a lot of circumstances that people are forced to live with. But if people don't set standards for society, society is doomed to fail. In an everything-goes world, people find misery. I cite the whole damned country for this. The people are leaning towards the liberal end of everything, and everyone's miserable. No structure at all. Also, in your instance, you're just citing what they did, but not the true roles they played in your life.So, in other words, gay couples shouldn't have child benefit, unless they adobt (in which case a different benefit should come into play) or a lesbian couple apply for IVF or other forms of artifical fertilisation (where legal), in which case they should be able to get benefit. Clear?
No, not "clear", and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't talk down to me like that. I disagree totally with homosexual adoption and IVF and the like. Subsequently, I do not believe the child-support benefits should be there.However, if people do want to get married (gay or not), it should be legal. The church should choose whether or not they wish to marry the couple because I do think it is unfair if they are forced to do something against their beliefs. You would not want someone to force you to do something you believed is immoral, so why should the church be made to?
Well, first and foremost, I am getting a bit weary of this "Oh, you shouldn't go by anything based on what the church says." If people find that their moral & political decisions line up with that, then they should be making their decisions that way, not based on what makes another group happy.
That being said, society needs to set limits and standards. Without those, there is no society, only something resembling anarchy.And now, for all of you who think being gay is a matter of choice: For the last time, IT'S NOT !!!
Whether or not it is or isn't, it doesn't really play a role in this issue.I definitly don't care whether churches want to marry homosexual couples or not, because for me it's not neccessary, BUT I do care about my rights! And aslong as homosexual marriage is not allowed homosexuals do not have the same rights as other people.
Last I checked, state-defined marriage wasn't a right, but a benefit. Don't confuse the two.
And like I said, there is a distinct difference between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple, and I've made my reasoning based on that distinction. Look back and read up a bit on that.So regardless of what you believe, I hope you will all agree, that all people must have the same rights.
And also regardless of what you believe, you will notice that that's not the case as long as homosexual marriage is not allowed.
Again, state-defined marriage is a benefit for couples, not a right. And I'm having a bit of a problem understanding that second sentence.Any more questions?
Why do you insist on same-level benefits on two different relationships? You can not deny, no matter how much you dislike it, that there is a fundamental difference between homosexual relationships, and heterosexual relationships, and that being the ability to naturally have children. The difference is there, and why do you insist on same-level treatment of that? I've said that the benefits of the couple should be there, without the child-support benefits due to that difference. Why do they need to be there?

Also, if marriage is a declaration of love, then why are there child-support benefits within it? If that's all marriage were, a declaration of love, the support benefits would not be there in the first place. But they're there, and this leaves a big, gaping hole in the theory of "Marriage is all about love".

And, why should society suddenly change because it would please a smaller group? Marriage has been around for quite some time, and now, all of a sudden, a group has decided it wants to change that, regardless of what that means overall. Again, without limits, there is no society. So where and when is the line drawn? It needs to be somewhere, and regardless of where, some people aren't going to like it.

[Amber]

Well, first and foremost, I am getting a bit weary of this "Oh, you shouldn't go by anything based on what the church says." If people find that their moral & political decisions line up with that, then they should be making their decisions that way, not based on what makes another group happy.
That being said, society needs to set limits and standards. Without those, there is no society, only something resembling anarchy.
I said nothing about that. I said that the church should not be forced to marry gays, seeing as they believe it is immoral. I believe gay marriage should be legal, but let the church decide whether or not they wish to marry gay couples.

Society as a whole is changing. Canada and the US are countries with many different people. Now, I will bring up the point that the church should not play a part in our government. It's unfair that the government in the US is Christian. There are so many different people from various societies that it is cruel that the government would make a certain group of people feel like they are lesser because of some Christian beliefs. Just because Christianity would not set all of the morals for the country (that a lot of people don't follow anymore) does not mean there would not be limits.

[Amaryllon]

And I'm having a bit of a problem understanding that second sentence.
Is it the meaning or the language? (My english is not so good... so sorry if it was the language...)Why do you insist on same-level benefits on two different relationships?
To say it in rather extrem words: It's just a few steps from "It's just not the same.." to "It's much less... They shouldn't have rights anyway..."
Ok, that was very extrem, but I hope it makes my point clear.
And I still don't understand what you, DW, have against a homosexual couple adopting children... There are surprisingly many families like that, living happily together! (Well at least in germany there are, I don't know about the USA.)
If you succed in convincing me without saying things like "It's just not natural.." then I'll be happy and stop posting in this thread!^^

[DarkWarrior]

I said nothing about that. I said that the church should not be forced to marry gays, seeing as they believe it is immoral. I believe gay marriage should be legal, but let the church decide whether or not they wish to marry gay couples.
But why should it be legal? Again, you're ignoring the reasoning, just saying it should be.Society as a whole is changing. Canada and the US are countries with many different people.
This isn't just mere change, this is a rather sudden twist in what's been the standard since the founding of the country. It's radical, and, even if it were right, it's just a ridiculously sudden move.Now, I will bring up the point that the church should not play a part in our government. It's unfair that the government in the US is Christian. There are so many different people from various societies that it is cruel that the government would make a certain group of people feel like they are lesser because of some Christian beliefs. Just because Christianity would not set all of the morals for the country (that a lot of people don't follow anymore) does not mean there would not be limits.
Then who should run it? The atheists? Hardly, they're already pushing their "Remove God from every public form of ANYTHING!" agenda. There needs to be more acceptance of the other religious beliefs, not a deterrent of all of them. Also, if it's a Christian majority in this country, then, uh, why force a non-Christian government? For the few to get what they want? You're not looking at the bigger picture here.
Is it the meaning or the language? (My english is not so good... so sorry if it was the language...)
The whole sentence, it was worded in a way that made it incomprehensible.And also regardless of what you believe, you will notice that that's not the case as long as homosexual marriage is not allowed.
What's the case? And what about homosexual marriage not being allowed? What do these relate to?
And I still don't understand what you, DW, have against a homosexual couple adopting children... There are surprisingly many families like that, living happily together! (Well at least in germany there are, I don't know about the USA.)
If you succed in convincing me without saying things like "It's just not natural.." then I'll be happy and stop posting in this thread!^^
Because I've found The arguments against it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Marriage#Social_arguments) to be better and more well-grounded than the "It's all about love and everything goes" logic.

[Someguy]

Sorry if this is in a small way off topic, but.........There needs to be more acceptance of the other religious beliefs, not a deterrent of all of them.
So what minor/frowned upon religions/beliefs that accept gay marriage, such as Satanism or Nihilism? Should they also be accepted DW?

[Amaryllon]

Sorry DW, I've read everything what you have written so far and I don't see ANY logic argument against homosexual marriage...
Yes you're right, marriage is not "all about love". That's the past. Today, it's indeed a construct of benefits that helps families. But that's no argument against homosexual marriage, since a homosexual couple can adopt children and (since you gave us that link) even use today's technological advances to get biological related children!
So there is even no argument against homosexual marriage because of reproductional reasons.
There is in fact no difference between "normal" and homosexual marriage.
Oh and before I forget it, against the adopting of children by homosexual couples:I believe that the differences between the parents' genders actually matters in a family
It matters not. Just search the Internet.

So your main points from post #7 are disproven. They CAN have children AND children adopted by them develope just as normal as others.
So much to DW, who is almost the only one who is arguing against homosexual marriage logically. (More or less... ...Sorry, I couldn't hold it back ^^)

Any other arguing against it is either religiously founded or just the fact that some people are afraid of things that are "different".
If you said something that disproves that I must have missed it, because I don't see anything...

[inamerica55585]

are you saying homosexuals are second class citizens? by saying that, you have effectively called most of the catholic faith racist. or maybe not. but I don't care, since I'm jewish. speaking of jews, reform judiasm has nothing against gay marriage and would marry a gay couple without complaint. so would several other faiths. gay people are certainly no different than heterosexuals, and not enough people realize that most gay people are discreet about their homosexuality and it barely influences their personality if at all. not all gays are flamboyant about it. and that's all I have to say about that.

[RedRook]

Gay people are simply better than normal people. I mean who started saying straights could marry? Thats blatantly wrong and an affront to marriage as a whole. There is nothing good about two straight people marrying, all it does it cause misery and dysfunctional children.

Now when you think about this statement which part of it makes it false? The part that straight people are worse than gay people or is it thew idea that someone in the world believes that? I for one just tend to believe that people are inherently scared of things they don't understand and if a guy sticking it to another guy scares you, that just means you should stop thinking about it or get over it. Seriously, like if two women decide they want to be together by legality standards (which mind you can be done outside of a Christian church and in all reality has just as much to do with the Christian Church as genocide does, I.E. sure they do it a lot but they're not the only ones who do, or matter) it really makes a difference on the world around them or effects others in any way. Same with Gay Adoption. So what? if two people are willing to take care of a kid then they have the right to as long as they don't hurt the kid. I've seen almost every friend I have raised by straight parents and they turned out generally abused, neglected and mentally scarred, so claiming that two gay people will mess up a kid holds very little, petty and selfish merit. If that kid grows up to be Gay, guess what? Makes no difference to anyone. Theres almost 7 billion people in the world, 9 or 10 Homosexuals don't make the world any worse than the seething cesspool of pus it already is. As a matter of fact it can only make it better because then you have at least 9 or 10 people in the world who will eventually realize their own insecurities instead of a world full of people who hide behind their wall of massed idiocies to eventually vomit forth great pukes of acid to make up for their own insecurities and selfishness.

Have a fun day.

[DarkWarrior]

Sorry DW, I've read everything what you have written so far and I don't see ANY logic argument against homosexual marriage...
Yes you're right, marriage is not "all about love". That's the past. Today, it's indeed a construct of benefits that helps families. But that's no argument against homosexual marriage, since a homosexual couple can adopt children and (since you gave us that link) even use today's technological advances to get biological related children!
A technology that I feel should not be used. Just because people can do something doesn't mean they should or that it should be publicly endorsed.
Also, if you were right, and marriage is currently about love, then there would be no child support benefits.

See, there's something you fail to understand here. I don't care how many artificial means the two people can use to have children. They're artificial, and should not be used. Period. So regardless of what they can do, I believe that they shouldn't be doing it. Again, I have no problem with them getting legal recognition. It just should not have the child support benefits that traditional marriage has.It matters not. Just search the Internet.
The same internet that has places that states that it does matter.So your main points from post #7 are disproven. They CAN have children AND children adopted by them develope just as normal as others.
Explain how a gay couple can have children without any third party. I also disagree with homosexual adoption, so, as far as I'm concerned, point #7 stands.

[RedRook]

<i>Post censored by DarkWarrior.</i>

[DarkWarrior]

It appears as if you can't present a point in anything but the wrong way. Act mature. Idiotic sarcasm will get you nowhere. Have a point to make? Make it without using the terrible method you used.

[Amber]

But why should it be legal? Again, you're ignoring the reasoning, just saying it should be.
You didn't ask for my reasoning. But if you want it, I believe it should be legal because I don't think the church should be involved with the government. The government should not control what goes on in the bedroom.This isn't just mere change, this is a rather sudden twist in what's been the standard since the founding of the country. It's radical, and, even if it were right, it's just a ridiculously sudden move.
It doesn't affect anyone but gays. If you don't like gay marriage, ignore it. Don't marry a gay or go to their weddings. Canada made this change and we're doing just fine.Then who should run it? The atheists? Hardly, they're already pushing their "Remove God from every public form of ANYTHING!" agenda. There needs to be more acceptance of the other religious beliefs, not a deterrent of all of them. Also, if it's a Christian majority in this country, then, uh, why force a non-Christian government? For the few to get what they want? You're not looking at the bigger picture here.
Religious beliefs should not run the country at all -- that includes the atheists. I agree that religious beliefs need to be more respected, but that's something that society needs to work on.
There are not just a "few" non-Christians in America. The bigger picture is that the non-Christian population is growing and it will continue to grow, so therefore the government needs to change.

[Amaryllon]

/quote of myself/ Sorry DW, I've read everything what you have written so far and I don't see ANY logic argument against homosexual marriage...
Yes you're right, marriage is not "all about love". That's the past. Today, it's indeed a construct of benefits that helps families. But that's no argument against homosexual marriage, since a homosexual couple can adopt children and (since you gave us that link) even use today's technological advances to get biological related children! quote of myself
[...]
Also, if you were right, and marriage is currently about love, then there would be no child support benefits.
I guess I missunderstood you, but I said that love is NOT about love but to support families and that's why there are child support benefits!I don't care how many artificial means the two people can use to have children. They're artificial, and should not be used.
...And WHY do you think they shouldn't use it? Let me guess... it's because of your religious beliefs! XD No, really, why shouldn't they use it?The same internet that has places that states that it does matter.
You are very difficult, you know? Let's say it like this:
As I said before many homosexual couples have children and these children have developed perfectly well so far.
There boys and girls, 3-year-olds, 16-year-olds, almost anything...
Well this doesn't prove or disprove anything, BUT according to this it's much more likely that children develope in such a "special" families just as they would do in any other family. So PLEASE don't be so (excuse me) naive and stick to your "They shouldn't raise children"-attitude.Explain how a gay couple can have children without any third party.
That's really no argument... There are many heterosexual couples who can't have children without a third party.
And even if there weren't it would still be no argument, since it doesn't mean that they couldn't raise children.
EDIT: It appears I can't quote in a quote...

[DarkWarrior]

You didn't ask for my reasoning. But if you want it, I believe it should be legal because I don't think the church should be involved with the government. The government should not control what goes on in the bedroom.
Uh, how does not making the relationship a marriage control what goes on in the bedroom?
Also, as I said before, if people feel that their political viewpoints line up with what the church teaches, you can't tell them not to. That's the same "opression" that people claim the church is doing.It doesn't affect anyone but gays. If you don't like gay marriage, ignore it. Don't marry a gay or go to their weddings. Canada made this change and we're doing just fine.
The problem doesn't go away if you "just ignore it". I believe that the negative impact on society will make itself present, not immediately, but in the long run.Religious beliefs should not run the country at all -- that includes the atheists. I agree that religious beliefs need to be more respected, but that's something that society needs to work on.
I'm interested in hearing more on how this might be accomplished. Please, elaborate for me.
There are not just a "few" non-Christians in America. The bigger picture is that the non-Christian population is growing and it will continue to grow, so therefore the government needs to change.
The government needs to change when society is ready to change it. Forcing it to change in the current manner isn't a wise idea. Government changes need to be gradual, not sudden....And WHY do you think they shouldn't use it? Let me guess... it's because of your religious beliefs! XD No, really, why shouldn't they use it?
Because of the reasons I stated many previous times in this topic.You are very difficult, you know? Let's say it like this:
As I said before many homosexual couples have children and these children have developed perfectly well so far.
There boys and girls, 3-year-olds, 16-year-olds, almost anything...
Well this doesn't prove or disprove anything, BUT according to this it's much more likely that children develope in such a "special" families just as they would do in any other family. So PLEASE don't be so (excuse me) naive and stick to your "They shouldn't raise children"-attitude.
I wouldn't be so quick to judge based on the current situation. This will change things drastically over time. Not just now.That's really no argument... There are many heterosexual couples who can't have children without a third party.
And even if there weren't it would still be no argument, since it doesn't mean that they couldn't raise children.
EDIT: It appears I can't quote in a quote...
I've actually addressed this too.

[Amber]

Uh, how does not making the relationship a marriage control what goes on in the bedroom?
Also, as I said before, if people feel that their political viewpoints line up with what the church teaches, you can't tell them not to. That's the same "opression" that people claim the church is doing.
I'm done stating my opinion over and over. So I really have no more to say on this.The problem doesn't go away if you "just ignore it". I believe that the negative impact on society will make itself present, not immediately, but in the long run.
I'm saying if you don't like gay marriage, ignore it. It does not affect you. It is not a negative thing for two gay people to be joined together -- they aren't going to set some example for our whole society to turn into "sinners". People need to be more open-minded to alternative lifestyles.I'm interested in hearing more on how this might be accomplished. Please, elaborate for me.
Who said I have a solution? There are still lots of prejudice people, and they need to learn how to be more tolerant of other beliefs/races/etc. Society has changed some (Black people are no longers enslaved, "witches" are not being burned at the stake, etc.) but we still have a long way to go.The government needs to change when society is ready to change it. Forcing it to change in the current manner isn't a wise idea. Government changes need to be gradual, not sudden.
Obviously going totally liberal all at once is going to upset [some] people. But, I will still use the example of how Canada legalised gay marriage and we are fine. Of course some people don't like it, but we haven't turned into savages because we have no "boundaries" or "morals".

[DarkWarrior]

I'm saying if you don't like gay marriage, ignore it. It does not affect you. It is not a negative thing for two gay people to be joined together -- they aren't going to set some example for our whole society to turn into "sinners". People need to be more open-minded to alternative lifestyles.
Open minded != willing to accept and embrace it. I'm not going to ignore what I see as a problem, because, as I said, ignoring the problem doesn't stop the problem.Who said I have a solution? There are still lots of prejudice people, and they need to learn how to be more tolerant of other beliefs/races/etc. Society has changed some (Black people are no longers enslaved, "witches" are not being burned at the stake, etc.) but we still have a long way to go.
You suggested that society has to be more tolerant to different religious and cultural heritages, all of them. I want to know exactly how this would work, out of sheer curiosity.Obviously going totally liberal all at once is going to upset [some] people. But, I will still use the example of how Canada legalised gay marriage and we are fine. Of course some people don't like it, but we haven't turned into savages because we have no "boundaries" or "morals".
I never said that we'd be savages. But I expect society to evolve in a way that will eventually be less than what it could be. It's way too early to start using other countries "success" of gay marriage.

[Amaryllon]

I wouldn't be so quick to judge based on the current situation. This will change things drastically over time. Not just now.
Could you enlighten me what could ever change drastically? I mean, do you honestly believe that anyone who has been raised by homosexuals turns out to be homosexual himself?
Being homosexual is neither a matter of choice nor a matter of education. There are many factors that may influence whether a person is homosexual or not. Some of them are some genes which are making it more likely. (Scientists are not quite sure which genes but they are quite sure that there are some.)
Another may be the surrounding in which a child grows up. (Scientists are not quite sure in this point, but surprisingly (for you that is) according to researches done so far it's often not a homosexual surrounding that makes homosexuality more likely but a surrounding where the own gender is very dominant.)
As you can see I often write things like "Scientists are not quite sure" so you could say my argumentation may not be well-founded BUT you can still see that anyone who thinks that homosexuals only raise more homosexuals is just narrowminded and naive. Sorry to say it like that, but that's it...
And I REALLY hope that you are not one of these fools (again, sorry..) but according to what you've written so far one could think that you may be one of them, but as I said, I really hope you're not..

I'm not going to post in this thread again because I think this topic is too much for me..

My last words: I hope anyone who thinks homosexual marriage should not be allowed will come to his/her senses.

[DarkWarrior]

You apparently don't pay attention to much that I say, else that would not be the conclusion you'd have drawn.My last words: I hope anyone who thinks homosexual marriage should not be allowed will come to his/her senses.
That is sheer arrogance, and will not win anyone over to your cause at all.

[ArtificialRobot]

1) A moderator with strong feelings on a certain topic should not be allowed to moderate content in a thread on that topic. It just plain looks bad for the forum as a whole. Especially when it alienates a significant portion of the forum's population.

2) Every person is a person. That is to say, we are all the same, and should be treated as such.

3) I think it's hilarious when religious people have to fall back on the ideas of evolution to say that homosexuality is unnatural.

3a) If homosexuality were wrong, evolution would have weeded it out a long, long, long, long time ago.

4) Don't want to give homosexuals (et al) equal rights? Then take them away from everyone.

5) If you are anti-gay I seriously recommend swallowing your pride and befriending someone who is gay. They aren't as scary or sinful as you think.

6) Who else will adopt all of the kids the unwed single mothers put up for adoption? I mean, we have to make up for the fact that we demonize birth control, tell people condoms give them AIDS, destroy a woman's right to choose, and improperly subscribe abstinence to innately curious creatures (who would make better choices in their lives if only they were privileged enough to be properly educated)?

6a) And for IVF, I mean, since we can't use them for stem cells they might as well go somewhere.

7) To those opposed to gay-marriage - if they make it legal, are you suddenly going to go run off and marry someone of the same sex? Probably not, unless you were gay to begin with. It's a little thing called none of your business.

8) I'd like to see an argument against gay marriage that has nothing to do with religion. In fact, I challenge someone to seriously present such an argument, and to make it compelling. It would stand to say that if one really cared as much as they said they cared about the topic, then they would take up the challenge.

9) Atheists are concerned with many issues, not just taking religion out of the affairs of a secular public (a/k/a - maintaining the true definition of secular). I personally prefer the term secular humanist. Don't make the mistake of assuming they want to take religion away just because they have to repair the massive amounts of damage that religion has done to our world as a whole.

10) Remember that part about people being equal? If opposed to gay marriage, try to explain how homosexuals are a different species. That might be the only way to convince anyone of the argument. Of course, then one would have to go up against PETH (People for the Ethical Treatment of Homosexuals).

11) To say that gays are not equal to others is an irrational statement. The expression "Coming to your senses" really means that one needs to think rationally again. I believe this goes back to what has been said about equality, proving homosexuals aren't humans, and not using religion as an excuse?

12) Returning to IVF. Would the "it's artificial so don't do it" excuse extend to everything? Stop going to the doctor. Don't use a hearing aid. Rip out the pacemaker. Remove the metal plate. Take off your glasses. Turn off your heat in the winter and build a fire in your livingroom. Throw away your microwave. Raise livestock and crops on a farm. Don't use the internet. Don't wear clothes. Don't use tools.

12a) Kind of reminds of me of how no matter what a god says, we are still selective about what to take literally and what to take metaphorically, depending on what we chose to believe outside of said god. The same thing applies here - we don't stop using artificial means elsewhere because it would be an inconvenience to us.

Overall, I suppose my theme here is "all or none." By the way, I obviously support the idea of equal rights.

[killshot]

I also disagree with homosexual adoption
I challenge you to provide one logical reason why homosexuals should not be able to adopt. For someone who is against abortion you sure are picky about who can adopt. Two people of the same sex are perfectly capable of providing for a child. I see no reason why adoption should be reserved for heterosexual couples.

[Zalera]

I challenge you to provide one logical reason why homosexuals should not be able to adopt. For someone who is against abortion you sure are picky about who can adopt. Two people of the same sex are perfectly capable of providing for a child. I see no reason why adoption should be reserved for heterosexual couples.I think that he has the impression that the parents will spread their "homosexual agenda" and "turn"/raise the kids to become gay themselves. That seems to be the most common response when anti-marriage people are asked this particular question. Actually, that's the only answer I've ever received. But of course, you were asking DW and not me so feel free to ignore my answer. ^^ -my 2 cents

[DarkWarrior]

1) A moderator with strong feelings on a certain topic should not be allowed to moderate content in a thread on that topic. It just plain looks bad for the forum as a whole. Especially when it alienates a significant portion of the forum's population.
I'd like you to cite a specific instance of using the abilities I have as a way to further my own opinions. Can't show, irrelevant statement. On the other hand, I was the one that pushed and pushed for this forum to be made so that the community (Moderators and Administrators are both parts of the community) could engage in legitimate discussion/debate.2) Every person is a person. That is to say, we are all the same, and should be treated as such.
Great, but that doesn't explain why an entire institution institution should be changed. Marriage concerns more than one party, therefor, the "every person is a person" argument doesn't apply, because it involves more than one person, and needs a definition of what the institution is.3) I think it's hilarious when religious people have to fall back on the ideas of evolution to say that homosexuality is unnatural.
And I think it's sad that people who tend to back up the more liberal idealisms spend time mocking other people's religious beliefs.4) Don't want to give homosexuals (et al) equal rights? Then take them away from everyone.
Marriage isn't a "right". It's a special grant.5) If you are anti-gay I seriously recommend swallowing your pride and befriending someone who is gay. They aren't as scary or sinful as you think.
...What? Where the hell did I say either one of those things? You have no idea who my friends are, and are assuming an awful lot based on nothing.6) Who else will adopt all of the kids the unwed single mothers put up for adoption? I mean, we have to make up for the fact that we demonize birth control, tell people condoms give them AIDS, destroy a woman's right to choose, and improperly subscribe abstinence to innately curious creatures (who would make better choices in their lives if only they were privileged enough to be properly educated)?
We don't have to "make up for the fact". Simply because if people bothered to learn self control, all these issues would be irrelevant. People don't, and I blame people who blatantly advertise and justify birth control & condoms as an to self-control. Like it or not, that's what you're doing.7) To those opposed to gay-marriage - if they make it legal, are you suddenly going to go run off and marry someone of the same sex? Probably not, unless you were gay to begin with. It's a little thing called none of your business.
It's society's business, regardless of whether or not you like it.8) I'd like to see an argument against gay marriage that has nothing to do with religion. In fact, I challenge someone to seriously present such an argument, and to make it compelling. It would stand to say that if one really cared as much as they said they cared about the topic, then they would take up the challenge.
Did that.9) Atheists are concerned with many issues, not just taking religion out of the affairs of a secular public (a/k/a - maintaining the true definition of secular). I personally prefer the term secular humanist. Don't make the mistake of assuming they want to take religion away just because they have to repair the massive amounts of damage that religion has done to our world as a whole.p
Because the liberal ideals of most atheists have done such a wonderful job for humanity as a whole so far. Really, no, it hasn't. Most of the ideas of the atheists and the left-wing as a whole have left so many problems, it's sad. Especially after the sexual revolution of the 60s. Childhood pregnancy and STDs have been awfully high since then. I wouldn't call that "repairing" damage in the slightest.10) Remember that part about people being equal? If opposed to gay marriage, try to explain how homosexuals are a different species. That might be the only way to convince anyone of the argument. Of course, then one would have to go up against PETH (People for the Ethical Treatment of Homosexuals).
Stupid leap of logic that I'm not even going to bother addressing.11) To say that gays are not equal to others is an irrational statement. The expression "Coming to your senses" really means that one needs to think rationally again. I believe this goes back to what has been said about equality, proving homosexuals aren't humans, and not using religion as an excuse?
Because the big argument is that homosexuals aren't humans, right? Please, show me this.12) Returning to IVF. Would the "it's artificial so don't do it" excuse extend to everything? Stop going to the doctor. Don't use a hearing aid. Rip out the pacemaker. Remove the metal plate. Take off your glasses. Turn off your heat in the winter and build a fire in your livingroom. Throw away your microwave. Raise livestock and crops on a farm. Don't use the internet. Don't wear clothes. Don't use tools.
We're talking about the start of a sentient life and where that life will be, not simple health issues. The two are unequivocal, therefor, this argument is void.I challenge you to provide one logical reason why homosexuals should not be able to adopt. For someone who is against abortion you sure are picky about who can adopt. Two people of the same sex are perfectly capable of providing for a child. I see no reason why adoption should be reserved for heterosexual couples.
Because the natural difference between a father and a mother is not present. I believe that adoption should be limited to a married couple, with no bad history together, for that reason. Children have a right to both, and people are more concerned with giving homosexual couples their desires than giving these children what they need.

[killshot]

Because the natural difference between a father and a mother is not present. I believe that adoption should be limited to a married couple, with no bad history together, for that reason. Children have a right to both, and people are more concerned with giving homosexual couples their desires than giving these children what they need.
Should divorce be made illegal because it denies children of a mother or father? I would think having two mothers or two fathers is preferable to a single parent.

That being said, I have researched this matter further and discovered that there does exist substantial evidence that supports DarkWarrior's claims. Although I am still strongly in favor homosexual marriage, I think more studies need to be conducted before gay couples are allowed to adopt. Its important to remember that the needs of the children come before the civil rights struggle. I would encourage everyone to research this subject in more detial before drawing rash conclusions as I have.

[darkarcher]

There is quite a bit here that is interesting, and I would like to address all of it. However, there is just too much volume to reply to, so I will just say one thing and let the discussion continue.I think it's hilarious when religious people have to fall back on the ideas of evolution to say that homosexuality is unnatural.
This confuses me, because you tell people to come from a non-religious angle, so they come from an evolutionary angle as a way to relate to you. Then you try to shoot them down for that.

Anyway, what I would like to hear are the reasons people say that homosexuality is right, since we keep addressing why it is or isn't wrong but never get the other side. However, I would like for whoever answers this to avoid the "love" approach unless they want to prove it from a religious standpoint, since "love" from an evolutionary standpoint would merely be considered an instinct promoting procreation and therefore against homosexuality.

[Someguy]

Sorry to pick a person out and that I could not find the quote from him, but DW said that if a 'sudden change' was made to society, such as suddenly allowing gays all the rights straight people have in marriage, it would be disastrous (or bad, or something like that), so why not take it in steps? Would that be wrong too? Start with civil unions, and see where it goes from there. If that works, then move a small step further, and so on.
Eventually, gay marriage will then POSSIBLY not only have an existence, but it will in time POSSIBLY be accepted as an equal to straight marriage. If not made as a sudden change, but taken in slow steps, would it still be wrong?

EDIT: ALSO, DW, you have also stated that religions should be recognized as equal, so what about religions that support and/or accept gay marriage? Religions that would allow it? Should they also be respected then? Or are you not counting them as religions, or thinking that they should be exceptions to the ideas of equality of religions?

I would really like a response to these points...as I check this forum every day to see what people have to say... :)

[DarkWarrior]

Sorry to pick a person out and that I could not find the quote from him, but DW said that if a 'sudden change' was made to society, such as suddenly allowing gays all the rights straight people have in marriage, it would be disastrous (or bad, or something like that), so why not take it in steps? Would that be wrong too? Start with civil unions, and see where it goes from there. If that works, then move a small step further, and so on.
Eventually, gay marriage will then POSSIBLY not only have an existence, but it will in time POSSIBLY be accepted as an equal to straight marriage. If not made as a sudden change, but taken in slow steps, would it still be wrong?
If the end result will be the same as a sudden change, than yes, it would still be wrong. I don't see either method working, I was just addressing a specific point there.EDIT: ALSO, DW, you have also stated that religions should be recognized as equal, so what about religions that support and/or accept gay marriage? Religions that would allow it? Should they also be respected then? Or are you not counting them as religions, or thinking that they should be exceptions to the ideas of equality of religions?
Then they should be able to get married in their church, plain and simple. I just don't believe the government should be extending the definition of marriage to gay couples, when that extension includes the child support benefits. Throw out an alternative that doesn't include the child-support benefits, and I'll gladly support it. Also, said alternative would need to keep the benefits there for heterosexual couples.Should divorce be made illegal because it denies children of a mother or father? I would think having two mothers or two fathers is preferable to a single parent.
It depends on the case. If it's for some benign reason that really doesn't affect the children (Even the cheating on of a partner really shouldn't affect the children), then no, there shouldn't be a divorce issue there. If there's something more serious going on, like abuse, then divorce would probably be the best solution. While the child should have both parents, in such an instance as that, separating the child from one parent is necessary. One might argue "But you said they need both a mother and a father", and that's true. However, separating the child from the good parent would probably do quite a bit more harm to the child.

The thing is that with divorce, most of the time, the parents aren't thinking of what's best for the children. I suspect the mentality is "Oh, they'll learn to cope.", but really, that's selfish motivation and isn't taking into account what those kids need. The two made a commitment when they got married, and they need to honor that.

[agrajagthetesty]

The thing is that with divorce, most of the time, the parents aren't thinking of what's best for the children. I suspect the mentality is "Oh, they'll learn to cope.", but really, that's selfish motivation and isn't taking into account what those kids need. The two made a commitment when they got married, and they need to honor that.
Sorry to suddenly leap back into the discussion, but I really can't let this one go. I apologise for using a personal story, but I can't see any way around it, and anyway we all have personal reasons for our opinions on this.

My mother suffered some sort of trauma as a child. I don't know too much about it, but her own mother was very neglectful and her father was found shot by his own gun when she was 12. As a result, she became co-dependent and had a number of destructive relationships, one of which she had to escape from by hiding at a friend's house and telling her family to lie about where she was. In comparison, the relationship she had with my father was more healthy, but he was controlling, possibly unfaithful, and neglectful to the point of leaving her at home alone all day while she was in labour. He also used to hit me and my siblings. About four years ago, they separated. Now I live with my mother, and see my father (who, incidentally, has changed phenomenally over the last few years) every few weeks.

I am ten times happier than I was before the split, but even if I weren't, it's really their issue and not mine. A large part of the reason why I am glad the divorce happened is that I can tell how much better this situation is for both of them, especially my mother. There is no rule saying that divorce is always a bad thing to go through. Yes, it was upsetting at the time, but now I look back on it with no bad feelings whatsoever. Divorce can free people, and make them happy. Staying in an unhappy relationship fools no-one, and can ultimately make the inevitable split worse.

Also, there is absolutely no reason to honour vows that were made years ago if you or the situation have changed. People's feelings don't remain the same forever. Neither is it a case of "facing up to your mistakes". A couple can seem perfect together at one point, only to become aware of flaws in their relationship later on, or to have a new situation like a job that keeps them away from home, which would alter the dynamics between them. You can't accuse someone of being selfish when it comes to their own marriage, even if the problem is "only" being unfaithful. If one partner has cheated, and the other partner knows about it, there will be tension and most likely arguments, which will create an extremely unpleasant environment. Surely it would be better for a child to live somewhere without this sort of conflict. The number or gender of the parents present is far less important than being in a safe, reliable and loving environment, which can't happen when the parents are fighting.

[DarkWarrior]

I did acknowledge that these kinds of things can happen, actually.If there's something more serious going on, like abuse, then divorce would probably be the best solution. While the child should have both parents, in such an instance as that, separating the child from one parent is necessary. One might argue "But you said they need both a mother and a father", and that's true. However, separating the child from the good parent would probably do quite a bit more harm to the child.
No, I didn't address that the child would specifically benefit from the separation in that instance, but it is implied. In your situation, believe me, I agree fully.

[agrajagthetesty]

If there's something more serious going on, like abuse, then divorce would probably be the best solution. While the child should have both parents, in such an instance as that, separating the child from one parent is necessary.
Yes, I did read this. However, I would argue that the term "abuse" is fairly strong, and at least for me would apply to crimes such as domestic violence, marital rape and so on. I wouldn't say there had been abuse in my situation.

What about the cases where the problems in the marriage are indirectly affecting the children, such as unfaithfulness?

[DarkWarrior]

Then the parents need to sit down and handle the situation head-on, and not avoid each other about it, or get confrontational about it. There are things more important than one instance of unfaithfulness to go on there, unless it's a constant. In which case, if it's damaging enough, there needs to be some way to work it out without the kids either being involved in some custody battle or shuttling every other week or something.

[agrajagthetesty]

There needs to be some way to work it out without the kids either being involved in some custody battle or shuttling every other week or something.
This is the only part of what you said that I have anything to say on. I don't think there is an easy way to get around this issue. Perhaps in an ideal world a couple would be able to sort out things like possession of their house and custody of their children without the children being affected by it, but right now I can't think of any. I'm not sure you were suggesting that such a method exists, in fact- and if it did it would obviously be the way to go. However, I don't think that "shuttling" is such a bad thing. It's preferable to having both parents around all the time and witnessing arguments.

[DarkWarrior]

That much is certainly true. No, I can't think of a method offhand, but every couple is different, and they need to sit down and discuss the options before going into some legal struggle. Some may be able to work something out where others couldn't.

[ArtificialRobot]

DarkWarrior,

I am sorry that you felt my entire post was directed at you (it wasn't, it was for a general audience). The first part was based on an observation. I did not say that you specifically censored someone to further your beliefs, only that it looks bad (since it could be construed by anyone that you did do that). I would be unable to cite what had been censored because I don't visit so often, and was not able to see any posts (anywhere on the forum) before they disappeared. You have every right to be a part of this community, but you clearly have a bias on these sorts of topics, and you shouldn't be allowed to moderate threads that follow them (the same should go for mods everywhere). It reflects poorly on the forum, the site, and even LK. My suggestion would be to bring in a more neutral moderator who can more clearly represent a third party when it comes to threads like this.

The rest of my post was dedicated to having my say, with a touch of sarcasm here and there. You may have found my less serious portions to be "Stupid leaps of logic" (not the words I would have chosen were I a mod), but I assure you, these statements were meant to appear ridiculous (sarcastic) to make a point. If someone fails to understand what I mean, I can't be held responsible for their lack of initiative to discover the meaning on their own (instead of jumping to all sorts of conclusions).

As far as a compelling argument being put forth, I would love to see where your research came from, because thus far, I have not been compelled. And I'm not being sarcastic either, because I do enjoy research. I would actually like to be made aware of specific studies (etc.) so that I too can research this topic. Of course, they have to be valid and not spurred on by religion to meet the requirements of the challenge.

Now, to contribute to this fresher topic, I can see a child needing to grow up in an environment where several different roles are displayed (in the case of a heretosexual couple with children, the typical "mother/father" roles). However, we can't assume that homosexuals are incapable of falling into those roles. I think, as has been implicated, that it is a person to person basis. Some people are simply just bad parents (not bad people, just bad parents). Some people enter into commitments without realizing what it is they are getting into. There are just plain old bad people too.

Solution? Education helps people make more informed choices. But when it comes to relationships, there might not be much. The mind is a very delicately programmed thing. The smallest of arguments can trigger the nastiest of fears in people, in which case, confrontation of the problem is actually a confrontation of fear - something that isn't always easy. It can literally take a life time for people to work out psychological issues. So even if there is no instance of abuse, sometimes it is healthier to end the relationship instead of each person trying to navigate their way through the other's psyche.

That being said, I do wish that people would make better choices with their children (to stop the cycle). Which is why I advocate as much education as possible. This way they can go into these commitments with a lot more foresight.

So I suppose that I do agree with a lot that has been said on this topic.

[Amber]

My parents split because they had a huge personality conflict. I was four when this happened, and I didn't understand at the time why they would get a divorce. I was raised by my mother, along with my two younger sisters, and I turned out just fine without having my father around all the time. I don't think that the stereotypical "mother/father roles" need to be present in a child's life. My boyfriend was also completely raised by his mother and his father lives in Honduras. He talks to his father on the phone about twice a year. My boyfriend also turned out just fine, and even without a male influence in his life he's still just as "manly" as the next guy. However, I do agree that people need to really think about what they are getting into when they decide to get married. My parents were young and stupid, and I don't think they quite understood how much of a commitment marriage is -- especially when you have children.

And I forget who said it, but someone did bring up a good point about all the children who are up for adoption. There are way more children up for adoption than people who can adopt them. I think it would be better for a child to be adopted by a gay couple than to live in foster care, being moved from home to home throughout their whole life. They will at least learn to trust people and be loved if they are in the care of a gay couple in a safe home.

[NMPTILU]

Well, I don't really know much about the matter, but I'll still reply.

As someone mentioned earlier, that they thought that forcing churches to marry gay couples when they are clearly against it is wrong, I believe so too. However, that doesn't mean that they can't get married. Why not just allow them the legal form of marriage? That way church and state are separated, and everyone's happy...kind of.

[Zalera]

I can think of plenty of Churches that would have no problems with marrying a gay couple, mine included. I believe it should be up to the church and if the state won't recognize it then they need to bugger off.

[eric2009]

If a gay couple get married... I'll feel sorry for the children...

[Amber]

Why would you feel sorry for the children?

[TheFreedomIllusion]

<i>Post censored by DarkWarrior.</i>

[Tatterdemalion]

While it's up here, and to avoid digging this topic up at a later date, I'm just going to say that extending marriage rights to same sex couples is perfectly reasonable. People make too much out of gender, really.

[Tatterdemalion]

And another thing. I know this is digging something up from more than a few months ago, and I’m sorry, I know it may be annoying, but still, indulge me, if you will.

And I’m writing this as a separate post because it is, after all, a separate thought/idea/ And perhaps it is a bit off topic, but if the discussion was able to exist in this topic before, I think it’s within reason that I can revive it.

Anyway.Being homosexual is definitely a choice that is based upon what a person thinks will make them happy. To say "I can't help it" is to degrade yourself to the level of a common animal that is completely based on instincts.

I'm not saying a person can't be born with natural tendencies, but to say that you must or cannot be gay due to your birth just doesn't make sense.
Now, I must say this argument always baffles me. That is, I understand it, but what I find baffling is both how misguided it seems, and how often I hear it.

I’m beginning to suspect that there is some sort of lack of communication between the gay and straight communities, and while what I’m going to say may sound obvious, if I don’t even attempt to say it, then anything else on the subject could easily be lost in miscommunication.

The term “homosexuality” as used in the context “homosexuality is not a choice” does not refer to an action. That is to say, being gay isn’t something you can go out and physically do. Yes, “to be” is a verb, but at the same time, homosexuality here refers to a state of being, rather than an action undertaken. What we’re talking about here is a collection of sentiments, emotions and attitudes, as well as possibly some physical responses, that occur as the result of mental and/or physical stimuli.

Now, that being said, where does the matter of choice come in?

I don’t know if I’ve mentioned yet that I’m gay, but I am, and while I know this is a cliché I have to say, from experience, there’s no decision-making process involved.

That is to say, it’s not as though it’s a matter of sitting down and thinking “Hmm, if I want to I could choose to like boys or girls…I think perhaps I’d be happier if I were to be interested in boys, so I now choose to be attracted to males, and therefore to be gay.” Really, it doesn’t work that way. It’s more a matter of sitting down and thinking “Hey, he’s cute.”

Also, as far as being degraded to the level of a common animal, keep in mind humans are animals as much as any other species in the kingdom, and our bodies work essentially the same way. That is to say, we feel hunger so we eat, we feel thirsty so we drink, we feel tired so we sleep, we feel horny so we copulate, et cetera. Now, I know you’re saying that humans are different because don’t have to respond a certain way just because of an impulse, but while that’s true, whether or not we respond, the impulse is still there. That is to say, you don’t have to eat, but whether or not you do, you can’t change the fact that you feel hungry. You don’t have to rest, but either way you feel tired. Et cetera.

Now, the need for human companionship, including that of the romantic nature, although perhaps more developed, is still a natural inclination, it’s still an impulse, like all of the aforementioned ones. Now, whether or not you act on that inclination is a matter of choice, yes, but whether or not you feel that inclination in the first place is in no way a decision that you can make. Whatever you choose to do, the feeling is still there, whether you want it to be or not. And no, that doesn’t degrade you to the level of an animal. To the contrary, it’s one of the things that makes you human.



And there’s always the argument, which I hear surprisingly often, that homosexuality is a choice because “I could go out with someone of the same gender if I wanted to. I just don’t want to.”

Oh , wait, here we go:I could choose to break up with my boyfriend and date a girl if I wanted to. I don't want to, but I could. So yes, that is a choice on my part.
What this statement overlooks, however, is that the reason you don’t want to is that you’re not gay. Again, and I can’t stress this enough sexual orientation is not defined by an action, it is the inclination or sentiment that may or may not lead to an action.

Dating another girl can’t make you gay, just as undertaking the actions of going out with a girl wouldn’t make me straight. You would be gay if and only if you were attracted to the girl to begin with, and the last time I checked, people don’t go around deciding who they want to be attracted to. Then again, maybe they do, and I’m just the odd one out.

You know, I hate to use the food analogy, because it seems so base and silly when compared to the far more grand sentiments involved in human emotions, but it’s still a good parallel. Let’s say, for example, that I like pasta. I don’t have any particular affinity for the dish, but let’s hypothetically say I do. So, let’s suppose I like pasta, I like the way it tastes, I enjoy it more than any other food, thinking about it just makes my mouth water. Now, I never made the decision to like pasta, it just so happens that I do. Technically speaking I don’t have to eat it, but even if I choose never to eat pasta, that doesn’t change the fact that I like it. Likewise, a person who doesn’t like pasta could eat it every day of their life, it doesn’t mean that they’re a pasta lover. It’s not a matter of what you do at all.

I mean, if it’s a matter of action, I could technically go my the rest of my life without ever dating another boy. Hey, technically I could marry a woman, and live the rest of my life with her. It’s not as though I’d be attracted to her in a physical, romantic or emotional way, beyond what possible friendship might arise, but still, I could do it. It’s not as though I’d want to, I wouldn’t be happy, and I can’t see any reason to, but still, I could. Then again, in spite of what actions I’d be taking I’d still be as gay as I am today, and all the female companionship in the world couldn’t change that.

[RationalInquirer]

I'm not certain why people are so adamant against banning gay marriage these days. As long as their lives remain private/open and do not distrupt someone elses, then I'm fine with them. Now the news of Proposition 8 in California has been flying around lately, (2008's second most expensive campaign in the United States besides the federal election) and the allowance of gay marriage has now been prohibited in California. I have no doubt that they recieved much backing from the religious conservatives as well as some liberals in order to achieve this ruling. I guess we, as human beings, naturally reject things outside of the norm, or appear unnatural in modern society.

Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom.Perhaps we should consider banning all animals of performing such evil and despicable acts. Less they be judged by God Almighty on Armegeddon for their sinful lifestyles and their rejection of Christ.

[killshot]

I find that religion isn't as responsible for intolerance of homosexuals as people themselves. Religion just seems like a position of authority people can use to give their view a sense of credibility. By saying, "God says homosexuality is a sin," they can get away with saying, "I don't approve of homosexuality."

[SilverFox]

I'm not religious, but I hear that the bible condemns homosexuality. religion and the church is still a part of the modern world and is directly connected to marriage, and therefore gay marriage is wrong and should not be legalized.

If you are gay and want to get married, just get the rings and have a ceremony or whatever, do you really need the paperwork?, at an official wedding, no one casts a magical spell on you that makes you married, all you really miss out on is the paperwork etc, you can still change your/your partner's last name so they match, it also makes doing your tax less confusing, and I think you may end up better off in terms of any government grants you may be eligable for due to not being officially(paperwork) married.

[killshot]

It's not really about marriage. It's about homosexuals being treated as second class citizens. I think that turning love into a legally binding contract is a disgusting practice that has no place in this society, but many others disagree. No matter what your feelings about marriage are, the real issue is that straight couples are being given a right that homosexuals are being denied.

[Tatterdemalion]

I hate when people shit on history like this...

See, you hear people complain about "turning love into a legal contract" but keep in mind that marriage has traditionally never been about love, but rather, has beenabout law, it's been about property, it's been about business. Marriage has always been a legal institution first and everything else third.

In the good old days when this marriage thing came around it wasn't anything like "wow, I love you, you make my life complete, let's spend the rest of our lives together so we can be happy, etc., etc." That entire notion is a purely modern construct, and we can't go around deluding ourselves into thinking it's anything more historically substantial than something a few middle class people dreamed up during the Victorian era..

The entire point of marriage has always been about joining the estates of two families in order to help promote financial stability between the two.If you were poor, it would go something like this: "Well, I grow wheat, and you grow barley, so I'll give you my daughter if you give me two cattle, we'll have a wedding, then we'll trade wholesale, okay?" If you were rich, it would be something more like this: "Well, Lord Haberdash, I must say I've always had my eye on Plattsburgh and Suffolk, and I'd be thrilled to add it to my family's lineage, so what do you say I give you 100 servants, and Poughkeepsie, if you give us your daughter's hand in marriage. What's that, you will? Splendid."

We may have allowed ourselves to forget this sort of thing due to the romantic propaganda of the 20th century, but it's the truth. Back in the good old days, you weren't expected to be in love with the person you married. For many, you weren't even expected to choose who you were going to mary. Often times you wouldn't even know the person you were marrying.

Is that romantic? No. Is it pleasant? No. Is it a historically accurate representation of the purpose and function of marriage for literally thousands of years? Yes.

Not until less than 200 years ago, withthe rise of industrialization creating a middle class in which an entire generation can be self-sufficient, and exist independent of their parents, did marriage take on its modern form (although most people were still too poor for it), and even then, it still retained all of its old properties, because it still served, and continues to serve, the same function in society. Just because we make up a bunch of fanciful stories about true love and all that jazz, that doesn't mean the purpose, function, and origins of marriage suddenly no longer exist.

And as far as marriage being a "religious" institution as opposed to a "legal" institution, keep in mind that a few hundred years ago, this distinction did not exist. Religious organizations had all of the power and authority of law, with this whole "separation ofchurch and state" thing being a very, very new idea. It's not as though religion was sacred and the law was profane, for all intensive purposes religion was the law, so to say an institution was "religious" and to say it was "legal" is essentially to say the same thing.

So yeah, marriage is an aspect of law. Any grandiose notions you want to have about love and marriage going together like a horse and carriage you're free to have, but the primary, practical and precedential function in society has always been a legal one.

[KuroStarr]

I believe it is wrong, but not for just moral reasons.
1.) I don't care who says what; Marriage is between a male and a female. Marriage means the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2.) Man+Man=No babies. Women+Women=No Babies. Women+Man=Babies. That's how it works, and that's how it had always worked since the beginning of time. We were made to populate--and if you are gay, then that wouldn't work out, now would it?
"I don't need a mommy! I have two daddys!!!"
How does that sound? Retarded. A child needs the nurture and love of a dad and a mom. Not just two dads, or not just two moms. Please, think of the children.

I don't hate homo's, I just think that they shouldn't get married.

[Tatterdemalion]

1.) I don't care who says what; Marriage is between a male and a female. Marriage means the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
So you say, but at the same time, you're not giving any reason here other than "because it is." And that really isn't any better an argument than "because I said so," because it's not really giving a reason.

The definition and specifications of marriage change over time as cultural standards change. For example, in the past, marriage has been a social institution under which a man could marry multiple women. This isn't thought of as the definition aymore, however, because over time our cultural sensibilities changed, and we decided that marriage should instead be between a single man and a single woman. Ideas change, law changes, standards change. That's just the way it works.

So today marriage is between a man and a woman. So what? Why shouldn't it be between a man and a man, or between a woman and a woman tomorrow? If reason tells us it's right, why should the fact that it's been different in the past stop us?2.) Man+Man=No babies. Women+Women=No Babies. Women+Man=Babies. That's how it works, and that's how it had always worked since the beginning of time. We were made to populate--and if you are gay, then that wouldn't work out, now would it?

Yes, but what does that have to do with marriage? Are you suggesting that somehow if gay couples were allowed to marry there would be less babies? How do you figure?"I don't need a mommy! I have two daddys!!!"
How does that sound? Retarded. A child needs the nurture and love of a dad and a mom. Not just two dads, or not just two moms. Please, think of the children.
Which children? The ones that you just said gay couples can't biologically have? The ones the ones who are up for adoption, and could potentially be adopted by gay couples? Who?

But really, I am going to say this in response to the notion that somehow there is one single "right" way for a child to be raised, which is by a single mother and a single father, and that any other living situation is foul and unnatural, and somehow bad for children. Keep in mind, that this makes the assumption that in a state of nature, a child would be raised by a single mother and a single father, simply because the child is conceived between a single mother and a single father.

What is being ignored here is the fact that there are a myriad different ways a child can be raised, some of which are very common, some of which are less common, but a great many of which do not involve being raised by one man and one woman at the same time. Let's look at some of them, and then you can tell me if all of them are somehow unhealthy or harmful ways for a child to be raised.

Now, I think the first situation that leaps to mind is single parenthood. Now, this is indeed very common, although there are also some who insist that every child who is raised by a single parent is emotionally disturbed and screwed up in the head due to years of being traumatized by only having one parent, which, although it's not true, is still an idea floating around, on top of which the whole single parent thing is painfully obvious, so let's skip that and move on.

There are also, of course, widowed parents. Now, would you say that a widow is incapable of raising a child on his/her own, or that such a child would be living in an unacceptable environment? Would you not allow a widow to raise a child out of this sort of fear?

Or, better yet, how about this. In many parts of the world, including te West, and throughout history, a household has consisted of more than just a mother and father and children, but has also included grandparents, uncles, sometimes even cousins. Now, if a man and a woman, who have a child, live with a grandfather, or a brother, or another male relative, and then the woman dies, you'd be left with a household involving two people of the male gender, and in effect, a child raised by two men. Now, is there something fundamentally wrong with this living situation? Are you saying that a child cannot be healthily raised in this sort of household?

Also, a chold could be raised by grandparents, something that is not uncommon. Now, this may be one grandparent or two grandparents, and these grandparents are not a dad and a mom. Now, are you saying that because of this, a grandparent or grandparents would not be able to "love and nurture" a child in an appropriate way?

But wait, it gets better. It's also not uncommon for children, either today or in the past, to be/have been raised in an environment by people who aren't even biological relatives.

For example, in a middle class British family, 150 years ago a baby would spend precious little time with its actual parent, and would be almost entirely raised by a nurse or nanny. Likewise, in getting older they would go to boarding school, and would not be nurtured by their parents. Now, are you saying that there is something fundamentally wrong with the entire British way of family life for over 100 years?

And what about apprenticeship? In the past it was not uncommon for males to, ata very young age, be turned over as apprentices, with whom they would be raised for a considerable pportion of their childhood. And here we have a situation where someone isn't even taking the role of a parent.

Now what you have here is a great many living situations which do not fit the mold of the mother-father-child nuclear family, yet which are uncommon, unheard of, unprecedented, unacceptable or unhealthy. he fact that one particular culture at one particular time has promoted this image doesn't mean that anything that even slightly deviated from it is bad for you.

But now I'm going to return to the nature argument. That is to say, the idea that because only on man and one woman can conceive, nature is attesting to the idea that a child must be raised by one man and one woman.

Now, we're talking about nature, so let's look at the so-called "state of nature." Now, a 21st century middle class American family is in the middle of civilization, and far from a purely natural state, but if your assertion is correct, then it would stand to reason that humans, as long as the species has existed, would live in the exact same pattern.

But at the same time, if you look at primitive man, and you look at contemporary nomadic peoples, you don't see that. The saying is "it takes a village to raise a child" and that's exactly what's going on. In a natural, nomadic, tribal setting you don't have groups of nuclear families existing separate from everyone else, nor do you have responsibility placed on two people, with all other members of the same tribe/group/etc. treated as strangers. Rather, you have a child raised in a communal setting, by a group of adults rather than just two biological parents. Now, criticize this if you want, but it doesn't get more natural than that.

So to be honest, there's nothing in civilization or in the natural world to suggest the only way a child can be raised is by a single man and a single woman. You say such a living situation is something a child needs, but the variation in living situation in oth the modern world and throughout history speaks to the contrary.

So there, I've thought about the children, and to be honest, the children are just fine.

And to be honest, the argument "How does that sound? Retarded." says more about you than it does about the matter at hand.

Oh, also one more thing.I don't hate homo's, I just think that they shouldn't get married.
Keep in mind that the word "homo" is a word with heavy pejorative implications, so using it in this context is more than a little tactless. Perhaps you'd have done a better job with manners if you'd had two mothers?

[Underling]

In 2050 you will be able to reproduce through entirely artificial means and children will be raised by commune.


Yours sincerly,
The future.

[Tatterdemalion]

Why does Underling never get admonished for this sort of thing? I'm not complaining, I'm just wondering...

[RationalInquirer]

I find that religion isn't as responsible for intolerance of homosexuals as people themselves. Religion just seems like a position of authority people can use to give their view a sense of credibility. By saying, "God says homosexuality is a sin," they can get away with saying, "I don't approve of homosexuality."
I completely agree with that. I don't claim to speak for everyone, but the innate feelings of discomfort that heterosexual people experience against being in the prescence of homosexuals (even at a minimal level) stems from the fact that the natural order of reproduction is between a male/female. The communities and media are also responsible for prejudice against LGBTs. We live in societies where people are often labeled as immoral and shameful simply because of their private lifestyles and beliefs/nonbelief. They find prejudice within their own narrow, personal sentiments and not always, but quite often, expand into their religious beliefs for justification. Obviously, not every community is like this, but there unfortunately are many ignorant communties that populate the world. Here is one example of mine:

I am no expert in Social Sciences, but I have heard from friends living in the US that claim that if you inhabit the interior regional States as a homosexual or nonbeliever, then you are harassed and insulted upon if the neighborhood there finds out about your livelihood. This is quite true if you happen to live in the infamous Bible Belt. Contrarywise, if you live in the exterior coastbordering States, the people there are more tolerable and accepting;even if it is by just a small or large margin.

I have also read that genetics may play a role in whether someone grows up to be a homosexual. In the past, I thought that people become gays/lesbians simply because of external social influences. These research studies suggest otherwise, that people are in fact born into their homosexuality. I don't know whether this is factual. But if it is, then homosexuals should not be prejudiced for what they have no control over.

[nommayomnom]

This is something I sincerely wonder. If you consider marriage a purely religious institution, then do you think it's okay for atheists to be married? What about divorce?

[Tatterdemalion]

I completely agree with that.
Really now, just what's going on around here? For all I do in various threads to defend religion as a cultural institution, I'm met with nothing but opposition from you guys, but now that you get on to the one topic where a position such as yours may be valid, and you go 360 and take up the "religion isn't to blame, it's just being used as an excuse." Seriously, what's going on here?I don't claim to speak for everyone, but the innate feelings of discomfort that heterosexual people experience against being in the prescence of homosexuals (even at a minimal level) stems from the fact that the natural order of reproduction is between a male/female.
What is this about innate discomfort? Since when do most people feel innate discomfort in the presence of homosexuals? Why is it that any person would feel discomfort because another person may or may not be inclined to do something that will not lead to sexual reproduction? That makes no sense whatsoever. Vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman is a reproductive act, yes. Likewise, there are many other kinds of sexual acts that are not reproductive. This includes oral sex, masturbation, anal sex, and many others, some of which may be performed between a man and a woman, some of which may be between a man and a man, and some of which you can do by yourself. Now, all of these are equally sexual, and all of them are equally unlikely to lead to reproduction. So why would any person feel an innate discomfort because of some of them, and not the rest?

I mean, let's say I'm around a female, and because I have a close relationship with this female, I'm privy to the fact that she has had oral sex at some point. Should that make me uncomfortable, because sex should be restricted to intercourse of a reproductive nature? Or let's say I'm around a male who has masturbated at some point in his life (which, to be honest, is most of them). Does it stand to reason that I should feel uncomfortable because his sexual activity is not limited to reproductive intercourse between a man and a woman?

On top of which, simply being homosexual doesn't even mean having sex. If someone you know is gay, it's not as though they're going to be having sex with you, or in front of you, or near you. Unless they're a close friend, they probably won't even talk to you about sex. So then why should you be made uncomfortable by the idea of them having sex? Why are you even thinking about them having sex to begin with?

That reminds me of a strangely relevant conversation I had with a friend of mine recently. He tells me he's homophobic (not that I like the term). I ask him why, he says he doesn't know. So I ask him if he's made uncomfortable by me, considering that I'm gay. He says no. I ask him why. He says, and I find this very strange "Because you're not doing anything."

I mean, really, what do you expect me to be doing? With all of this sort of talk, I'm starting to suspect that the difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals is that heterosexuals are completely obsessed with sex.

Also, you're ignoring the fact that although supposedly disgusted by homosexuality, it seems that there are a tremendous number of men who are aroused by the notion of lesbians kission, or having sex with one another...why is this, I wonder?

As far as "discomfort," I think the much more likely that a significant number of people, particularly heterosexual males, are just trapped in a sort of schoolboy mentality. I mean, really, when most boys are at that rather childish age, what becomes a key sign of masculinity? Being interested in girls. Likewise, boys around this age contition themselves to be complete;y repulsed by males in the same context. And it continues in to adulthood. I mean, think about it, how many males are there who are, for some strange reason, uncomfortable even seeing another naked man? It's silly, but there are people with this sentiment. Why is this? I mean, there's nothing unnatural about male nudity, there's nothing disgusting about it, and while if you're not gay you won't be interested in a sexual way, there's no reason to be made uncomfortable. Yet, because men like to behave like little boys, they still end up with this ridiculous attitude toward the whole thing.

It's in many cases the same thing with aversion towards homosexuality. It's not to do with any sort of reason to be uncomfortable, it's just the silly ideas regarding masculinity acting up.

I mean, I'm not saying that there aren't people who are legitimately prejudiced, but at the same time there are still a significant number of people who are just being immature.

Also, looking to history again, keep in mind that ost cultures have historically not labeled homosexual behavior as immoral or inappropriate, and in many societies, including Classical Greece and Rome, Japan, China, Mesoamerican civilizations, and many others, same-sex love and erotic activity was considered a normal, natural behavior.

To suggest that homophobia is somehow a natural attitude to be assumed by people universally is ridiculous. As hard as it may be to believed, anti-homosexual sentiments are a very modern, very Western construct

I think a great deal of it, you have to admit, stems from the intense prudishness of many Western cultures, in modern times moreso than ever in the past, looking especially at the monstrous nation of Puritania (also known as the United States of America). Now, these cultures aren't opposed to sex, because sex is of course natural. At the same time, however, all they've done is gone a step up and said that sex is acceptable so long as you're not doing it to enjoy it. That is to say, sex is treated as a purely functional act, and therefore anything sexual or erotic that does not directle lead to sexual reproduction is an act of sexual deviance, and anyone who engages in such activity is an immoral pleasure seeker. (Ken Jennings: What is a hoe? Alex: Do they teach you that in school in Utah?)

Speaking in terms of sex, erotic activity that results in reproduction is of course natural. That being said, why, oh why, oh why is there any reason to say that any other erotic activity is unnatural? Or that it's somehow wrong? Your sexual organs do have a particular function. That being said, how does that fact even come close to suggesting that you shouldn't use them for anything else?I am no expert in Social Sciences, but I have heard from friends living in the US that claim that if you inhabit the interior regional States as a homosexual or nonbeliever, then you are harassed and insulted upon if the neighborhood there finds out about your livelihood. This is quite true if you happen to live in the infamous Bible Belt. Contrarywise, if you live in the exterior coastbordering States, the people there are more tolerable and accepting;even if it is by just a small or large margin.
Now, I can't affirm this by myself, but I'm sure killshot would be more than happy to confirm your description of the inner American states. I myself am a New Yorker, and I can say with certainty that yes, you do have a very diverse, progressive, pluralistic culture on the Eastern Seaboard. At least, the northern part of the Eastern Seaboard.

Have you ever seen the Jesusland map? It's something like that.

Keep in mind, the reason for this has to do with the notion of a closed culture versus an open culture. Nothing is static, I've said it before, but in a cultural context you still have the distinction of cultures in which people openly associate with those outside of their own, and cultures which attempt to isolate themselves from the unfamiliar.

Now, looka t a city like New York. New York is a coastal city, so as a result it serves as a major center for trade, as a port, and also as a major center for immigration. You have a tremendous number of people from ilterally all over the world coming in and out of the city every day, as well as an incredibly culturally diverse group of people who live here. Because of this, people interact with people from many different cultures on a daily basis, and are constantly exposed to new ideas, customs, practices, attitudes and lifestyles. In addition, it is a very urban area, so the sheer number of people encountered on a daily basis is very high. With all of this exposure, it's virtually impossible to remain close minded, because your mind is going to be dealing with the unfamiliar whether you like it or not, until it isn't unfamiliar anymore.

In a shut off, landlocked town in the middle of nowhere, however, you don't have that. People are very cut off from that which is different from them, so rather than being exposed to different people an ideas, they are restricted to a a very limited perspective, constantly promoted by those around them, so as a result they grow up ignorant, with very misguided attitudes towards those with whom they are unfamiliar. That's where xenophobia comes from. And that's where racism comes from. And that's where homophobia comes from. And that's where McCarthyism comes from. And that's where, of course, homophobia comes from (I still hate that term).

People are isolated from other cultures and other ideas, so their development, both as people and as a culture, ends up being retarded. It's sad, really.I have also read that genetics may play a role in whether someone grows up to be a homosexual. In the past, I thought that people become gays/lesbians simply because of external social influences. These research studies suggest otherwise, that people are in fact born into their homosexuality. I don't know whether this is factual. But if it is, then homosexuals should not be prejudiced for what they have no control over.
Ah, this. Now, this is an argument that is being made. If you ask most members of the LGBT community, they'll swear that scientists have discovered a gay gene. Likewise, a some people belonging to the religious right, as well as those who beling to the irreligious right, the religious center, the irreligious center, or maybe even some guys on the left, will swear that homosexuality is nothing more than a lifestyle made throught a personal choice.

In all honesty, neither is true. I've already talked in detail about the whole choice thing being untrue, so that's taken care of. As for the genetic thing, scientists are beginning more and more to suspect that homosexuality has a biological cause, so there's evidence to support it, but at the same time the exact cause of homosexuality still remains unknown. I myself would be inclined to say that you're not going to find a cause, because homosexuality is just a word. Most would probably disagree, though.

[Underling]

<i>Post censored by araharu.</i>

[Tatterdemalion]

I would be inclined to agree that the notion seems to run contrary to the entire idea of natural selection.

And is "fuck you all" your new non sequitur?

[RationalInquirer]

I have not been in the forums for long, but can someone tell me whether Underling makes a concluding "fuck you" all the time in serious discussion threads?

[Tatterdemalion]

Normally he just says "DESU"

I'm guessing he's going for something different now. You know, new year, new attitude.

EDIT

...wait a minute, why does it say the word "Banned" under the name "Underling"? That certainly is odd...

[Zairak]

Not certain, but I think he was editing people's posts in the BAR and got busted.

[killshot]

Really now, just what's going on around here? For all I do in various threads to defend religion as a cultural institution, I'm met with nothing but opposition from you guys, but now that you get on to the one topic where a position such as yours may be valid, and you go 360 and take up the "religion isn't to blame, it's just being used as an excuse." Seriously, what's going on here?
This is a bit of a turnaround. I take my position mainly from the experiences I have had in dealing with homophobia. Many people I went to school with hated the idea of two men being intimate with each other regardless if they were religious or not. It seems to be more of a small town mentality than anything else. I suppose you could argue that the small town mentality is rooted in Christianity, but I got the impression that it was something more basic than religion. It was like the existence of gay men somehow gave masculinity a bad name and they weren't real men unless they bashed gays every chance they got.

EDIT: Its actually a 180 that we are pulling. A 360 would get us nowhere.I am no expert in Social Sciences, but I have heard from friends living in the US that claim that if you inhabit the interior regional States as a homosexual or nonbeliever, then you are harassed and insulted upon if the neighborhood there finds out about your livelihood. This is quite true if you happen to live in the infamous Bible Belt. Contrarywise, if you live in the exterior coastbordering States, the people there are more tolerable and accepting;even if it is by just a small or large margin.
Yeah, you've got a good idea of what things are like. Back in Red Neckington high, I can remember two gay guys that attended our school. One was open about being gay, but didn't get bullied too bad for it. Someone told me it was because he didn't behave like a stereotypical homosexual and so people left him alone for the most part. The other guy swore that he was straight, but since he spoke with a bit of a lisp and only had friends that were female, he got treated pretty rudely. He ended up admitting to being gay after he graduated, but I don't think it would have made any difference if he was straight or not. He fit the role of a homosexual and I guess that is all that mattered to the people harassing him.

[Tatterdemalion]

This is a bit of a turnaround. I take my position mainly from the experiences I have had in dealing with homophobia. Many people I went to school with hated the idea of two men being intimate with each other regardless if they were religious or not. It seems to be more of a small town mentality than anything else. I suppose you could argue that the small town mentality is rooted in Christianity, but I got the impression that it was something more basic than religion. It was like the existence of gay men somehow gave masculinity a bad name and they weren't real men unless they bashed gays every chance they got.
Yes, but what I'm saying is this, if you look at the history of anti-homosexual sentiments in the West, most of it goes back to Christianity. You could argue that it actually goes back further, to Judaism, however any strong anti-homosexual sentiments are even more recent than the founding of Christianity, and can be traced in many ways directly to biblical texts.

And the notion of homosexuality giving masculinity a bad name is one thing, but at the same time you have to consider the fact that contemporary ideas regarding the nature of masculinity, as well as the idea that somehow homosexuals aren't masculine, are modern constructs. I mean, look at the Classican Greeks. They were pretty masculine guys. They were big, strong men, they were incredibly athletic, they were warriors, they placed tremendous emphasis on the beauty and importance of the male, and they were terribly misogynistic. By all means, they were a very masculine culture. They were also incredibly gay. And these things coexisted perfectly. In some senses, they complemented one another.

Also, although people don't like to talk about this, keep in mind that "homosexuality" is a pretty new idea. Until up until a few hundred years ago, the idea that somehow everyone could be divided into one of two groups, heterosexuals and homosexuals, who are somehow fundamentally different, didn't exist. The idea that homosexuality is somehow a separate way of being is itself something of a modern construct. Just thought I'd mention it.EDIT: Its actually a 180 that we are pulling. A 360 would get us nowhere.
Yes, you are pulling a 180. My mistake

[inamerica55585]

Okay. Modern judaism is a full supporter of gay marriage. I'm jewish, I should know.

I hate to say it, but homosexuality violates the principles of darwinian survival, our core instincts.

Humanity is programmed with two unstoppable core instincts
1. to eat
2. to have sex, thus continuing the race

now while sex is possible between two men or two women (though I will not describe it in detail), doing so will not result in children.

Granted, perhaps one can fulfill the sex drive or without giving birth. but doing such constitutes the most basic principle of life. I wouldn't call it irrational, because doing so would require an in-depth analysis of rationality. still, we have a duty to ourselves and to our race to extend the cycle.

I'm not homophobic. I don't think gays are stupid. they're just "programmed" a little differently in some way. <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley5.png'> <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley1.png'>

[agrajagthetesty]

I hate to say it, but homosexuality violates the principles of darwinian survival, our core instincts.

Humanity is programmed with two unstoppable core instincts
1. to eat
2. to have sex, thus continuing the race

now while sex is possible between two men or two women (though I will not describe it in detail), doing so will not result in children.
Neither will any number of other sex-related activities humans take part in. Sure, sex began as a way to continue the human race, but since then it too has evolved. To view it purely as a means of reproduction would be to ignore the fact that sex is still appealing to people even if they or their partner are using contraception, the fact that sex is still appealing to infertile people, the fact that sex is still appealing to people who don't want children, the myriad of sexual activities that cannot possibly result in conception (I will also not go into detail), the enormous sex industry and, most importantly, romantic love.

[NefretNubti]

I didnt thoroughly read all the posts, so if I have missed an important point of this debate, feel free to point it out.

first and foremost not everyone cares about what christianity says. as for sodom and ghormora, please keep in mind that there is yet to be any archiological proof that it ever happened. (if there has been some please direct me to the book/link/article)

Marriage is a legal contract first. If you dont believe me, you try doing it. In order for your marriage to be "LEGAL" you MUST go to the court house and get the paperwork then an official type person must sign it in front of witnesses. This does not necessarily involve clergy, it can be a legal person or a judge, a justice of the peace even a notary republic (one of those people with those certified stampy things). Only after the legality is officially completed then you may have the religious ceremony of your choice. Any ordained person can perform a marriage as long as there is a notary involved. An ordained person does not necessarily have to be christian.

The bit about separation of church and state is called into question because... since marriage is a legal contract first and a religious ceremony second there is NO reason for not allowing gay marriage. There is no law in the us (yet) that gayness is against the law.

Now, it is, however against christian doctrine to be gay. End of discussion. A christian church should not be expected to go against their own teachings to perform that kind of marriage. Expecting them to is ludicrous. Its not like there arent pleanty of non denominational/pagan/egyptian orthadox or reconstructionalists or wiccan priests who cant perform the ceremony ....

what gets me is why people care so much about it. No one is asking a straight person to go marry gay people ! If you are not gay you have NO REASON to protest it in the first place as no one is expecting YOU to participate in the gayness.... I mean are people afraid its like a strange pathogen/contagious disease !?? There has been gayness for EVER, since earliest records, its not going to go away.... the gov banning gay marriage IS an infringement since being gay is not illegal.

If you are christian and dont believe in gayness then you should avoid doing it yourself, after all one of the main tenants is to not judge others and to treat others as you want to be treated. Oh I think Im beating a dead horse here...

[PegasusJCrawford]

I actually didn't know before it was legalized in May in California that gays were not allowed to get married in the states....O_o

I always kinda assumed if you loved someone then you can get married to them...>.>

Discrimination based on sexuality sucks! >.<

PS. Another reason why I'm glad I'm Canadian. ^.^


And thank you so much for making this thread and having a real argument with valid points instead of the typical, "Well, Jesus said..."

[Omega]

All this topic does is remind me of how ridiculous and terrifying DW's views on social issues are.

Thank god conservatism is a dying breed.

[onidragon]

All this topic does is remind me of how ridiculous and terrifying DW's views on social issues are.

Thank god conservatism is a dying breed.

No shit dude. Obama might be the final straw against them unless they can get their shit together.

[Tatterdemalion]

All this topic does is remind me of how ridiculous and terrifying DW's views on social issues are.

Thank god conservatism is a dying breed.No shit dude. Obama might be the final straw against them unless they can get their shit together.

Post censored by DarkWarrior

[onidragon]

Post censored by DarkWarrior

OH LAWD DW'S UP TO SOMETHING.

[DarkPhoenix]

"Now, it is, however against christian doctrine to be gay. End of discussion. A christian church should not be expected to go against their own teachings to perform that kind of marriage. Expecting them to is ludicrous. Its not like there arent pleanty of non denominational/pagan/egyptian orthadox or reconstructionalists or wiccan priests who cant perform the ceremony ...."

attention God is everyone and everything therefore GOD IS GAY get over it it doesn't even say in the bible ((King James version doesn't count)) that being Gay is a sin that is all

[Omega]

Post censored by DarkWarrior

OH NO YOU DIDN'T, SISTER.

[darkarcher]

attention God is everyone and everything therefore GOD IS GAY get over it it doesn't even say in the bible ((King James version doesn't count)) that being Gay is a sin that is all

I'd like to hear how you came to this conclusion.

Also, different versions of the Bible are merely different translations, but they are still the same Bible as long as they come from the original source and are not merely a paraphrase. New International Version, New Living Translation, English Standard Version, and all other recognized official translations mention homosexuality in the same places and in the same ways. So, you would need to argue that whatever the Bible says about homosexuality is either against it or neutral, but you can't throw out a single translation because the same topics are covered in all of them.

[darkarcher]

Guys, DW didn't censor anything. If he had then it would have shown up at the bottom of the post.

Tatter was merely pointing out that the way the two of you posted was likely to get your posts censored.

[DarkPhoenix]

I'd like to hear how you came to this conclusion.

Also, different versions of the Bible are merely different translations, but they are still the same Bible as long as they come from the original source and are not merely a paraphrase. New International Version, New Living Translation, English Standard Version, and all other recognized official translations mention homosexuality in the same places and in the same ways. So, you would need to argue that whatever the Bible says about homosexuality is either against it or neutral, but you can't throw out a single translation because the same topics are covered in all of them.

King James added a lot of things that weren't in the previous translation like witches being evil >_> so I do not trust that version but anyway forget the Bible if someone is gay deal with it if they love each other let them get married

[darkarcher]

King James added a lot of things that weren't in the previous translation like witches being evil >_> so I do not trust that version but anyway forget the Bible if someone is gay deal with it if they love each other let them get married

Technically, the King James was the first English translation. There weren't any previous to that. In addition, the KJV is still considered to be one of the most accurate translations of the Bible. Its only down-side is the archaic language used in the majority of the passages.

And sorry to nitpick, but you're not debating. You're just stating fact and assuming that everyone has to agree with you.

[DarkPhoenix]

Technically, the King James was the first English translation. There weren't any previous to that. In addition, the KJV is still considered to be one of the most accurate translations of the Bible. Its only down-side is the archaic language used in the majority of the passages.

And sorry to nitpick, but you're not debating. You're just stating fact and assuming that everyone has to agree with you.

meh whatever I don't care I don't know why I came here things like this start fights

[darkarcher]

*shrugs* I have no problem with people having different opinions, but I at least want everyone to be informed so they fully comprehend their position and can properly understand the viewpoints of others as well.

Anyway, sorry to single you out like that.

[DarkPhoenix]

*shrugs* I have no problem with people having different opinions, but I at least want everyone to be informed so they fully comprehend their position and can properly understand the viewpoints of others as well.

Anyway, sorry to single you out like that.

Meh it's ok ^w^

[KuroStarr]

I'd like to hear how you came to this conclusion.

Also, different versions of the Bible are merely different translations, but they are still the same Bible as long as they come from the original source and are not merely a paraphrase. New International Version, New Living Translation, English Standard Version, and all other recognized official translations mention homosexuality in the same places and in the same ways. So, you would need to argue that whatever the Bible says about homosexuality is either against it or neutral, but you can't throw out a single translation because the same topics are covered in all of them.
I agree.

Me and my friend argue over this all the time, in the Bible it says that a man must not lay down with another man like he would with a women.
But she says in the bible it also says 'pursuit of happiness'
As far as I'm concerned--God's word is more worth than a man's damn happiness.
Like Lewis Black says, "Your walking around the camp with a turtle and shouting 'I'm in love'...I don't care who you are, you can't marry a damn turtle." It's funny 'cause its true.
It goes against the laws of nature, and marriage is usually for the protection of kids...If you have any. And homosexuals can't have babies.[duh] But its more than likely they'll want one, I bet.
Anyways, if it is approved that they can get married then about a good 4% of gays in America will get actually married.

[Omega]

God's word is more worth than a man's damn happiness.

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/1039/goddamnitmb8.jpg

[Tatterdemalion]

Me and my friend argue over this all the time, in the Bible it says that a man must not lay down with another man like he would with a women.
But she says in the bible it also says 'pursuit of happiness'
As far as I'm concerned--God's word is more worth than a man's damn happiness.
Like Lewis Black says, "Your walking around the camp with a turtle and shouting 'I'm in love'...I don't care who you are, you can't marry a damn turtle." It's funny 'cause its true.
It goes against the laws of nature, and marriage is usually for the protection of kids...If you have any. And homosexuals can't have babies.[duh] But its more than likely they'll want one, I bet.
Anyways, if it is approved that they can get married then about a good 4% of gays in America will get actually married.


Look at everything I've said over the past two pages. It is a response to what you just said.

[PegasusJCrawford]

According to the Catholic church. If it feels good, stop.

[MrsSallyBakura]

According to the Catholic church. If it feels good, stop.

Ignorant comments like that are not necessary, thank you very much.

[PegasusJCrawford]

Ignorant comments like that are not necessary, thank you very much.


Take it easy.

[leonhart321]

Ignorant comments like that are not necessary, thank you very much.

People are entiled to their own opinions on faith. They can voice them how they choose and in what way. The fact that Pegasus feels that the Catholics are depriving their patrons of pleasure is obviously their opinion AND AS SUCH, is entitled to share it in a forum that is dedicated to the discussion of said faith. Do not just write off any seemingly silly comment as just Ignorant as it may have hidden meanings that you aren't aware of.

[magick]

You all need to calm down

[PegasusJCrawford]

You all need to calm down


I'm not coming here anymore...O_o

I don't belong in a serious discussion thread because I don't know how to be serious. XD

[NefretNubti]

as a fallen away catholic, I would say there is a point to that statement, GUILT, though shalt not be happy. if you are happy you are OBVIOUSLY doing something evil. *shrug* I guess you have to be catholic to get the joke.

[MrsSallyBakura]

People are entiled to their own opinions on faith.

I know they are. It's just that I hear that kind of stuff all the time and it really bothers me that people say stuff like that. It feels like they say it because they don't understand. Plus I feel like it's a personal insult to me, even if they are joking. And even if they're joking, that had to have some serious reason to say it in the first place. I mean I wouldn't go around saying it because I honestly never felt that way.

I probably do need to calm down, as I don't rationally think about everything I post. When it comes to this kind of stuff I get offended easily because of how often I have to deal with it.

as a fallen away catholic, I would say there is a point to that statement, GUILT, though shalt not be happy. if you are happy you are OBVIOUSLY doing something evil. *shrug* I guess you have to be catholic to get the joke.

I get it, but not solely because I'm Catholic. It also has to do with hearing non-Catholics complain about it like that.

At any rate, this is getting off-topic. Is there anything really worth discussing about gay marriage anymore?

[PegasusJCrawford]

I know they are. It's just that I hear that kind of stuff all the time and it really bothers me that people say stuff like that. It feels like they say it because they don't understand. Plus I feel like it's a personal insult to me, even if they are joking. And even if they're joking, that had to have some serious reason to say it in the first place. I mean I wouldn't go around saying it because I honestly never felt that way.

I probably do need to calm down, as I don't rationally think about everything I post. When it comes to this kind of stuff I get offended easily because of how often I have to deal with it.



I get it, but not solely because I'm Catholic. It also has to do with hearing non-Catholics complain about it like that.

At any rate, this is getting off-topic. Is there anything really worth discussing about gay marriage anymore?



I was jking anyway...>.>
I am Catholic as well. O_O
Wait...I'm not supposed to be here! *runs far far away*


Oh right....gay marriage...um...*slams hands down*
LOVE IS LOVE....and stuff...

[MrsSallyBakura]

I was jking anyway...>.>
I am Catholic as well. O_O

I apologize for getting off on you (even if you weren't Catholic I'd apologize, lol). It's what happens when people don't put disclaimers... I'm just one of those people who feels attacked by everything even though in reality I know they're not trying to attack me... :/

Also some people earlier on were making one-liners so I thought I was catching onto a pattern, lol.

[Fat1Fared]

I agree.

As far as I'm concerned--God's word is more worth than a man's damn happiness.




KuroStarr, this not an insult because it is your choice, but just a question have you ever thought about the fact you are living your life on the rules of something which may or may not exist and even if does exist, has probably been badly miss-understood, as lets face it if god does exist, he is far beyong human understanding.

Also he ether has a sick sense of humour, doing something like making poeple gay and then telling them to feel bad about it,
or he doesn't really care

PS just because church says something, does not mean it is right, it also said woman are second to men, is that right too

[DarthWario]

I haven't really read the first 7 pages of this argument, so this is more of a statement or opinion.

Gay Marriage should be just as accepted as Hetero Marriage, as in essence it is the same. It is a case of two people standing and declaring their love for each other in a ceremony to bind themselves together.

If they take it seriously like marriage should there should not be restrictions to them.
Many straight marriages end quickly and devestatingly, disregarding the idea that marriage is supposed to be until death. There should be no reason why Homosexuals cannot adhere to the same ideals and creed as others. They have waited long enough for them to be accepted that they can really appreciate the gift of marriage.

[NefretNubti]

No one is really launching the scud miscile of personal attack at you. Though taking other people opinions of (insert subject matter of importance) personally and getting upset may give you an ulcer. In the end it doesn't matter what they think at all. It matters what you think and how you feel about.

I think this is a bit of a reflection on the topic itself. A group believes this way ex: no gayness. They happen to make the rules. Another group believes in gayness and wants to get married. Next thing you know, everyone feels personally attacked and as is they have to be hostile. Take a look at all the posts and you will see what I mean. Is it fair that the church wont allow it *shrug* they make the rules based on the bible (or so Im told) is it fair that the gov wont allow it, absolutely not as it shows that the government is not separated from the church. If you dont like that the church doesn't allow it, you are going to just have to a different one. There isnt much of an answer eather way at this point. As far as Catholicism goes, I cant really seeing the pope saying OK !!! Gay marriage it is ! In a perfect world, it wouldn't matter if you were gay or not, you could marry the person you wanted. Im all for gay marriage, and I believe just as strongly in DEVORCE (its a beutiful liberating thing !)

[RationalInquirer]

People who use religious justification for their loathing against homosexuals often point to this verse:

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them..

Why despise homosexuals for this and not the stoning of someone working on the Sabbath as the chapter Numbers commanded?

(Numbers 15:32) - "‘Now while the sons of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day. 33And those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation; 34and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him. 35Then the Lord said to Moses, "The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." 36So all the congregation brought him outside the camp, and stoned him to death with stones, just as the Lord had commanded Moses."

Because we pick and choose, that's why. Don't hate homosexuals, don't stone people to death for working on the sabbath. It's that simple. You can't abandon some verses and accept the others.

[MrsSallyBakura]

Just a quick thing:

When Jesus came into the world, he told some Pharisees that it was OK for people to do necessary work on Sundays.

Jesus also said to love one another, your neighbor, basically everyone.

When the Pharisees were about to stone a woman who committed adultery, Jesus told them, "He who has not sinned cast the first stone." Of course, they all dropped their stones and left the woman alone.

Not everyone who is against homosexuality hates homosexuals either.

[Animegirlzzzzzzz]

Just a quick thing:

When Jesus came into the world, he told some Pharisees that it was OK for people to do necessary work on Sundays.

Jesus also said to love one another, your neighbor, basically everyone.

When the Pharisees were about to stone a woman who committed adultery, Jesus told them, "He who has not sinned cast the first stone." Of course, they all dropped their stones and left the woman alone.

Not everyone who is against homosexuality hates homosexuals either.

Exeactly and in some cases, a homosexual might also pretend to hate others of their ilk from the closet.

[Tatterdemalion]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just a quick thing:

When Jesus came into the world, he told some Pharisees that it was OK for people to do necessary work on Sundays.

Jesus also said to love one another, your neighbor, basically everyone.

When the Pharisees were about to stone a woman who committed adultery, Jesus told them, "He who has not sinned cast the first stone." Of course, they all dropped their stones and left the woman alone.

Not everyone who is against homosexuality hates homosexuals either.

See I hate this argument, because it ignores the real point.

By being "against homosexuality" not just same sex marriage, but to be in opposition to homosexuality itself, you're saying that a person, by the very nature of their existence, is doing something wrong, in a sense saying that a person is inherently at fault by virtue of their sexual orientation.

That being said, this is really the matter that people take issue with. I don't know about you, but I don't like to be accused of doing or being something wrong when the thing that I do or am is not wrong to begin with.

Such an accusation is itself something to be taken with indignation. Whether the person making the accusation loves me or hates me is really besides the point, as it doesn't change the accusation itself.

I mean, look at it this way. If I was to say that Catholicism is wrong, and that I was opposed to Catholicism, and that Catholics are at fault for being Catholic, and then I was to say that the reason I believe this is that I'm Protestant, then adding an addendum stating that I don't hate Catholics just because they're living a life of sin would be besides the point. The point is that what I'm saying in the first place is prejudiced and unfounded, regardless of whether I feel a personal hatred towards those I'm decrying or not.

And in a sense it's even worse with homosexuality, because Catholicism is a system of practice and belief, against which someone could present a reasonable argument. Now, I'm not saying that this argument would be valid, but it could reasonably be made. In the case of homosexuality we're talking about a sexual orientation, not an idea or practice, so there's not even an argument with which the matter could be reasonably debated.

[KuroStarr]

but just a question have you ever thought about the fact you are living your life on the rules of something which may or may not exist and even if does exist
Oh, if you only knew how many. I think most human being in general want to admit there is indeed a higher being above us- and so we justify ourselves using this higher being.
Which one sounds better?:
"You can't get married because I said so."
"You can't get married because a higher being said so."
...well, both sound pretty silly- but of course the second one justifies it more.

lets face it if god does exist, he is far beyond human understanding
True. But basing on the Holy Bible, [basically dubbed by Christians: 'your guide to life', lol] a reference that god helped people/prophets write, it said that 'a man shall not lay down with another man as he would a with a women'... And I myself believe in god. And since god helped humans write the Bible- I want to believe it. The only part of the bible I really doubt is 'Genesis: The 7 day creation of the world'.

Also he ether has a sick sense of humor, doing something like making people gay and then telling them to feel bad about it,
or he doesn't really care
He cares, and he created everything to run on its own. The answer will come, eventually.

PS just because church says something, does not mean it is right, it also said woman are second to men, is that right too
I'm Mormon, and they never said anything about females being second. I guess it depends on which religion your following.

[darkarcher]

By being "against homosexuality" not just same sex marriage, but to be in opposition to homosexuality itself, you're saying that a person, by the very nature of their existence, is doing something wrong, in a sense saying that a person is inherently at fault by virtue of their sexual orientation.

I'm just going to take this little passage here and address a single thought from it.

in a sense saying that a person is inherently at fault

From the Christian standpoint, everyone is inherently flawed, as it were. Humankind, along with everyone else in the world, are sinful, evil, dirty, whatever you want to call them, and although a majority of Christians don't act like it, they aren't any different. Every person has tendencies to do both "good" things and "bad" things. Just because something is a natural tendency doesn't mean it's right.

On that note, just because someone does something wrong is no reason to condescend on that person. This is the point most Christians miss. You don't have to accept what a person does, but you can at the very least accept them as a person.

Anyway, enough dogma for now. I'm getting a tad off topic so I'll let everyone else continue.

[Fat1Fared]

Oh, if you only knew how many. I think most human being in general want to admit there is indeed a higher being above us- and so we justify ourselves using this higher being. .

Well I have said more than once, I think all god is, is a way to give meaning to meaningless and a way for most poeple to try and give reason to there existance, I personally believe there is no deeper meaning to human life

a reference that god helped people/prophets write, it said that 'a man shall not lay down with another man as he would a with a women'... And I myself believe in god. And since god helped humans write the Bible- I want to believe it. The only part of the bible I really doubt is 'Genesis: The 7 day creation of the world'. .

Well if bible was writen by man and man is floored and has less understanding than god, surely man can't help but fail to mis-understand him/her, meaning may as well not bother with bible anyway, and just try to live what YOU think is good life




Well, that is the theological equivalent to "Look over there" (run away)
and we have been waiting thousands, (if not millions) of years for the answers to life, yet non have yet come, maybe I'm impatient, but think need to look in new direction

[QUOTE=I'm Mormon, and they never said anything about females being second. I guess it depends on which religion your following .

Well that was just an example, and my point is that all religions say silly things which get rejected by other religions/society and most of time it is best not to trust any of them, just trust your own judgment, if you want to be against gay marriage that is your choice, but at lest find a better reason than "A man who has no real idea of what god (you know thing which may or may not exist) wants, told me to" I mean if he said Kill all gays as god wants that would you?

PS sorry messed up quoting again

[KuroStarr]

i pick only the parts I like about my religion I follow, enough said.

[RationalInquirer]

Just a quick thing:

When Jesus came into the world, he told some Pharisees that it was OK for people to do necessary work on Sundays.

Jesus also said to love one another, your neighbor, basically everyone.

When the Pharisees were about to stone a woman who committed adultery, Jesus told them, "He who has not sinned cast the first stone." Of course, they all dropped their stones and left the woman alone.

I guess I'm already going to have to break my promise of quoting scripture :P. Jesus was indeed an invigorating and fresh figure from the horrors of the Old Testament. He preached love, forgiveness, and the Sermon on the Mount was way ahead for his time. However, people often believe that because of the New Testament and Jesus, large portions of the Old Testament were rendered void and no longer apply. If one looks to the Bible we see this is not true at all. This is what Jesus supposedly said according to his Gospels:

Matthew 5:17-20

17 - Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

18 - For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Did Jesus state that the Old Testament Laws don't apply because of him? No. He just said that he will be adding new doctrines to the Bible. As on par with all holy books, what Jesus said will eventually be contradicted in another verse in the Bible. These verses apprently reinforces that the entire Bible-even the Old Testament-still applies.
Here is another one:

Isaiah 40:8

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Both the Old and New Testaments are said to be the Word of God. And they stand forever as dictated by the Bible, even though they contradict so many themselves so times? This is one of the core problems of using ancient scripture to support one's claims. Although Jesus was a kind and enlightened person (if he existed of course) he still did not address the other glaring issues during his time. There is no mention of abolishing slavery, granting woman equal rights, tolerance to other religions, or anything else like that in the Bible.

Not everyone who is against homosexuality hates homosexuals either.

Your right, I should have chosen a more proper term than hate.

i pick only the parts I like about my religion I follow, enough said.

This is what moderates who subscribe to the conventional faiths do all the time. If the majority religious people truly just pick and choose, then it shoudn't be difficult for them to relinquish religion altogether and stick to the philosophy, nontheism, or whatever. I'm curious, do you accept the Biblical Creation story? Or the events that the Book of Mormon details regarding the visit of Christ to the New World, and the Native aboriginals described there?

[darkarcher]

As much as I would like to get into the theology between the old and new testaments and the overall impact on Christianity by the advent of Jesus Christ, this is not the place for it.

Everyone please stay on topic.

[MrsSallyBakura]

I guess I'm already going to have to break my promise of quoting scripture :P. Jesus was indeed an invigorating and fresh figure from the horrors of the Old Testament. He preached love, forgiveness, and the Sermon on the Mount was way ahead for his time. However, people often believe that because of the New Testament and Jesus, large portions of the Old Testament were rendered void and no longer apply. If one looks to the Bible we see this is not true at all. This is what Jesus supposedly said according to his Gospels:

Matthew 5:17-20

17 - Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

18 - For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Did Jesus state that the Old Testament Laws don't apply because of him? No. He just said that he will be adding new doctrines to the Bible. As on par with all holy books, what Jesus said will eventually be contradicted in another verse in the Bible. These verses apprently reinforces that the entire Bible-even the Old Testament-still applies.
Here is another one:

Isaiah 40:8

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Both the Old and New Testaments are said to be the Word of God. And they stand forever as dictated by the Bible, even though they contradict so many themselves so times? This is one of the core problems of using ancient scripture to support one's claims. Although Jesus was a kind and enlightened person (if he existed of course) he still did not address the other glaring issues during his time. There is no mention of abolishing slavery, granting woman equal rights, tolerance to other religions, or anything else like that in the Bible.

You're right that Jesus came to fulfill, not to destroy. However I think the both of us have different definitions of what exactly that means.

The reason why both the Old and New Testaments are considered the Word of God is because we need the Old Testament in order to truly understand the New Testament. The way I see it, it's because we need to see what the law was like before Jesus came in order to understand why Jesus made changes in the first place. I mean, it's still part of Christian dogma to keep holy the Sabbath, right? Jesus didn't say, "Let's get rid of the Sabbath," but rather he added new laws to what you can do on the Sabbath. I'd call that fulfillment.

Interesting that you bring up women's rights. People say that the Bible is sexist, and I don't want to go into this too much, but think of it this way: If the Bible were sexist, why would Jesus have female friends? Why would God call women to do His will (ie Rahab, Ruth, Esther from the OT, Mary the Mother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene, Martha, Elizabeth, Anna from the NT)? Why was it that according to the Bible, 3 women first found Jesus risen from the dead instead of some men? Jesus saved a woman from being stoned to death, He conversed with the woman at the well, He obeyed his mother, etc. Granted, there is more patriarchy in the Bible but that's because that was what the society was like at that time; it doesn't have to do with God being sexist, but rather the people. Plus, in the Catholic church, women were being canonized as saints LONG before any equal rights movements that I'm aware of.

BUT that's off topic. Though now that I'm here I may as well respond to a couple other things.

By being "against homosexuality" not just same sex marriage, but to be in opposition to homosexuality itself, you're saying that a person, by the very nature of their existence, is doing something wrong, in a sense saying that a person is inherently at fault by virtue of their sexual orientation.

Not necessarily. Just to go with what the Church says, you can have this sexual orientation without actually dating anybody. The sin isn't having the temptation, the sin is actually going out and doing it. Temptation =/= sin.

I mean, look at it this way. If I was to say that Catholicism is wrong, and that I was opposed to Catholicism, and that Catholics are at fault for being Catholic, and then I was to say that the reason I believe this is that I'm Protestant, then adding an addendum stating that I don't hate Catholics just because they're living a life of sin would be besides the point. The point is that what I'm saying in the first place is prejudiced and unfounded, regardless of whether I feel a personal hatred towards those I'm decrying or not.

And in a sense it's even worse with homosexuality, because Catholicism is a system of practice and belief, against which someone could present a reasonable argument. Now, I'm not saying that this argument would be valid, but it could reasonably be made. In the case of homosexuality we're talking about a sexual orientation, not an idea or practice, so there's not even an argument with which the matter could be reasonably debated.

I quoted both paragraphs because they connect, but I only really want to comment on the second part.

Just a list of hypothetical questions: What exactly is sexual orientation? Is it something we're born with? Does it change or are you stuck with the same one forever no matter what? Is anyone ever 100% gay or 100% straight? All these questions have been asked for years by many queer theorists yet is there any kind of clear answers for them? Everyone has different opinions on what sexual orientation is and how we can apply it to our lifestyles.

I for one do believe that sexual orientation is, in fact, and idea. Not the same kind of idea as religion, but the fact that someone decided to make a term for something that cannot be fully grasped, in my opinion, makes it an idea. If you want to get grammatical, "orientation" is a noun, "sexual" being the adjective that modifies the noun. Orientation is not a person, it is not a place, and it is not a thing that can be physically grasped or fully understood. Therefore, through the process of elimination, it is an idea. You could argue that it is a thing, but a thing I think is something you can visualize in a way. Unless you get really creative, you can't draw "sexual orientation" with a pencil and paper, and even in that case someone's visual perception of sexual orientation may be completely different from yours.

I already mentioned that you can practice your sexual orientation by dating someone and being a serious relationship with that person. Though let me add this:

While studying Queer Theory in my Writing About Literature class last semester, one of the people presenting Queer Theory to the class said something like, "Having gay thoughts doesn't make you gay. You are only gay when you go out and have a romantic relationship with a member of the same gender."

The person who said this was also gay.

Long post is long, but let me end with this:

From the Christian standpoint, everyone is inherently flawed, as it were. Humankind, along with everyone else in the world, are sinful, evil, dirty, whatever you want to call them, and although a majority of Christians don't act like it, they aren't any different. Every person has tendencies to do both "good" things and "bad" things. Just because something is a natural tendency doesn't mean it's right.

On that note, just because someone does something wrong is no reason to condescend on that person. This is the point most Christians miss. You don't have to accept what a person does, but you can at the very least accept them as a person.

Thank you, good sir. This needed to be said. This needs to be said to everyone, for some people about every 10 seconds or so.

[RationalInquirer]

In a different context, let's say in a predominantly gay society ( I know none that exist though). If a gay person prevents a straight person from marrying someone else of the opposite sex, would that straight person feel discriminated and deprived of his/her rights as a human being? Of course! That is probably how the gays who are being marginalized feel about their situation these days. People against gay marriage and who do not know the lives of gay people are in no position to judge them, and vice versa.

[MrsSallyBakura]

Sally if that is true, then it is another point which proves that if God is real, he see us as nothing more than a funny experiment and that he likes to tool with us/ our emotions, aspecially as he only does it to some and not others (He gives poeple different things, then tells them it is wrong, just to see what happens, sounds like a man on a power trip to me)

You're looking at things too simply, I think. There are more options than "Oh he's just toying with us." What about Jesus being sent to Earth to die for our sins so that we have a chance to go to Heaven? And please don't say anything like, "Well what about the people who get sent to Hell?" because first of all, that's only looking at something from a negative perspective (and there are positives in life too) and secondly, none of us honestly know if anyone is sent to Hell, we just know that it exists. It is not our place as humans to determine whether or not people really deserve to go there. I myself don't think anyone goes to Hell, with the exception of people who demand that they'd be sent to Hell over Heaven in some way (I'd go into more detail about this topic but that'd take things too off topic, I think, since it's a rather long and extraneous explanation).

I also don't believe that God sends gays to Hell. I think that's preposterous. God is merciful and understands if someone refuses to believe that homosexuality is wrong.

he only does it to some and not others

May I lead you here again?

everyone is inherently flawed

So no, everybody suffers, everybody does wrong, nobody is special in this department. The physical suffering of a homeless person and the emotional suffering of someone who's chronically depressed are not all that different from each other (in and of itself, as adding in other types of suffering would complicate the example). Suffering doesn't end when you're a Christian either, but I can tell you from experience that it makes things a lot easier to get through, not because the situation itself becomes easier, but because I'm more peaceful about it and not as stressed out.

[Tatterdemalion]

From the Christian standpoint, everyone is inherently flawed, as it were. Humankind, along with everyone else in the world, are sinful, evil, dirty, whatever you want to call them, and although a majority of Christians don't act like it, they aren't any different. Every person has tendencies to do both "good" things and "bad" things. Just because something is a natural tendency doesn't mean it's right.

Yes, I am very much aware of this. It's interesting, I may agree to some extent, although I'd probbly be more inclined to disagree on many levals. Overall it's something to be discussed.

But keep in mind that everythiong you're saying there is from a religious, philosophical perspective. And that's all well and good, all the better for it. But at the same time, keep in mind that as valid and relevant as this may be in a religious setting or philosophical discussion, once you take it into the day to day world it loses that significance. The day to day world is a practical place, a pragmatic place, a material place You can view it with a philosophical lens, yes, and as such it may have philosophical meaning to you as an individual

So from the Christian standpoint that may be an accepted view, yes. But at the same time, that fact doesn't make it a valid reason for people to fire accusations into the pragmatic world. In doing so, that person is criticizing someone for a practical wrongdoing, and must have a practical reason. One person or one group's views are not universally held, so when an accusation is made that goes beyond the confines of a single group, then whatever specific meaning that would have to you in the nature of your own ideology becomes irrelevant. Or at least, it's irrelevant to those being criticized.

And I'm not necessarily saying that you yourself are doing this, but you have to admit that there are more than a few people in the world who are. So it still had to be said.

And I've heard the "the fact that something is natural doesn't make it right" argument before, but my question there is how it's necessarily relevant. That is, the fact that something is natural doesn't make it a good thing, but that doesn't automatically make it a bad thing either. That is to say, I think it's understood in day to day life that if something is not specifically a bad thing, then even if it is not "good," the absence of negative qualities makes it acceptable by default.

I mean, this is exemplified in virtually every corner of society. For example, if something isn't illegal, you're allowed to do it whether the law tells you you can or not. And in our day to day lives this is reflected as well. For example, if I wanted to grow a beard, you wouldn't tell me that I shouldn't on the grounds that "the fact that a beard is natural doesn't make growing one right," because a beard is harmless.

So while the fact that something is natural doesn't make it right, the absense of something explicitly wrong with it does make it acceptable.

However, something being natural does have something to do with the whole argument. The point is that telling someone that they should try to change, without any reasonable justification, is more of an insult and more unacceptable than telling someone to refrain from something that has no natural presence. In one case you're denying something to somone, whereas in the other you're depriving someone of something.

[Tatterdemalion]

You know, I wrote out this whole thing, then I lost it. So, as often happens to me, this is a second draft.

Not necessarily. Just to go with what the Church says, you can have this sexual orientation without actually dating anybody. The sin isn't having the temptation, the sin is actually going out and doing it. Temptation =/= sin.


Yes, but at the same time this is only really valid within the context of Catholicism. That is to say, what you're saying is that it's okay to be anti-homosexual in a sense, because it's possible to be homosexual to an extent and still be in accordance with the standards set by the Church, provided one behaves a certain way. Now, that might be a reasonable argument to be made when talking about Catholic homosexuals. But at the same time, many, probably most homosexuals are not Catholic. So you're saying that you're justified in being anti-homosexuality, referring to homosexuality in people of all walks of life, because Catholic homosexuals can still be accepted by the Church so long as they behave a certain way...

Is it just me or does that sound rather biased? I hope that's not what you actually mean, and that this is just some communication failure. I mean, how do the rules by which a person belongs to a particular religion justify an attitude towards people outside of the context of that religion? Does it really matter if a person doesn't follow the rules of an organization they don't belong to?

And also on this point, can someone explain to me how, when applied to everyone, not just the members of a single religion, the idea that homosexuals shouldn't date people of the same gender makes any sense whatsoever?

I mean, supposedly it's a temptation, and having a temptation doesn't mean you have to act on it, I've got that part. But at the same time how is acting on the temptation to enter into a same sex relationship any more wrong than acting on the temptation to watch an episode of Gilligan’s Island? Or the temptation to ear a Klondike bar? Or the temptation to read a book? What is it that qualitatively makes this one thing so supposedly indecent?

Thanks in advance.

I for one do believe that sexual orientation is, in fact, and idea. Not the same kind of idea as religion, but the fact that someone decided to make a term for something that cannot be fully grasped, in my opinion, makes it an idea. If you want to get grammatical, "orientation" is a noun, "sexual" being the adjective that modifies the noun. Orientation is not a person, it is not a place, and it is not a thing that can be physically grasped or fully understood. Therefore, through the process of elimination, it is an idea. You could argue that it is a thing, but a thing I think is something you can visualize in a way. Unless you get really creative, you can't draw "sexual orientation" with a pencil and paper, and even in that case someone's visual perception of sexual orientation may be completely different from yours.


Keep in mind that this is really more of a semantic argument than anything to do with the content of what I was saying.

And I know my grammar, so I could show you the error that you're making.

The problem is that while sexual orientation is an abstract noun, and not a physical thing, the fact that it is abstract does not mean that it only exists as an idea. You are ignoring the fact that while not a concrete noun, and thus not a person place or object, it is not, by process of elimination, an idea. An abstract noun can also be a quality or characteristic.

So "sexual orientation" does not refer only to the concept of sexual orientation, but also refers to the quality of being heterosexual or homosexual. And heterosexual and homosexual are adjectives. And adjectives describe nouns.

And keep in mind that an abstraction is not the same as an idea. An abstraction is a non-physical representation of something, but that something still has to exist in the world, and thus has real world meaning, rlevance, effect and significance beyond that of a view held by someone.

Now what does that have to do with anything that I said?

And one more thing

The sin isn't having the temptation, the sin is actually going out and doing it. Temptation =/= sin.

And keep in mind, to call someone a sinner is an accusation. That is to say, a particular word might have a particular meaning within the context of your religion, and to you may seem perfectly reasonable, but once you take it out of a religious context what you're doing is using inflammatory language to make a blanket statement about a group of people. People who, in many cases, do not necessarily share your worldview, even if they understand it, and would not recieve such a statement as well as you would.

Just something to be considered.

[Fat1Fared]

KuroStarr, that is my point, if going to pick and choose your religions like a pick a-mix, why bother with the religion in first place, just believing in your god should be enough, forget all silly rules and live what YOU think is good life, and this is coming from a NON-BELIEVER

[QUOTE=]Not necessarily. Just to go with what the Church says, you can have this sexual orientation without actually dating anybody. The sin isn't having the temptation, the sin is actually going out and doing it. Temptation =/= sin.=QUOTE]

Sally if that is true, then it is another point which proves that if God is real, he see us as nothing more than a funny experiment and that he likes to tool with us/ our emotions, aspecially as he only does it to some and not others (He gives poeple different things, then tells them it is wrong, just to see what happens, sounds like a man on a power trip to me)

If link this back to point, I will make a point I have said before, god made gayness, so ether he is sick or just doesn't actually care about it in that way

Sally, I have to say that you miss out all good points I make and go against only one which is weak, but neverless valid and lets face it, this is proven by fact I didn't just take view he is toying with us, I said he could be toying with us (big different in that line) or he just doesn't care, as truth is church was not against gayness for religion, but for practical reasons

Try looking at everything I have said together and you will see a much bigger picture

"none of us honestly know if anyone is sent to Hell, we just know that it exists."

PS not to be a hepatic and pick on one line, but that is a strong, but foolish thing to say, I mean that just proves my point, we all Know NOTHING, we just have lots of poeple who THINK they know SOMETHING

[JesusRocks]

I would like to reiterate my colleague's note about staying on topic.

This thread is not the religious discussion thread, nor is it about suffering. I have just spent about an hour and a half reading through this thread, and in the past couple of pages, I have seen very little talk about the actual topic, Same-Sex Marriage.

Guys, please keep any diversion from the topic short and passing.

On that note, I notice I only saw one reference to discrepancies in the field of psychology here. Most people seem to be taking the extreme grounds of "homosexuality is a complete choice" or "homosexuality is uncontrollably genetic".

From a Psychology standpoint, there are often many different types of approaches to these issues, be it Physiological, Cognitive, Psychodynamic etc... and also that each approach in and of itself is very stuck to it's own view. Sometimes this can be a good thing, and many times liberalism can do more harm than good on certain subjects, however I feel that liberalism in the field of psychology can be a good thing, since it would help people to study humanity more effectively if they looked at arguments from both the genetic and environmental standpoint, and agreeing that both have an important part to play in almost every psychological subject area.

Now, after that short prelude, on to the topic of homosexuality. I personally do not believe it to be a choice on the level of "Do I want to be attracted to women or other men" (or vice versa). Nor do I believe it to be completely and totally a learned response from one's environment. Nor to I believe it to be wholly genetic, or wholly physiological.
Instead I believe it may be a mix of these. Allow me to explain, we all are aware (at least to some extent) that many changes to a persons physiology and personality happen at the onset and throughout the duration of puberty. On the issue of homosexuality, what if the onset of puberty is when a person's body goes through the motions of finding out whether a person will be gay or not.

I know a girl who was straight and completely attracted to boys at the start of her teens, later she became a hard-line lesbian and completely attracted to girls. Later on she conceded that she might be bisexual because she became attacted to boys again, and then went again to hard-line lesbian, and then finally settling on being completely straight by the end of her teenage years.

I would consider that birth is not the time at which it is decided whether a person is straight or not, so in a sense it cannot be wholly and completely genetic. Also, a person often does not have control over what type of person they are attracted to, so it cannot be wholly and completely learned.

However, during puberty, our environments and our outside stimulii do play an important role in influencing us, moreso than later or earlier in life. So in that sense, a person's homosexuality or lack thereof could be due to outside stimulii and choices which arise around the onset of puberty, when people genetically tend to become curious. Thus both genetics and environment working hand in hand to latterly decide a person's personality and sexuality.
Or maybe there might be a different combination of these things similar to that which I have mentioned, or even completely different. I do not know, I am not an expert in this area, I am a lawyer.

Therefore on to homosexual marriage, in part I agree with DW's legal reasoning on the subject. That certain legal benefits should apply to the appropriate circumstances. Obviously if one believes that homosexual couples should not adopt, then your viewpoint might be that child-benefits for such couples would be irrelevant and/or a waste of resources or entitlement. Likewise, if you are in favour of same-sex couple's adoption, then child-benefits become a serious consideration and entitlement when and if such a need arises.
I also take Killshot's earlier point about the substantial evidence which supports DW's claim that a stable husband and wife unit appears to be a better environment for a child to grow up in than a male-male or female-female unit.

Take from these what you will.

However, I also agree that Marriage does not necessarily equal Reproduction, and likewise that Reproduction does not always happen within Marriage (an unfortunate development these days - mainly because outside of marriage there is no legally binding contract or even a definitive personal committment which connects the two people, thus implying that the relationship can dissolve for any reason at any given time - not a particularly stable arrangement)

In light of that, I would see no problem for a State to be able to marry same-sex couples the same as opposite-sex couples, the fact that churches do not wish to is irrelevant. In the UK same-sex couples can get a Civil Partnership, which is the legal portion of the marriage less the religious ceremony.
Since I believe in God I find removing the religious ceremony from the legal portion deeply unsettling, but people do still wish to get married to each other, and Civil Partnerships are not only for homosexual couples, but heterosexual ones as well... It makes a certain bit of sense that two people who do not believe in God should not be forced to make their vows before Him.

It is, after all, their choice to believe or not.

However, from the Christian standpoint, the Marriage agreement is and has always been an agreement between three people; the husband, the wife, and God, to live together in close relationship, the two people's relationship with each other being built on the foundation of God.
In Trinitarian terms, this creates a beautiful analogy of the Trinity (One God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit). One Relationship: God, Husband and Wife. Each connected to the other by the Holy Spirit.
And so when the Bible says that Adam and Eve became one, in marriage (consumated by sexual intercourse) they became one entity before God.

It is the same in Law as well, two individual people get married and become one legal entity.

Also, on a side-note:
One user mentioned that Jesus never tackled other glaring issues of His day, namely tolerance of other religions
Just to reply to that specific point:
- Jesus believed Himself to be the only way to a right relationship with God. In Christian theology, as God Himself, Jesus would obviously not advocate tolerance (in the context implied) of other religions, because the other religions would therefore not be following God. And, if as He states in the Old Testament (repeated in the NT - see Revelation), He truly is the only God, then the people of other religions would therefore be following something false.

And thus ends my imput.

[Fat1Fared]

JesusRocks, this is about Same Sex marrriage, which comes down to is church right to stop it, and this means that we HAVE to look at the validity of the church, and religion in order to get any where, not getting off topic just taking a detour lol

Also, as for psychology of it all, well good points, but I will stay away from psychology of it, as if the "experts" do not know, the answer to this question which is suppose to be science what chance do I have , (not saying I don't have theories, but I know I do not know enough here to voice an opinion)

Just one other point, you say it makes you uneasy to have marriage without religion, well not everyone wants religion, I know you can say, well what is point then, but there are lot of economical reasons, social reasons, and finally may just want a day to celebrate your love, but not have any religious reason behind that

EDIT for under me

rational, agree with all you put there, aspecially part about religion being a poor reason to judge gays (I mean its says do not judge people, and yet it is one of the most judgmental things out there) and also that all judges, Religious or not, should use the same shoes test

[RationalInquirer]

I would like to reiterate my colleague's note about staying on topic.

This thread is not the religious discussion thread, nor is it about suffering. I have just spent about an hour and a half reading through this thread, and in the past couple of pages, I have seen very little talk about the actual topic, Same-Sex Marriage.

Guys, please keep any diversion from the topic short and passing.

JesusRocks, although I respect your opinion, and see too that the thread has somewhat detracted from the main point, to echo Fat1Fared, it is inevitable to have a discussion of same sex marriage without mentioning religion or sin. Religion is one of several reasons why the world is so adamantly opposed against homosexuality and same sex marriage. But we all often have a knack for compartmentalizing subjects that we don't agree with, don't we?

Homosexuals are accused of being unholy sinners. Marriage is supposedly strengthened and blessed by God. Ironcally, the divorce rate remains the same regardless of your beliefs/non beliefs. Marriage between two homosexuals is apparently an act of sin. In fact, if you are an adherent to Christianity, being born into this world already makes you a sinner. I compare it to being charged for a dinner that I didn't order.

In my opinion, sin does not exist. The term 'sin' was coined by the people who brought about the creation of Christianity. I think that the concept of sin is probably the only main defining point that differentiates Christanity from every other religion that ever existed. The Bible tells us that sin originated because of Adam and Eve and, according to St. Augustine of Hippo, sin was passed throughout the generations through the semen (how does he know that?). Then Christ arrives and redeems us of the past sins and strangely enough, all future sins as well. Although the New Testament has verses that describe the awe of nature and creation, it's central doctrine still revolves around sin. sin, sin, sin, and sin. That we must follow Christ to repent for comitted sins at the start birth until you die. Thus, according to Bible, if your a homosexual you are a particularly sinful sinner.

I do not view humanity in a fallen state below the eyes of a God as Christians do. And I certainly don't regard homosexuals as being inferior to myself in anyway or 'sinning' more than the rest of us. We should not inhibit their right to marriage simply because of Bronze Age religions. However, if one doesn't approve of same sex marriage not due to his beliefs but because of personal prejudices, then that person should stop and contemplate what it would be like in their shoes, to be discriminated upon because of private lifestyles. Or as mentioned in my previous post, think what it would be like if gays (however unlikely) prevented straight people from marriage.

[Tatterdemalion]

I also take Killshot's earlier point about the substantial evidence which supports DW's claim that a stable husband and wife unit appears to be a better environment for a child to grow up in than a male-male or female-female unit.


However keep in mind that killshot never actually said what this evidence was, how it was gathered, or where he got it from, so we have no was to establish the veracity or reliability of his sources.

Not that I'm accusing killshot of being unable to do research, but if we're talking about hard evidence I'd like to see it for myself before I accept it.

I mean, I do stand convicted that the two parent, bi-gender notion of parenting as a model for the family unit is something far more exclusive to our time and popular consciousness than a requirement for psychological health.

Now, on the subject of same sex parenting I myself have not been able to find substantial, reliable evidence to suggest that two parents of the same gender pose some sort of risk to the mental health and well being of a child.

I have, however, found several articles that suggest the contrary.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/341

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html

Also this is a very significant one. To be honest, this is the comprehensive meat and potatoes study, so if you're going to take only one thing seriously, this should be it.

http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/docs/Justice_Child_Development.pdf

Also there are a handful of other articles of this ilk, however they are only accessible online by subscription. I mean, the abstracts coincide, but there's no sense in linking if you can't read the article itself.

Now, these are articles from objective, reliable sources. Although the APA one isn't a report or anything, so you can even ignor that one if you want. Virtually all anti-same-sex parenting articles I found, however, were questionable syntheses of information presented by political advocacy groups.

So I must say, I'm not terribly sure what it is killshot was referring to.

[JesusRocks]

I admit I didn't look into the background behind killshot's post there... I thought I would just mention it in passing as an interesting point.

The main reason being that I do trust killshot on that lol... I don't believe he would have posted that without having done research, but it is an interesting point nonetheless...

However, I am aware from a cognitive developmental approach, males do have a different parenting style to females... the fathers generally tending to be more playful and the mothers more serious... it could be possible that there is a healthy balance there.

However, that's the case for heterosexual couples, I have no idea how this would play out in homosexual couples, or even whether there is any noticeable difference.

[killshot]

Well, it appears I have become the topic of discussion while I was away. I vaguely remember having this argument with DarkWarrior, but I do remember my intentions behind the statement I made that everyone seems to be referencing now.

To give some background on the previous discussion, I had dismissed what DarkWarrior was saying about same-sex couples being better parents out of hand, simply because I thought of DarkWarrior as being overly conservative and not willing to accept same-sex couples due to a religious belief. As the debate went on, I decided that I had better bring some real evidence into my argument so I did some research. I was surprised to discover various articles that indicated traditional couples were better suited to raising children than same-sex couples. I wouldn't say that these articles were definitive by any stretch of the imagination, but the fact remained that the evidence did exist. My remark that everyone seems to be talking about was more of an apology to DarkWarrior for ignorantly dismissing his arguments just out of principle.

That being said, I don't think there is enough evidence to conclude that a traditional family is any better than a same-sex couple at raising children. For one, this is an extremely difficult subject to get reliable data from. There are innumerable factors involved in child rearing and it is difficult to say which effects correlate to which causes. These studies take a very long period of time to complete and many times the results are almost impossible to determine.

Another problem I had when conducting my search was finding non biased experiments. I refused to seriously consider the results I found on websites that seemed to have a political agenda, whether it leaned left or right. I unfortunately do not have any recollection of the sources I used, but I can say that I had access to my university's scientific research database and I made full use of it.

Hopefully this cleared up some of the ambiguity concerning my previous statement.

[Kanariya674]

If gays want to go to the dark side, let them.

But seriously, I think the definition of 'marriage' is so varied across the globe, that depending on their definition, the opinion of the topic is going to change.

For example, me; I see marriage as a legal union between two people. To me, marriage determines financial differences and basically in general things concerning legality and the law. To others, marriage is a union between two people spiritually as well. The law only binds it further. I agree with that - I wouldn't marry someone unless I loved them.

I usually don't incorporate religion with marriage. I'm no expert, and I don't know if the idea of marriage came about because of religion. When people come up to me and say, 'marriage is sacred, and only between a man and a woman', I can't find myself to agree with them. If two people, regardless of gender, want to get married, I think they should be allowed. If they want to live together, and be in ways financially dependent on one another, I think they should. The idea of limiting marriage because of gender isn't fair to me.

Plus, I don't see heterosexuals taking marriage seriously, both in the past and now. If marriage was so sacred, the divorce rate wouldn't be so high. We're all people; homosexuals aren't a different species. They love like heterosexuals, and experience emotions like them. To deny them marriage is to deny them freedom.

And then everyone wants to argue about religion and how it concerns marriage. I want to get married, but I am by no means religious. Marriage and religion have separated over the years, and I think it will continue.

On an extra note, I believe gays can raise children too. They are mentally capable, and just because they are gay doesn't mean the children will be too. Now, I'm not calling homosexuals saints; it just really depends on the person. It's just so irrelevant to me, the sexual orientation of the parents. However, I believe several homosexual couples could do a much better job raising kids than a heterosexual one. The same vice versa. It just depends.

[HolyShadow]

Plus, I don't see heterosexuals taking marriage seriously, both in the past and now. If marriage was so sacred, the divorce rate wouldn't be so high. We're all people; homosexuals aren't a different species. They love like heterosexuals, and experience emotions like them. To deny them marriage is to deny them freedom.


Personally, I believe that divorce should be between a man and a woman-- after all, it said so in the bible!

DENY ALL HOMOSEXUALS DIVORCE! It's unholy for two women to divorce each other.

Marriage? Wut? Oh, that's fine.

[Nutty]

Marriage is a civli right, the bible is supposed to be a book of respect and love, not HATE, my Aunt can not get married here in California because Prop 8,

[nikz]

Having read the section of leviticous (did i spell that right) which basically forbids homosexuality, bestiality ect ect i can honestly say that "GOD" has no problem with two men getting married it just forbids a man to lie with another man as he would a woman. ie gays can get married they just have to sleep in different beds.

If any one actually has a verse that they would like to quote to prove me wrong please be my guest (but make sure you reference it).

Also every thing that i have found (in the bible) forbidding homosexuality is in the old testament. So i would say it should be the Jewish faith who would have the biggest problem but all we here about is the Christians who supposedly follow the new testament more than the old one.

Also (according to John Stewart (may not be factual)) the same chapter which forbids you from being gay also forbids you from eating sea food.

So as some one said a couple of pages ago let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

[OverMind]

Having read the section of leviticous (did i spell that right) which basically forbids homosexuality, bestiality ect ect i can honestly say that "GOD" has no problem with two men getting married it just forbids a man to lie with another man as he would a woman. ie gays can get married they just have to sleep in different beds.

Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of marriage?

[HolyShadow]

Marriage is supposed to be about love, not sex. Sex goes along with love, ideally, so it only defeats half of the purpose.

[maisetofan]

well actually i know a gay guy from the states who says he loves the jewish faith cuz it welcomed him in without any prejudice so yeah

[mystra]

the whole problem with this is that the government/state is supposed to stay out of religious ordeals. people make same sex marriage about religion. religious views on the subject are and OPINION and nothing more and the government should have no say in the matter.

personally i know a kid who's known he was gay since he was 6. the kid is now 16...the most ironic part of this is that he comes from a strict traditional roman catholic family, was home taught (still is), and has never so much as even watched television. given the family's extreme lifestyle this only goes to show that their GOD made the boy the way he is.

[Ishikawa Oshro]

Having read the section of leviticous (did i spell that right) which basically forbids homosexuality, bestiality ect ect i can honestly say that "GOD" has no problem with two men getting married it just forbids a man to lie with another man as he would a woman. ie gays can get married they just have to sleep in different beds.

If any one actually has a verse that they would like to quote to prove me wrong please be my guest (but make sure you reference it).

Also every thing that i have found (in the bible) forbidding homosexuality is in the old testament. So i would say it should be the Jewish faith who would have the biggest problem but all we here about is the Christians who supposedly follow the new testament more than the old one.

Also (according to John Stewart (may not be factual)) the same chapter which forbids you from being gay also forbids you from eating sea food.

So as some one said a couple of pages ago let he who is without sin cast the first stone.


yea. your contexts are all wrong.

The he cats the first stone was because the people wanted a woman to eb put to death for lying with another man. And Jesus said he has has never sinned cast the first stone. that was the mandates of the old law. Jesus was ushering the new covenant which is one of peace.

And the homosexual scripture is also in the new testament also.

Then there is homosexuality which likewise is condemned in Scripture. The Apostle Paul, writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares that homosexuality "shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (I Corinthians 6:9; 10). Now Paul does not single out the homosexual as a special offender. He includes fornicators, idolators, adulterers, thieves, covetous persons, drunkards, revilers and extortioners. And then he adds the comment that some of the Christians at Corinth had been delivered from these very practices: "And such were some of you: But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God" (I Corinthians 6:11). All of the sins mentioned in this passage are condemned by God, but just as there was hope in Christ for the Corinthians, so is there hope for all of us.

Homosexuality is an illicit lust forbidden by God. He said to His people Israel, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13). In these passages homosexuality is condemned as a prime example of sin, a sexual perversion. The Christian can neither alter God's viewpoint nor depart from it.

In the Bible sodomy is a synonym for homosexuality. God spoke plainly on the matter when He said, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel" (Deuteronomy 23:17). The whore and the sodomite are in the same category. A sodomite was not an inhabitant of Sodom nor a descendant of an inhabitant of Sodom, but a man who had given himself to homosexuality, the perverted and unnatural vice for which Sodom was known. Let us look at the passages in question:

But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house around, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

And 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.

And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

Behold 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. (Genesis 19:4-8)

The Hebrew word for "know" in verse 5 is yada`, a sexual term. It is used frequently to denote sexual intercourse (Genesis 4:1, 17, 25; Matthew 1:24, 25). The message in the context of Genesis 19 is clear. Lot pled with the men to "do not so wickedly." Homosexuality is wickedness and must be recognized as such else there is no hope for the homosexual who is asking for help to be extricated from his perverted way of life.

I pretty sure the GOD of the bible clearly says its not okay. Its a perversion of his creation born with it or not.

Im not KILL the gays but I dislike people representing views wrongly.

[Apple]

well i do not think you can judge what a persons views are by what religious stance they choose to take, Example being jewish, christian or catholic etc

[OverMind]

well i do not think you can judge what a persons views are by what religious stance they choose to take, Example being jewish, christian or catholic etc

That doesn't make sense.

If one take's a religious stance, don't their views correspond with that religion?

[HolyShadow]

Not necessarily. That's why there are homosexual christians.

[OverMind]

Not necessarily. That's why there are homosexual christians.

Cafeteria Christianity?

[maisetofan]

thats very ignorant overmind, and not being a christian you would not understand the logic of loving everyone equally, regardless of sexual affiliation

[OverMind]

thats very ignorant overmind, and not being a christian you would not understand the logic of loving everyone equally, regardless of sexual affiliation

Because, you know, Christians are the only ones capable of loving their fellow human beings equally.

Atheists are, apparently, flawed because they are incapable of doing so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism).