Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Illithian

Same sex marriage?

Recommended Posts

Most people are born with mental insanity.

I'm going to assume that that's a typo. Otherwise you're saying that most people are mentally insane.

They cannot help being insane. If they kill somebody, should they be pardoned simply due to their mental health?

Yes. The Supreme Court has ruled you can't execute those with mental retardation.

source

And as Greencat said, those people with mental retardation shouldn't be roaming the streets. It's largely a non-issue.

Now read about the gay gene, it's all over the place in Google. Scientifically backed up.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus3.htm

Did you even read that? That in no way confirms a gay gene. In fact, it casts doubt on it.

And I don't know why I should take many of those people at their word. James Dobson isn't someone I'd trust about the causes of homosexuality, because he has a very obvious anti-gay agenda to push.

2. That's twins, though, what if you don't have twins?

The point is that two wins share the same genes and that if one is gay the other is likely to be gay. But I'd like to see the original study to see how truthful it realy is.

What if they want to get married in a Catholic Church and they don't belive in it? Can they sue them, but if they do, what about freedom of religion?

Catholic, or any church or other religious institution, can marry or not marry whoever they want. They can deny a straight, white couple if they want. All those people have to do is walk down to the courthouse and pay a small fee for a judge to do it.

That same legal option should be available to any two consenting adults wishing to get the legal benefits of marriage. And ideally, religious institutions can marry anyone or no one, but their marriages will have no legal standing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like more stuffs happened while I was gone...

___

While Jim Crow laws are dealing with a specific race of people, the basic idea is the same.

"Separate but equal" is not equal. Forcing a same sex couple to have something other than marriage is discrimination, especially when civil unions do not always give all the benefits of marriage.

Marriage itself is not a religious thing. Religion can have no place in a marriage at all. (Especially considering Atheists marry all the time without any religious ceremonies being there. And that marriage was around before the Church.)

It is up to the specific Church/Priest/whoever is in control of religious ceremonies for marriage if they want to go through it or not. If they don't want to, fine, there ARE places where the Church lets you have same sex marriages, the couple can go to one of those or just have a marriage without the religious ceremony. I agree that religious groups should not be forced to do ceremonies on anyone.

And the whole ex-gay thing... Ever heard of ex-ex-gays? Seriously, the whole ex-gay thing is ridiculous. They go to these orientation camps to try and change their sexuality, sometimes forced to do so by parents against their will... Since sexuality cannot be changed, they either go into denial and pretend to be straight with a possibility of coming to terms with their sexuality and coming out again to become ex-ex-gays, or stay openly gay. Then there ARE those few who get so stressed out about it that they commit suicide because they just can't become straight and are so dissappointed with themselves as mentioned earlier... Reminds me of this one story, let me see if I can find it and check if it has any relevance.

... Also reminds me of the T-Shirt with the saying "I'm just pretending to be gay for all the social benefits it brings". I honestly don't think ANYONE would seriously pretend or "choose" to be gay if it were possible. Even if they were in a place were being gay is as normal as being straight, I see no reason for them to want to change their sexuality from straight to gay.

There must be something during the person's life that makes them homosexual. Now, I think there are a few things that might qualify for that:

A. If a person develops an abnormal dislike of their father.

B. If a person never goes to sex ed or never has a sex talk with their parents, so they learn from their friends

C. If a person's mother dies, so a person loves their father as their mother

A. There are plenty of people who hate their same sex parent and are straight... Wouldn't hating the same sex parent make you like the opposite sex more if this was true?

B. I don't think going to sex ed is required to know if you're straight. Sex ed is basically teaching how sex works, why it's done, and how to keep safe... This just seems kinda silly. Straight people who never go to sex ed. know they're straight, and have known since practically puberty, or before it. (Taking into account third-fifth grade crushes and such.) I don't think seeing "A+B=babies" would make potentionally homosexual people go

"Ohhh. this is how I should be." Maybe more like: "What!? I'm supposed to like THEM? Oh yeah, everyone else does...But why don't I have feelings for them yet?...*denialdenial*"

C. So you're saying that seeing their father as being a bit feminine or viewing them as a maternal figure makes a male gay? If anything, the death of a maternal figure would cause them to be around their ultra manly father for ultra manly father-son bonding all the time so he can learn to be an ultra manly stereotypical man. :P

Seriously though, all joking aside, the reasons you gave were very... amusing, I guess. I'd say funny, but that sounds insulting, and I'm not aiming for that. You know what I mean?D:

I know people who turn up gay that have not gone through ANY of that, and have been pressured to go through their lives as straight. "Be more manly/womanly!" "Wear this! It's manly/ladylike!" "You're not a *insert opposite gender*!"

And I don't mean in a constantly annoying way, but anytime that the person would be seeming to act queer, the parent would comment on it and try to correct it, but the person still ended homosexual. Both parents there, clear gender roles of the parents, but still gay. There are also many instances of those events happening and the kids turning up straight.

(Just wondering, but what's with people with just mentioning male homosexuality? Lesbians seem like a minority of a minority here.o-o)

it can only be ignored as much as possible, and love can allow someone to ignore homosexual impulses.

I agree with the first part, but I kind of doubt a homosexual can feel romantic love for someone of they opposite gender. If they do, then they're bisexual, which greatly helps with pretending to be straight and ignoring "bad" impulses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While Jim Crow laws are dealing with a specific race of people, the basic idea is the same.

"Separate but equal" is not equal. Forcing a same sex couple to have something other than marriage is discrimination, especially when civil unions do not always give all the benefits of marriage.

Again, you're assuming that marriage is a right guaranteed by the constitution or some other such document. Only churches have the right to agree or refuse to marry a couple.

Marriage itself is not a religious thing. Religion can have no place in a marriage at all. (Especially considering Atheists marry all the time without any religious ceremonies being there. And that marriage was around before the Church.)

It wasn't around before God... who... kind of... founded the church.

It is up to the specific Church/Priest/whoever is in control of religious ceremonies for marriage if they want to go through it or not. If they don't want to, fine, there ARE places where the Church lets you have same sex marriages, the couple can go to one of those or just have a marriage without the religious ceremony. I agree that religious groups should not be forced to do ceremonies on anyone.

Relating to my first point, then how do you expect to guarantee homosexuals the right to marry, if you're not going to force churches to marry them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This country was pretty much founded on letting everyone have equal rights... Religious freedom, including the right to have a lack of a religion...

Even if it wasn't, it's a good thing to let everyone to have equal rights and a chance at marriage. And it's STILL discrimination. Discrimination against race wasn't in the constitution until after the discrimination took place.

(What about not discriminating based on gender, (Fourteenth Amendment I think it was?) and right to the pursuit of happiness and all that? I've heard that being in the Bill of Rights a dozen times but I can't seem to find a source for it.)

Edit:"How does Gerstmann defend a constitutional right to gay marriage? First, he insists that we think in terms of “fundamental rights” that apply to all. We should focus on rights we all have in common, not rights that apply to specific groups because they have been discriminated against. If gays have a right to marry, it is be because we all have a right to marry that must be protected equally and consistently.

That, in the end, is what Gerstmann argues: gays have a right to marry because we all have a right to marry. The Supreme Court has consistently held that marriage is a fundamental right (it was, in fact, the first right identified as such)."

Probably makes more sense than my rambling does.

I get your point about God, through Jesus, founding the Catholic Church, but that's just one religion. Why should we base laws that deal with people's rights around a religion? And why THAT specific religion? You may believe yours is right, but people practicing others believe theirs are right also, and not all religions are against homosexuality.

Currently, religion is separate from the state, the laws... A religion in itself shouldn't be the reason to pass a law.

And, there's a difference between a marriage done by a courthouse or whatever [forgive me, I never looked into how marriage actually takes place legally] and the RELIGIOUS CEREMONY.

One can fill out the papers and hold their own party without religion being part of it. It'll still be a legal marriage, and be the same except for the priest at the alter...

A religious Catholic marriage requires the priest being there. Since I don't want to force religions to go against their own beliefs, I'm not going to force a priest to be there and do his thing... If a priest is willing to carry out a homosexual marriage, as I know some are, then so be it.

All I'm basically saying is homosexuals should be able to have a fully-legal-totally-unrelated-to-any-religion-marriage. If the religion doesn't mind doing their services for them, then let them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, you're assuming that marriage is a right guaranteed by the constitution or some other such document. Only churches have the right to agree or refuse to marry a couple.

It may not be guaranteed in the constitution but I think eventually it will be, I mean African Americans weren't allowed to get married until after the Civil War, Interracial marriages weren't allowed till 1967 I think. So I believe it's not a matter of 'if they should be allowed' more than 'When they will be allowed'

It wasn't around before God... who... kind of... founded the church.
Last I checked it was Jesus who founded the church. Also the concept of marriage has been around long before the church was founded. For example Egyptians got 'married' through something called a Social Bond(Legal contract) in which religion had a small role. And I'm pretty sure that back then homosexual Social Bonds were perfectly normal (at least for the Noble class) I'd have to look up it some more, but I'm pretty sure Greek society had a similar 'marriage' as well.
Relating to my first point, then how do you expect to guarantee homosexuals the right to marry, if you're not going to force churches to marry them?
No church would be forced to marry them. There are already churches that would do it without having to be forced(some with homosexual pastors too) so how would they be guaranteed the right to marry? Well just as long as all the states acknowledge it I think that would guarantee it just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Jesus didn't start any church either. He died a Jew. Every single one of the Apostles (and many disciples) stayed Jews their entire lives.

"Separate but equal" is not equal. Forcing a same sex couple to have something other than marriage is discrimination, especially when civil unions do not always give all the benefits of marriage.

Ding ding. As so put, marriage is the legal method of easily obtaining these benefits. But these benefits are denied to same sex couples.

And strangely enough, every single anti in this thread has only had religious reasoning to back it.

It really makes you wonder is there anything beyond "my religion doesn't like it" as far as the crowd that's against gay marriage goes?

And the whole ex-gay thing... Ever heard of ex-ex-gays? Seriously, the whole ex-gay thing is ridiculous.

I've yet to see a credible MD or PHD who supports trying to change homosexuals that doesn't have an agenda to push. If someone came along with a credible person or group that wasn't backed by the Christian right, that's someone I'd listen to. But until then, I'm convinced that most of these ex-gay straitening out theories are completely bogus.

Again, you're assuming that marriage is a right guaranteed by the constitution or some other such document. Only churches have the right to agree or refuse to marry a couple.

Just because it isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean it isn't a right. The reason is because the Constitution is about the federal government. The Tenth Amendment says anything not specified by the Constitution belongs to the states and/or the people. State and local government handles legal marriage.

And nothing that is provided by the government should have discrimination in it in regards to race, age, gender, religion, and sexual orientation.

It wasn't around before God... who... kind of... founded the church.

God never found a church.

Marriage has been around a lot longer than Christianity, or any of the Abrahamic religions. Edward Westermarck, author of The History of Human Marriage, theorizes that marriage evolved from ancient humans living together. The man being the protector, the woman being the caretaker of children. He provides a...well, history of marriage, which goes far back into human history and before many religions.

China dates their marriage rituals well into BC wiki article

Relating to my first point, then how do you expect to guarantee homosexuals the right to marry, if you're not going to force churches to marry them?

A legal marriage does not have to involve a church or any religion at all (and IMO religious institution's performing legal marriage is unconstituional). You go down to a government building, see a judge. It takes like 15 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, to add to my post

"The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.""

Sounds like marriage is protected there.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens...

...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

One such U.S. Supreme Court decision influenced by the Fourteenth Amendment, Brown v. Board of Education, legally ended the egregious practice of racial segregation in all jurisdictions of the United States. The decision ruled that the "separate but equal" doctrine was unconstitutional and could not stand, because separate was inherently unequal. The decision is U.S. Supreme Court legal precedent and therefore the principle that separate is inherently unequal still stands.

Which says that forcing gays to use civil unions instead of legally calling it a marriage could be considered unconstitutional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And strangely enough, every single anti in this thread has only had religious reasoning to back it.

It really makes you wonder is there anything beyond "my religion doesn't like it" as far as the crowd that's against gay marriage goes?

Dude, if not for my religion, I would be all for homosexuality, along with murder, stealing, and rape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. But that's not the point. Marriage shouldn't be regardless of gender, it should be a man and a woman. None of that sex change stuff, if you were a man, you still are one. Anyways, like I said, it's not a religious thing, it's a morality thing. It's immoral. It's very disgusting, and I don't see why they should have the right. Marriage is sacred to a man and woman, and I would hate to see that ruined by same sex marriages. Of course if two people love each other, they have the right to get married, but then what happens? Sexual orientation comes from either a gene, or environment. If a gay couple adopts a kid, the kid will live in a same sex environment and will most likely become gay. I will never approve of it. I'm sorry to those who are offended, once again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dude, if not for my religion, I would be all for homosexuality, along with murder, stealing, and rape.

The only reason you don't support murder and stealing and rape is because of your religion? You wouldn't have learned any basic human decency otherwise?

Believe it or not, people can believe in the sanctity of human life and basic human decency and respect without religion. I'm sorry that that isn't the case for you.

Marriage shouldn't be regardless of gender, it should be a man and a woman.

Why?

it's a morality thing. It's immoral. It's very disgusting, and I don't see why they should have the right.

Laws should be set because they are for the betterment of society and to protect individuals, not to become a morality police.

I guess this is just a difference of opinion. I believe in small government that gives individual freedom the highest priority and lets people make their own decisions. Let people live their lives as they please.

And you believe in Big Government that legislates morality for little more reason because "I said so."

I just don't believe the government has any place to tell me or my fellow citizens how to run our private lives.

Of course if two people love each other, they have the right to get married,

Well, you yourself just called it a right. And in a democracy, we're not about denying rights to people.

but then what happens?

They...get married?

Sexual orientation comes from either a gene, or environment.

What is this? You've been saying this whole entire time that it is 100% genetic (without ever giving a source). Now it's either that or environmental? I wonder why.

If a gay couple adopts a kid, the kid will live in a same sex environment and will most likely become gay.

Oh, that's why. So it supports this, once again something without a source.

Of course, it completely contradicts what you've been saying this entire thread. That it's genetic. And if that's what you believed, then the kid wouldn't become gay just because of his adoption.

I will never approve of it. I'm sorry to those who are offended, once again.

No one is offended. I just don't like how you're constantly making these factual statements and the closest thing to a source you've had is "Look it up."

Again, I've yet to hear a non-religious argument in support of "traditional" marriage. These two posts above are entirely backed by their religion. All you two did was change "religion" to "morals" which, as you both admitted to, were taught by your religion.

And even then, government should NOT be a morality police. We're not a theocracy and we're not a police state. If you want to live in a theocracy, you're welcome to move out of the United States and move to Iran or Saudi Arabia where religion is written into the laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again with the why question. I already explained it in the post. They adopt, convert the kid, and the immorality will continue. Not to mention, they can't bring kids to the Earth. Two men or two women can't have a baby, and that must mean sexual intercourse was meant for the opposite sex. If you don't agree, buy two magnets. Try to stick them together on the same side. They will push each other apart. The second you let go of one of them, the magnet will immediately twist around and connect with its opposite. Just goes to show you that two of the same sex, will only lead to being disliked. You see, as a metaphor, the magnet you don't let go is the world, the one that can't connect is a homosexual person. The world rejects this person for being abnormal, and will never connect if it stays the same. Sam sex marriages don't contribute to life. They can't make a baby, they can't teach a child good things, they don't deserve to be married. This is very mean, I know, but I just think it's immoral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i believe people like that have the right to be married. but the metaphor that FLOOT mentioned, is a much better way of explaining things. i'm not going to post a huge comment like everybody else, but just to show my family believes that gay people have rights, my mom goes to a gay barber, and to be honest, he's actually kinda cool. he even knows how to make music remixes. and another example-

anyone here know the ELLEN DEGENRES show? she's gay. i just can't see why people hate them. they're people like us, and they love like us. if someone is telling them that they can't express those feelings, than that's just plain wrong. and anybody that just believes they don't deserve rights because of religion, get a life and open a history book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again with the why question. I already explained it in the post. They adopt, convert the kid, and the immorality will continue. Not to mention, they can't bring kids to the Earth. Two men or two women can't have a baby, and that must mean sexual intercourse was meant for the opposite sex. If you don't agree, buy two magnets. Try to stick them together on the same side. They will push each other apart. The second you let go of one of them, the magnet will immediately twist around and connect with its opposite. Just goes to show you that two of the same sex, will only lead to being disliked. You see, as a metaphor, the magnet you don't let go is the world, the one that can't connect is a homosexual person. The world rejects this person for being abnormal, and will never connect if it stays the same. Sam sex marriages don't contribute to life. They can't make a baby, they can't teach a child good things, they don't deserve to be married. This is very mean, I know, but I just think it's immoral.

I would like you site your sources on this Floot, hearing it from your teacher/mom doesn't count here. I know of people who have been adopted by a couple of the same sex. And they haven't been turned gay, yeah they've been picked on while they went to school but only by the ignorant homophobes. Which are a small minority compared to everyone else, most people after getting to know them had no problem with their upbringing. Yeah in some cases some kids have not been able to handle getting picked on and even committed suicide, but not because their parents were gay but because of all the little homophobes who made their life impossible. But those few people do not represent the WHOLE world. Using magnets as a metaphor to explain how a kid would grow up under those sort of conditions is just stupid, you can't compare human thought process to magnets. I'm perfectly fine with same sex marriages not contributing to life, at least this way the children from traditional marriages that have been forgotten can at least have a second chance. The world is very different from what you imagine it to be floot but I guess that's one of the disadvantages of being homeschooled, you don't know how things really work. It's very mean I know, but I just think it's immoral (ignorance that is)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I already explained it in the post.

No you didn't. You made a factual statement and didn't provide any source or evidence or anything.

They adopt, convert the kid, and the immorality will continue.

Who appointed you the morality police? Furthermore, why should a government run by the people, for the people like the US have a morality police?

Not to mention, they can't bring kids to the Earth.

There are a lot of people who can't bring kids to the Earth. However, that isn't the point of a legal marriage. Otherwise, the elderly, disabled, and many more shouldn't be getting married.

two women can't have a baby

Artificial incemination.

By this logic, a sterile man and woman shouldn't be able to adopt. Because like a same sex couple, they can't have children either.

and that must mean sexual intercourse was meant for the opposite sex. If you don't agree, buy two magnets. Try to stick them together on the same side. They will push each other apart. The second you let go of one of them, the magnet will immediately twist around and connect with its opposite.

What does this have anything to do with same sex marriage or other homosexuality issues?

Again, I don't think the government should be legislating morality.

It's okay if you believe in Big Government, but that's not how I was raised.

Just goes to show you that two of the same sex, will only lead to being disliked.

No it doesn't. Just because you don't like it doesn't exclude others from liking it.

You see, as a metaphor, the magnet you don't let go is the world, the one that can't connect is a homosexual person.

No. As a metaphor, it's pretty crappy and ignores everything that differentiates a human being from a magnet.

The world rejects this person for being abnormal, and will never connect if it stays the same.

I think you're confusing "The world" with "you."

Sam sex marriages don't contribute to life. They can't make a baby,

Neither can the elderly, disabled, sterile, and many more.

But fortunately, we don't live in a theorcracy. Maybe in your form of what I presume is Christianity, the purpose of marriage is making babies.

But your religion is not law. Marriage is a legal concept done so two people can share their lives together and get many legal benefits.

And denying two consenting adults the right to marry means denying them of tax benefits, power of attorney, and many, many others, for no other reason than "I don't like it."

they can't teach a child good things,

Believe it or not, people can be good without going to Church every Sunday.

Why can't gay people "teach a child good things?"

they don't deserve to be married.

Again, you called marriage a right. Who are you to deny someone a legal right? What backing besides "I/my religion don't like it" do you have?

This is very mean, I know, but I just think it's immoral.

Again with Big Government. Why should government be the morality police? And what makes your morals better than others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only reason you don't support murder and stealing and rape is because of your religion? You wouldn't have learned any basic human decency otherwise?

Believe it or not, people can believe in the sanctity of human life and basic human decency and respect without religion. I'm sorry that that isn't the case for you.

There is no "basic human decency" without God. Where does your decency come from, I wonder?

There are a lot of people who can't bring kids to the Earth. However, that isn't the point of a legal marriage. Otherwise, the elderly, disabled, and many more shouldn't be getting married.

The point is that homosexuals, no matter what age or condition, will never be able to have children, much less raise them in a stable family environment.

By this logic, a sterile man and woman shouldn't be able to adopt. Because like a same sex couple, they can't have children either.

The difference being that a straight couple was meant to be able to have children.

But your religion is not law. Marriage is a legal concept done so two people can share their lives together and get many legal benefits.

Marriage is a union between one man and one woman designed to imitate the union between Christ and his church.

Believe it or not, people can be good without going to Church every Sunday.

Similarly, people can go to church every Sunday and still go to Hell. I'm not sure how church attendance plays into this issue.

Why can't gay people "teach a child good things?"

They could, theoretically, teach a child good things, but one thing they would teach a child is that it's okay to be gay, which it is most certainly not.

Again with Big Government. Why should government be the morality police? And what makes your morals better than others?

1. You're right, government should not have any part of marriage at all. But as long as courts are marrying people, it's necessary.

2. Who else is going to be the "morality police"? That's what police forces are for: to uphold morality.

3. "Your morals"? "Other" morals? Morals do not differ with the individual.

Edited by randomspot555

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They adopt, convert the kid, and the immorality will continue.

Gay couples creating gay kids? Just like how straight couples always make straight babies?

There is no "basic human decency" without God. Where does your decency come from, I wonder?

I'm not sure what your point is in bringing up this opinion.

The point is that homosexuals, no matter what age or condition, will never be able to have children, much less raise them in a stable family environment.

---

They could, theoretically, teach a child good things, but one thing they would teach a child is that it's okay to be gay, which it is most certainly not.

So you believe people should only marry if they intend to create more children? That that's the whole point of marriage? Deciding to make kids is something that comes with a deep and serious relationship that marriage isn't necessarily a part of. I can have a deep, serious, and loving relationship that is identical to a married couple's without actually being married.

And how will they not be able to raise them in a stable family environment? Besides being an example of gay being okay, what difference is there from straight couples? There can still be straight drunk fathers, spouse abuse, and other things that influence kids negatively from straight relationships. Only difference between these is that not everyone can agree that being gay is immoral (because this opinion stems from your religion, remove the religion, and there is no reason for it to be immoral), and that being a drunk, and abusing people are DEFINITELY negative things.

Marriage is a union between one man and one woman designed to imitate the union between Christ and his church.

Again, you're assuming marriage was invented by your religion. It wasn't. Your religion should not hold the rules for legal marriages that take place, it's not the owner of marriage. It can have rules on their own ceremonies, but nothing that has to do with legal rights. If they want to religiously unite two people before God or not is their problem, but the Church has no place in law.

1. You're right, government should not have any part of marriage at all. But as long as courts are marrying people, it's necessary.

2. Who else is going to be the "morality police"? That's what police forces are for: to uphold morality.

3. "Your morals"? "Other" morals? Morals do not differ with the individual.

More like, religion should not have any part in marriage at all. (Your Religion did NOT create marriage. Legal marriages are NOT religious in any way. Therefor, your religion should NOT control legal marriages. Their ceremonies for their own version of marriage, uniting people before God, is their business.)

2/3. Morals are NOT universal. They vary from person to person, as is obviously the case here. To MY morals, gay is fine, to YOURS, gay is sinful. Police are there to uphold the law and make sure no one gets hurt (getting people hurt goes against MOST people's morals), but as gays do not inherently hurt anyone more than anyone else, there should be nothing against them. Gays being bad is your opinion, and your morals, yet they are harmless. Police do not uphold or defend morals, they defend people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gay couples creating gay kids? Just like how straight couples always make straight babies?

Gay couples will raise children that believe being gay is okay, not neceassarily gay themselves.

I'm not sure what your point is in bringing up this opinion.

I'm asking where you get your moral standard if not from God?

So you believe people should only marry if they intend to create more children? That that's the whole point of marriage? Deciding to make kids is something that comes with a deep and serious relationship that marriage isn't necessarily a part of. I can have a deep, serious, and loving relationship that is identical to a married couple's without actually being married.

Not the whole point of marriage, but a big part of it. As for having a relationship like that outside of marriage, without the intent to ever marry, that's a whole other issue.

And how will they not be able to raise them in a stable family environment? Besides being an example of gay being okay, what difference is there from straight couples? There can still be straight drunk fathers, spouse abuse, and other things that influence kids negatively from straight relationships. Only difference between these is that not everyone can agree that being gay is immoral (because this opinion stems from your religion, remove the religion, and there is no reason for it to be immoral), and that being a drunk, and abusing people are DEFINITELY negative things.

The difference is that there is no father in a homosexual relationship.

Again, you're assuming marriage was invented by your religion. It wasn't. Your religion should not hold the rules for legal marriages that take place, it's not the owner of marriage. It can have rules on their own ceremonies, but nothing that has to do with legal rights. If they want to religiously unite two people before God or not is their problem, but the Church has no place in law.

I'm not assuming that it was invented by my religion, but it was invented by God.

More like, religion should not have any part in marriage at all. (Your Religion did NOT create marriage. Legal marriages are NOT religious in any way. Therefor, your religion should NOT control legal marriages. Their ceremonies for their own version of marriage, uniting people before God, is their business.)

Refer to my last point; God created marriage, and therefore his church and only his church should have the authority to marry anyone.

2/3. Morals are NOT universal. They vary from person to person, as is obviously the case here. To MY morals, gay is fine, to YOURS, gay is sinful. Police are there to uphold the law and make sure no one gets hurt (getting people hurt goes against MOST people's morals), but as gays do not inherently hurt anyone more than anyone else, there should be nothing against them. Gays being bad is your opinion, and your morals, yet they are harmless. Police do not uphold or defend morals, they defend people.

You're not speaking of morals, you're speaking of personal beliefs.

Also, police defend people because it's their moral duty to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no "basic human decency" without God. Where does your decency come from, I wonder?

To the bold: If you can't post in this thread without "subtly" hurling personal insults/questioning one's character, then feel free to stop posting. Consider this your absolute final warning.

And don't dodge the question. The only thing that keeps you from supporting murder and rape is your religion. That's what you said. But for some reason, I don't see a trend that those "without God" (whatever that means) are raping or killing more than those "with God."

You honestly believe those that don't follow Western religions are just godless heathens with no respect for human life?

Got it. So anyone who doesn't follow the Abrahamic religions can't have basic human decency.

Strange. I'm pretty sure there's been lots of decent, even great, human beings that weren't Christian, or even Jewish or Islamic. Like this guy or this unknown dude.

The point is that homosexuals, no matter what age or condition, will never be able to have children,

Neither are the aforementioned.

much less raise them in a stable family environment.

What's a "stable family environment"? A mother and father?

For every 2 marriages in the US, there is 1 divorce. source. So if you're worried about a "stable family environment", I'd say straight people are screwing it up just fine on their own. Why not let homosexuals do the same?

The difference being that a straight couple was meant to be able to have children.

The purpose of marriage isn't children. That has no legal basis at all. And even in religions where the purpose is ultimately to have children, like Catholicism, I've never seen a priest or reverand not marry someone because they cna't have children.

Marriage is a union between one man and one woman designed to imitate the union between Christ and his church.

That isn't the point of a legal marriage. It has nothing to do with God, your faith, my faith, etc...

Similarly, people can go to church every Sunday and still go to Hell. I'm not sure how church attendance plays into this issue.

You entirely missed the point. You've said people can't have basic human decency without God. And that the only reason you don't support rape and murder is because of your religion.

Regardless of what my religious beliefs are, I can think of plenty of logical reasons that don't involve religion on why someone wouldn't go out and rape and murder.

They could, theoretically, teach a child good things, but one thing they would teach a child is that it's okay to be gay, which it is most certainly not.

Why isn't it?

1. You're right, government should not have any part of marriage at all. But as long as courts are marrying people, it's necessary.

Haha, no, you grossly misinterperted what I said. A legal marriage and a religious marriage aren't the same. Religions can do whatever they want. But the only reasons you've bought up (and anyone else) against same sex marriage are all religious, something that doesn't belong in a democracy.

2. Who else is going to be the "morality police"? That's what police forces are for: to uphold morality.

No. Police are to uphold the law. Laws aren't based off of any type of religious beliefs or morals. They're based off the need to protect individuals and their liberty.

3. "Your morals"? "Other" morals? Morals do not differ with the individual.

Yeah, they can. For example, I see same sex marriage as a legal issue. You see it as a religious issue, because you've only bought up religion in support of your views. But laws aren't meant to reflect religious belief. They're meant to protect everyone.

Again, it's fine that you and others are for Big Government that should tell you how to live and who to have sex with and all that stuff. But I'm for individual liberty. And I fail to see how giving homosexuals the same rights such as the right to not be discriminated against, the legal benefits of two consenting adults in a legal marriage, is harmful to anyone.

---------- Post added at 06:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:15 PM ----------

Gay couples will raise children that believe being gay is okay, not neceassarily gay themselves.

What's wrong with being gay?

Not the whole point of marriage, but a big part of it. As for having a relationship like that outside of marriage, without the intent to ever marry, that's a whole other issue.

Legal marriage != religious marriage.

The difference is that there is no father in a homosexual relationship.

There's lots of absent straight fathers too. But I don't see you campaigning against that.

I'm not assuming that it was invented by my religion, but it was invented by God.

Prove it.

Refer to my last point; God created marriage, and therefore his church and only his church should have the authority to marry anyone.

What is His church?

Also, police defend people because it's their moral duty to do so.

Another gross misinterperation. They do so because they're enforcing the laws, regardless of their personal feelings on the law and/or those being hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To the bold: If you can't post in this thread without "subtly" hurling personal insults/questioning one's character, then feel free to stop posting. Consider this your absolute final warning.

I apologize if you think I'm insulting you or anyone. That wasn't my intention at all. I was honestly wondering where you get your standard for morality if not from the Bible/God.

And don't dodge the question. The only thing that keeps you from supporting murder and rape is your religion. That's what you said. But for some reason, I don't see a trend that those "without God" (whatever that means) are raping or killing more than those "with God."

Not what I meant. What I meant was, those 'without God' have no logical reason not to rape or murder.

You honestly believe those that don't follow Western religions are just godless heathens with no respect for human life?

Godless? Yes. Heathen? Debatable. No respect for life? If they were consistent atheists, yes. But they're not (thank God!).

Got it. So anyone who doesn't follow the Abrahamic religions can't have basic human decency.

Again, I'm not insinuating that they're not decent; only that if they are consistent, they should see no reason for basic human decency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You bring up some very good points Random, but here's what I say,

A couple that can't have kids have more of a right to adopt a child. Why? Because they won't confuse the child by converting them gay. Gay couples shouldn't even be allowed to adopt, this is strictly opinion, so don't take it personally anyone.

Who said I'm the morality police? If some gay kid came to my school last year, he got beat up very hard, physically and mentally bullied. When the teachers asked why they beat the guy up they simply said either "He's gay and that's wrong", "He's an abomination of God" and "He's gay...". Everyone else in other places have done it too. I've seen it. It's bad in almost everyone's eyes. What also bothers me is sex changes. My God, do you know how bad it sucks living in the constant fear that the beautiful girl you might be dating was a man before? They don't even have the decency to tell you, and that's even more immoral. The fact that they don't consider a sex changed man and a man gay is just incredibly stupid. Especially since they can't even have kids. Gays are just immoral in almost everyone's eyes. Marriage is made legal by a priest, and in the bible it says homosexuality is wrong, so I don't think a priest should have wed a gay couple. You understand my point of view, right? We're all entitled to our opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm...

I'm disgusted. Backing up violence by saying someone is an abomination in God's eyes? How can you people think yourselves better the muslim extremists? If there was an all gay community, I'm positive someone would bomb it.

Secondly. I'm actually offended by you saying gay couples "convert" their adopted child. First of all, about 75% of gay couples adopt GIRLS, so I don't exactly see how they could convert them away from being straight. And I actually know several men who were adopted by a gay couple, and all of them are straight. Also, quite honestly, most of them are more polite, more friendly, more generous, and more understanding and friendly towards other beliefs then most "pureborn" christians.

In any case, this discussion has gone on long enough. Its turned into a flame war. Randomspot, please lock it.

Edit: After quickly reviewing a few posts, there are a few misconceptions that I want to attempt (and fail) to clear up. Firstly, atheists (such as myself) are not works of the devil, we don't want the downfall of society as we know it, and we aren't completely retarded. Secondly, people who don't agree with Catholicism or Christianity aren't violent freaks who want to cause mass destruction.

And finally, most importantly, MARRIAGE is not something that was created by God. The sacrament of Matrimony was. You know how many faithful Christians don't go through the sacrament of Matrimony and get married at a small party, in their home, or somewhere else? The number is astounding. This discussion is not about matrimony, its about marriage. Quite honestly, I don't think gay people give a shit whether or not they go through matrimony, especially since any priest has the right to refuse any couple, straight or otherwise. This discussion was about the rights granted to people who are married under the law (which I did state) that are unavailable to homosexual couples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I apologize if you think I'm insulting you or anyone. That wasn't my intention at all. I was honestly wondering where you get your standard for morality if not from the Bible/God.

My religious or moral are personal views and have nothing to do with this discussion. I'm coming at this from a small government perspective.

If you use moral or religious views to justify posts in this forum, expect people to question them. And you can do the same to others who do so. But that doesn't mean I have to tell you anything about me personally that I haven't disclosed.

Anyways, I'll just toss up the bolded part to a poorly typed sentence.

Moving on.

Not what I meant. What I meant was, those 'without God' have no logical reason not to rape or murder.

There's lots of reasons to not violate someone's freedom and liberty to life.

Of course, it speaks volumes of how much religion really keeps people in line when looking at prion stats:

National Census of the Jail Population, 1995

According to the DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics (National Census of the Jail Population 12/31/95), while 72% affirmed affiliation with religious institutions (determined through answers to the question on "Religious Background" on the Penal entrance form) only 54% of Federal and State Prisoners actually consider themselves religious, and 33% can be confirmed to be practicing their religion. This is demonstrated by attendance records at religious services, which averaged anywhere between 30% and 40%, depending upon the time of year and the institution in question (and who was preaching). These figures are comparable to the national average as establish by the Gallup organization. [source: Response to "Christians vs atheists in prison investigation".]

http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html

The Department of Justice also has tons of PDFs to look through on prisoner statistics. Though I didn't find anything particularly interesting, mainly because a vast majority of those incarcerated are probably in line with the religious demographics of this country. Which are Christian.

Godless? Yes. Heathen? Debatable. No respect for life? If they were consistent atheists, yes. But they're not (thank God!).

You said those without God don't have a reason to not murder and rape and steal. That's pretty much not true, since I've never noticed a trend in criminals and religious backgrounds.

Again, I'm not insinuating that they're not decent; only that if they are consistent, they should see no reason for basic human decency.

Why is it so hard to accept that people can live peacefully without God being the reason holding them back from murder?

A couple that can't have kids have more of a right to adopt a child. Why? Because they won't confuse the child by converting them gay.

You said sexuality was genetic. They can't be "converted...gay" if that's what you belief. And it is, because you stated it multiple times as a factual statement.

Gay couples shouldn't even be allowed to adopt, this is strictly opinion, so don't take it personally anyone.

But why shouldn't they? Sure, if you're in the custody of a state home and are one of dozens of children, I gues you should have the right to refuse adoptive parents. But I'd lead at the chance of someone adopting me, regardless of how much it matches the Dick and Jane family fantasy.

Who said I'm the morality police?

Well, this is about same sex marriage, which is a legal concept. And you are against it strictly for religious and moral reasons. That's forcing your morality onto others. Hence, morality police.

If some gay kid came to my school last year, he got beat up very hard, physically and mentally bullied. When the teachers asked why they beat the guy up they simply said either "He's gay and that's wrong", "He's an abomination of God" and "He's gay...". Everyone else in other places have done it too. I've seen it. It's bad in almost everyone's eyes.

So that justifies them torturing a kid? It's a-okay to torture someone as long as it's in the name of religion?

How do you even know he was gay? I wouldn't put it beyond bigots like that to just make it up or coerce him into saying it, just so they could have an excuse so they won't get punished.

What also bothers me is sex changes. My God, do you know how bad it sucks living in the constant fear that the beautiful girl you might be dating was a man before?

There are people with hormone deficiences, or born with both sex organs and it's impossible to predict what they'll mature into. So one gets cut off and the other left. It's a 50/50 chance that it's the wrong choice.

But hey let's just ignore medicine and be against everything that isn't "normal."

Gays are just immoral in almost everyone's eyes.

Another unsourced factual statement? Why am I not surprised.

Marriage is made legal by a priest,

Or a court judge. And there's no law that says the government has to recognize religious ceremonies. It just so happens that most do.

and in the bible it says homosexuality is wrong,

Again, who cares? This is about legal marriage. The US isn't a theocracy, and laws shouldn't be passed because of what the Bible says is okay or not.

so I don't think a priest should have wed a gay couple.

Who said anything about that?

---------- Post added at 07:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:00 PM ----------

Locked on request of the OP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recommend in general (to a few in here) that you know your sources, avoid flamming, and approach the debate in a mature manner. :/


theSLAYER edit on the 24th March, 2017 :

I'm only making a post here because of the onslaught of reports that are being prompted from here.

[For the record, my views are: you can marry whoever the hell you want. Just because I'm straight doesn't mean others have to be.
Granted, I see human rights as an "illusion", because rights can easily be stripped away in many circumstances, even if we are ignorant towards it.
But in an ideal society, it would be great to have access to something that should have been our birth right, right?
]


As the reported content dates back to a good 8 years ago,
it's possible the views of said users have changed since then.

They may have been trolling, or ignorant, or simply stating an opinion that is deep from their belief system,
or a combination of any of those factors,
but whatever the case, I don't see a reason to infract these users as these posts before my time as a mod,
and most importantly, said users aren't being problematic right now.

As such, I'm re-locking this thread, with no other actions to be taken.


PS: if it's worth something, some of these reported posts already had actions taken against them then.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...