Gay Marriage

[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.htm

You 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.