Gay Marriages: Discuss [Archive]

Player0

03-24-2004, 07:36 PM

I'm moving this discussion topic to Liquid Chat out of the Extreme Cooling section. How the heck did it end up being discussed there? lol.

Anyway, this is a huge hot topic and as soon as it gets out of hand I'm closing it. But since it was in the news recently and it's about as flammable as abortion, so lets talk about it.

I beleive that same-sex marriages should be allowed for the simple reason that it's a human right. I don't care what legal precedences have been set for or against it. They hold about as much water as a spoon. The coupling of two individuals (lets avoid polygamy for now) should be recognized by the government. What difference does it make that they are the same sex? Many hetero couples do not reproduce.

The only arguement against same-sex couples is a religious one. Freedom of religion AND seperation of church and state are VERY important rights we have in the USA. Those two very rights negate any constitutional law preventing same-sex couples.

The Family Research Council page found here (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF03H01&v=PRINT) beleives it has some compelling reasons why it should not be allowed. Of course, it's easier to pick holes through any of this.

The first is that homosexual relationships are not marriage. That is, they simply do not fit the minimum necessary condition for a marriage to exist--namely, the union of a man and a woman.

Definitions are certainly not a stable arguement, because definitions of words change. Which is the very essence of this entire arguement. Voting USED to mean WHITE MEN casting their vote. It was later defined to WHITE MEN and WHITE WOMEN, and now just CITIZENS. Definitions and words are a dynamic thing, and are certainly not something to base civil liberties upon.

The second is that homosexual relationships are harmful. Not only do they not provide the same benefits to society as heterosexual marriages, but their consequences are far more negative than positive.

Okay, but can they proove it?

Since homosexual behavior is directly associated with higher rates of promiscuity, physical disease, mental illness, substance abuse, child sexual abuse, and domestic violence, there is no reason to reward such behavior by granting it society's ultimate affirmation--the status of civil marriage--or any of the benefits of marriage.

Promiscuity is also a relgion based moral, and not one we all have to adhere to as humans. Besides, there certainly are a lot of rising divorce rates. Straight people are promiscuous too. Physical disease? I'd like to see them prove that being gay causes mental illness. Of course, these are the same people who beleive BEING gay IS a mental illness. Substance abuse, well I know more straight people who do these things than I can count. Anyway, these are certainly all problems that straight people have too, and I question that this has anything to do with being straight or gay. If someone is mentally ill or uses illegal substances, will that change if they are married? The fact is, those statistics WONT change when people are married. They are personal choices people make regardless of the situation. THESE numbers could actually go DOWN if more gay couples were married.

But haven't studies shown that children raised by homosexual parents are no different from other children?

No. This claim is often put forward, even by professional organizations. The truth is that most research on "homosexual parents" thus far has been marred by serious methodological problems. However, even pro-homosexual sociologists Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz report that the actual data from key studies show the "no differences" claim to be false.

· Children of lesbians are less likely to conform to traditional gender norms.

· Children of lesbians are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior.

· Daughters of lesbians are "more sexually adventurous and less chaste."

· Lesbian "co-parent relationships" are more likely to end than heterosexual ones.

This has nothing to do with gay marriage, but of same-sex couples raising children, which is a seperate issue. But, oh, wouldnt it be terrible for childern to conform to less traditional gender norms, values that have been forced on all of us from birth, regardless of why or how right/wrong they may actually be. Most of these kinds of restrictions are the CAUSE of most of societies problems.

Do homosexuals pose a threat to children?

Homosexual men are far more likely to engage in child sexual abuse than are heterosexuals. The evidence for this lies in the findings that:

Just because most pedophiles are homos doesnt mean all homos are pedos. This still has nothing to do with gay marriage. Someone is a pedo when they become one, and this fact does not change if they are married to someone else.

Do homosexuals have higher rates of domestic violence?

Yes. It's notable that so-called "hate crimes" directed at homosexuals, such as the brutal murder of Wyoming college student Matthew Shepard in 1998, are often touted as a measure of society's supposed hostility to homosexuals. Yet even when it comes to violence, homosexuals are far more likely to be victimized by each other than by an "anti-gay" attacker. Government statistics show that "intimate partner violence" between people of the same sex is approximately twenty times more common than anti-homosexual "hate crimes."

Gay people are certainly under more stress because of the current state of civil rights. But that aside, if there are higher problem rates, THEY ALREADY EXIST. These numbers should not be affected if people living together are married. They could even go down. And even if this is true, and gay couples have more fighting, does that mean that ALL gay couples should be punished. Thats discrimination.

Do homosexuals have more mental health problems as well?

Yes. Various research studies have found that homosexuals have higher rates of:

· Alcohol abuse

· Drug abuse

· Nicotine dependence

· Depression

· Suicide

If I was gay and I had to deal with the pressures of being gay in this intolerant society every day, Id be more likely to have these problems as well.

What about the argument that homosexual relations are harmful? What do you mean by that?

Homosexual men experience higher rates of many diseases, including:

If thats true, its still got nothing to do with marriage. Im done copying and pasting here. But the arguement presented on this website SIMPLY and CLEARLY has very little to do with gay marriages, but with the existance of gay people themselves. Homosexual relationships and problems exist, regardless or not if these people are married. I belevie that if marriage was something more gay couples could partake in, these numbers would drop, promiscuity would drop, depression and anxiety would drop, and these numbers would more closely conform with those of straight couples. And even if they dont, SO WHAT? Life isnt perfect. You cant take away a civil liberty from someone just because it causes problems.

Player0

03-24-2004, 07:48 PM

Someone I know who is a devout Republican said that gays only want to get married because they want to 'rub our faces in their business'.

Its partially true, I'll give him that. I've seen too many gay people who were 'too out'. And while theres nothing wrong with that, it certainly forms an opinion on people like I mentioned above. Most people beleive that sexuality should be kept behind closed doors. Again, a moral value that is or once was based on religious ideals which may not have a spot in modern society, but its there none-the-less. Gays will loose if they fight two battles at once. Go for the civil liberties thing, THEN try to convince the world that being open sexually is the best thing.

I know that most gay couples do not care if anyone else ever knows that they are together, but simply want the benefits of being married, being able to take care of each other when one is sick, or receiving the tax benefits that anyone else would normally be able to get (for some reason).

wfarid

03-24-2004, 07:53 PM

well a counter argument to that is that it doesnt matter what RELIGION states as what marriage is defined as, becuase of the seperation of church and state as stated in the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." So religious people can keep on going and not acknowledging gay marriages, that doesnt matter. What matter is what the state says. And honestly, why should a gay couple not enjoy the rights of straight couples... Like what if his/her partner was in the hospital in critical care, legaly he/she would not be able to see them because they would not be considered a spouse under the law. Marriage is between adults (duh!) so enabling gay marriages doesn't mean that it well let other marriages be allowed. And how are gay marriages harmful? Please define that for me... Gay married couples are not going to turn me or you into gay people. That's just absurd... IF u look at the Supreme COurt cases Romers v. Evans and the recent anti-sodomy case Lawrence v. Texas (Lawrence v. Texas also overturned the pro sodomy case Bowers v. Hardwick), it grants gay people the right to be protected as a minority and the right to private consenual sex. But these cases do more than that. They can serve as a foundation for making gay marriages legal. It is a violation of the equal protection clause in the 14 amendment. Why should straight couples enjoy the legal benifits of marriage and not gay couples? That's discrimination based on sexual orientation, which as proven by these two precedent cases is unconstitutional. Furhtermore, there is no DUE process. Under the due process clause "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" doesn't a person have the liberty to marry whom they choose? and restrictign that without due process of the law is uncostitutional...

wfarid

03-24-2004, 08:00 PM

d*mnit what i said above AGREES with Player0, it just goes more deeply into the legal aspects of the argument. And i wholeheartedly agree with player0 on the gay marriage thing.

Drake

03-24-2004, 08:28 PM

I don't truthfully have much to add to this debate... but I for one haven't seen one valid reason that didn't make the anti-gay marriage side look like a lot of biggots.

I'm also very curious as to how age plays a role in this... The only anti-gay/gay marriage people in my high school are a few of the jocks and hicks, and even the majority of them have the opinion that it's okay. When the thought of gay marriage was first introduced to me (through news programs) my first thought was "why not?" I don't see how it can possibly make a difference... I mean, gays already have all the other rights of citizens, correct?

Another friend of mine pointed out (not that I give this argument any merit, mind you) that the increase of gay activity and later on even extremes of beastiality directly corresponds with the decline of Roman morals and the fall of the empire itself... he continued to note that a little more than 200 years is an average run for a civilization to be the top in the world.

Heh... on a related and lighter note... I heard this joke today...

Two hicks are thinking of reentering college. The first steps into the registrar office and after a lengthy chat the registrar tells him that he will need to retake basic courses such as math, english, and a logic course.

"Logic," the hick stated, "wut's that?"

The registrar replied, "Well lemme give you an example... Do you have a weed whacker?" At this the hick nodded. "Well, then I can conclude that you have a lawn, and thus land, and thus a house, and thus a wife and kids." The hick sat amazed at how he knew all that and stepped out of the office.

The second hick asked if any of the questions were hard.

"Nope," replied the first hick, "but we gotta take sumthin' called a logic course."

The second hick inquired, "Wut's that?"

The first hick drawled on, "Well... lemme give ya an example... do ya have a weed whacker?" The second hick shook his head. "Queer!"

wfarid

03-24-2004, 08:36 PM

u'd have to be an adult, 18 to marry i believe... and i don't think the decline of the Roman Empire can be attributed to sodomy, thats kinda absurd don't u think? I mean come on use your own brain on this one... plus bestiality would never be legalized here, because we don't know whether the animal is consenting or not, and all those freaky animal rights activists would protest against bestiality... So sorry, no matter how CUTE that sheep looks you can't f*ck it!

Drake

03-24-2004, 08:46 PM

As I said, I don't give that argument any merit ;) Just thought I'd through it out there.

ralf_c

03-24-2004, 09:54 PM

my take on it is simple.

i must admit that i am not an advocate of homosexuality, but i do believe that any one has the right to marry the person he or she loves, regardless of sexual orientation. now on the other hand i will not for a second waste any of my time and energy fighting the gay marriage as equal cause, not a snow ball's chance in hell! gay marriage is plain and simple not equal to conventional marriage.

Someone I know who is a devout Republican said that gays only want to get married because they want to 'rub our faces in their business'.

Its partially true, I'll give him that. I've seen too many gay people who were 'too out'. And while theres nothing wrong with that, it certainly forms an opinion on people like I mentioned above. Most people beleive that sexuality should be kept behind closed doors. Again, a moral value that is or once was based on religious ideals which may not have a spot in modern society, but its there none-the-less. Gays will loose if they fight two battles at once. Go for the civil liberties thing, THEN try to convince the world that being open sexually is the best thing.

I know that most gay couples do not care if anyone else ever knows that they are together, but simply want the benefits of being married, being able to take care of each other when one is sick, or receiving the tax benefits that anyone else would normally be able to get (for some reason).

i don't mean to offend anyone but that bothers me a lot. i don't mind some one being gay or what not but do some of the homosexual people have to be so damn flamboyant or super manly dikeish? i mean hell. i am walking down sunset boulevard on hollywood and BANG! supa homo freak realizes out of nowhere and starts behaving extremely homosexual and flamboyant. all right, the dude is gay, so what? why can they be normal like other gays? its like they are out on a mission to let everyone and their grama that they are gay by rubbing it in our faces. the hell with that, its fine if some one is gay or what not, but its not all right to go out and spray your sexuality all over the atmosphere.like i give mad flying rats @ss about stranger's sexualities :rolleyes:

spldart

03-24-2004, 10:00 PM

Let the alternative sexual lifestyled individuals who want to form life unions create their own form of 'marriage'. The classic form is taken and belongs to conventional child bearing/raising unions.
I don't mind them forming their own type of union and that union enjoying the same tax benefits..ect... as conventional marriage.
Just leave the Judaio, Christion, Islamic, etc...Marriage alone.

wfarid

03-24-2004, 10:10 PM

There really is no such thing as the "classic form" of marriage because everyone has different ideas about marriage. Well, did you know tha ISLAM advocates polygamy (i know about this one since I was muslim and was raised in a muslim household)? The government recognizes gay marriages doesn't mean that the Jews, Christians, or Muslims have to recognize them, it just means that the state recognizes them. Ralf_c what do you think gay people think about all those big breasted women (the one wit the fake boobs) that wear short skirts and flaunt their boobs all around everyone's face? It just depends on your perspective dude, and u can't blame the gays for being flamboyant without also blaming all those hoes 2 :D

btw, I am glad to hear people actually discussing there opinions, this is a very important topic, its going to become like abortion... SO discussion is important, so one can see all the sides to the arguement...

ralf_c

03-24-2004, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by wfarid
Ralf_c what do you think gay people think about all those big breasted women (the one wit the fake boobs) that wear short skirts and flaunt their boobs all around everyone's face? It just depends on your perspective dude, and u can't blame the gays for being flamboyant without also blaming all those hoes 2 :D

actually them hoes bother me too. it just not natural for those women to go out of their way to look so damn skanky. what kind of man do they think they are going to wind up with? an ideal citizen perhaps? i think not. i'll take a naturally cute looking chick over one of those sluts any day.

spldart

03-24-2004, 10:36 PM

Let me be succinct... All belief systems have two commonalities on the definition of marriage. Male-Female and Reproduction. This can never be had in male-male or female-female relationships.
Let alternative lifestyle individuals make a new life bond with it's own name for themselves.

Player0

03-24-2004, 11:20 PM

"Just leave the Judaio, Christion, Islamic, etc...Marriage alone."

Well the debate has nothing to do with religious marriages. However, STATE santified marriages are a different story.

It is up to the state and federal government to define exactly what state marriage laws are. The fact that they share the name 'marriage' is really moot. It's just a word, a definition.

Im not sure I'd ever understand why someone would think that it's okay for same sex marriages, as long as they are called something else.

Taking what I said earlier about 'rubbing it in our face' has something to do with it. Part of gay marriages has to do with the legal benefits. But the other part is recognition. Most people really dont know how to react to same-sex couples. They are introduced as my 'significant-other' or 'mate' or 'life-partener' but shoot, no one in my family would really understand that. Or take it seriously.

It's mixing old fashion ideals with the new civil rights. My mother would understand 'marriage', and that its something important regardless of who I married. If I called my wife my 'significant-other', to my mother, it would be like we weren't even married.

Public acceptance is a VERY important part of marriage, so I have found. And so while i dont think its 'rubbing it in someones face', I do think theres a social aspect to the public bonding that can't be ignored.

The truth of the matter is, gay marriages are quite likely going to be introduced in to the law books. I can say this for sure because abortion is also currently legal. Again, seperation of church and state means that 'morality' has a very weak leg to stand on, and the consititution has no provisions to prevent same-sex marriages.

spldart

03-24-2004, 11:41 PM

State and Federal Governments are definitely dictating WAY to much. They need to be cut back about 75% in general. And I'd like to see all the laws any single US citizen lives under reduced to something that could fit a pamphlet.

Kabooka

03-25-2004, 12:20 AM

I know that most gay couples do not care if anyone else ever knows that they are together, but simply want the benefits of being married, being able to take care of each other when one is sick, or receiving the tax benefits that anyone else would normally be able to get (for some reason).

Interesting concept here, so I'll submit this for thought - if the driving reason is to gain tax benefits and other rights - what about the folks who choose to stay un-married or those in pre marrage or for that matter widows and widdowers....

Farabomb

03-25-2004, 12:29 AM

Damn, How'd I miss this debate?

I read P0's soliloquy but only scanned the respones. I come from a repibulican, religious when we need to be family. I, personally, don't care much for religon. I respect everyone's religion but it's just not for me. I find too many loopholes and inconsistences in most followings. I'm also not a big fan of rules. My main rule is don't F with me and I won't F with you and we can both can go on our merry way. As long as I meet people with the same subset rule I'm content.

My big thing is being told I can't do something. I like to think we're living in the land of the free (for the most part) so that means I shall do as I wish as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. That's why I'm not too big of a fan of the goverment. I think the basic system works pretty well but most of the people implimented have got to go.

As long as it doesn't go viloenty against my personal rules I'll happily side with anyone opposing a law saying you are not allowed to do something. That's what it comes down to. I have gay friends and they are just like my straight friends. What they do "behind closed doors" has no bearing on how I treat them. I'm not racist, I hate everyone equally. As long as you're cool with me I'm cool with you.

Gay marriages are fine by me. Being able to be married in the eyes of the court is a right. I can see some religions beliefs contest to a gay marrage but that's where the sepration of church and state comes in. Most gays aren't asking for a church wedding. As long as they are married at the courthouse and recognized that's enough. All the arguments posed by that website can pretty much thrown out. Any sutdy and be swayed by the people paying.

Raising kids is pretty much a crap shoot from what I can gather. I presonally don't have any so my thoughts are biased and unbased. I just go by what I see. As long and you can get the kids to understand the basic rule of be a good person to others the rest is just really hard F'n work. Most people I know say the joy of having kids is worth the work.... most don't have teenagers yet so that may have something to do with it. ;)

I see no reason at all a child of a gay parent is at any more risk than a "straight" parent. In fact, I figure a gay child would be a lot less jugemental but I'd guess it depends on the parents devotion of a following. As long as you provide a stable enviroment everything should tun out ok. Heaven forbid we get more open minded humans on this earth. Seems most of the closed minded ones like to start fights.

Any couple that loves each other should be able to get married. There are a whole lot of people that get married that aren't in love and I think that's worse.

I had a point to this. I lost it about a beer ago but I think it came through. :D

wfarid

03-25-2004, 01:46 AM

right on, btw notice how the views are split regionally...

Denovin

03-25-2004, 04:39 AM

As the constitution goes.. if you want to get technical, its Freedom OF religion, NOT freedom FROM religion.

Its just not natural for a man and a man to have sex, wither its constitutional or not doesnt matter, its what the people vote on and feel needs to be amended. I for one may consider moving elsewhere if Gays are allowed to marry legally bindingly as a called marriage. Call it anything you want, a union or whatever, I will disagree with it, but I wont mind it as much as long as its something other then marriage.

And I really cant discuss this further as more recently an ex gay friend who I thought was a friend figurativly screwed me over, so Im biased on the subject. It doesnt help that im also a reborn Christian, Conservative Republican.

dicki

03-25-2004, 08:28 AM

As the constitution goes.. if you want to get technical, its Freedom OF religion, NOT freedom FROM religion

so we all have to have some religion? i won't go into that its a whole other discussion (which i think we tried last year??)

i think "intelligent" people will make thier own laws and stick two fingers up at society, its allways been this way through the ages and i see absolutly no difference now. theres absolutly no need to be limited in any way by society and rules that do so are only to control the masses.

gay marriage, polygamy, monogamy, straight marriage, inter religion, you name it, if it makes you happy go to it and good luck!

regarding the "rubbing it in our faces" comment its just as bad when straight couples demonstrate thier sexuality in public (anyone been to a club and seen couples getting it on, on the sofas?) and its a very small minority of gay people that are overtly gay in the same way that its a very small number of people who have blue mohiecans and a ton of facial piercings that comment is just picking on the people at the extreme end of the spectrum and is not representative of any group as a whole

dicki

Gregorach

03-25-2004, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Denovin
Its just not natural for a man and a man to have sex...

Says who? Every society in history has had homosexuality (and most of them have considered it perfectly normal), all mammals exhibit homosexual behaviour to some extent... so what's not natural about it? And I'm not interested in the "it can't lead to children" argument, because that applies equally to infertile couples and women past the menopause.

There are really two issues at stake here, because there are two forms of marriage which our society doesn't distinguish between well enough. There is secular marriage, which is a contract recognised and regulated by the State confering certain rights and responsibilities on the parties. And then there is the religious ceremony of marriage, where the union is recognised by the appropriate religious authorities. Some religions will not recognise a second marriage, even after the death of one party, but that does not prevent the State from recognising it. Similarly, any hokey sect can dress up in funny robes and declare people "married", but the State won't recognise such a marriage.

In the US, a marriage contract confers over 1,000 seperate legal benefits on the parties, including such things as inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, tax breaks... The list is pratically endless. A religious marriage does not confer any of these rights.

As I see it, the requirement for "equal protection under law" means that you cannot withhold legal benefits from a person or persons on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Your church doesn't have to accept it, but the State must.

As the constitution goes.. if you want to get technical, its Freedom OF religion, NOT freedom FROM religion[b]

What about my "religion" - secular humanism? My beliefs clearly state that all arbitrary discrimination (and this is about as arbitrary as it gets in my book) is fundamentally worng. You can't claim that your beliefs are more important than mine just beacuse your book is older and you've got preachers in funny costumes.

Denovin raises another interesting point:

[b]Call it anything you want, a union or whatever, I will disagree with it, but I wont mind it as much as long as its something other then marriage

This is part of the debate that I really dont understand at all. If it's the same thing, what the heck does it matter what you call it? "A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet". I guess I simply don't see any kind of religious or spiritual connotations to the word "marriage" - I regard it as a purely contractual matter. The only explanation that I can think of is to maintain an arbitrary distinction between "us" and "them"...

Another point that I have to make: anyone noticed how most, if not all, of the so-called "Christian Right" luminaries fulminating about the matter have either had several marriages, several affairs, or both? They quote all the bits from Leviticus about how a man shall not lie down with a man, but miss out all the bits about stoning adulterers to death (and slave ownership, but that's another story)...

Gregorach

03-25-2004, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by dicki
regarding the "rubbing it in our faces" comment its just as bad when straight couples demonstrate thier sexuality in public

Darn tootin'! I've been single for 10 years and I hate seeing couples holding hands. Somebody ban it! ;) :D

spldart

03-25-2004, 09:42 AM

Male on Male and Female on Female sex is unatural. Sexs purpose is to propogate the specie and the fact that chemicals are released in the brain that are pleasurable is natures way of continuing the specie by reinforcing instincts to reproduce. Examples of any homosexual activity in the animal kingdom are anomalistic and not reinforced by evolution. In fact I doubt you will find any example of long term same sex sexual relationship as the norm in nature.

spldart

03-25-2004, 09:51 AM

As far as public demonstrations of effection.
I do not find it disgusting to see a man and a women in love and holding hands and dry kissing in public. It's cute, natural and the kids understand it.
Sure I don't want to see boobs hanging out and tongue action.

When I see same sex public displays of effection I'm simply grossed out. And so are my children...They understand that it's not normal. At least the older ones do (their hormones kicked in and they are finding the other sex appealing). They do understand to be tolerant however and do seem to do a great job of that.

Keep in mind that I'm a sexual pervert in my own write. I've had a couple few threesomes with 2 girls on me and enjoy that immensely. Sshshhhh.....don't tell.

Gregorach

03-25-2004, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by spldart
Male on Male and Female on Female sex is unatural. Sexs purpose is to propogate the specie and the fact that chemicals are released in the brain that are pleasurable is natures way of continuing the specie by reinforcing instincts to reproduce. Examples of any homosexual activity in the animal kingdom are anomalistic and not reinforced by evolution. In fact I doubt you will find any example of long term same sex sexual relationship as the norm in nature.

So sex which cannot lead to procreation is unnatural? Is that what you're saying? I refer you to my comments about infertile couples and post-menopausal women above. In fact, that argument could be used against any form of non-procreative sex, including your threesome (assuming that you didn't knock both of them up) or any sex involving any form of contraception. Should infertile people be prevented from marrying? While we're on the subject, many people would consider your threesome profoundly unnatural - does that mean you should lose any of your legal rights? And who decided what the "purpose" of sex is anyway? Is it wrong to have sex purely for pleasure? You don't seem to think so, unless the people involved are of the same sex...

You say that some of your kids have reached the age where their hormones have kicked in and they're finding the other sex attractive. That's the whole point of homosexuality - when their hormones kick in, they find the same sex attractive. It is not a "lifestyle choice", it's a fundamental aspect of a person's identity.

Examples of any homosexual activity in the animal kingdom are anomalistic and not reinforced by evolution.

So how does it exist? It's a well known and studied phenominon, and the latest studies indicate that there is a biological basis for it. Approximately 10% of rams are homosexual - that's hardly "anomalistic".

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993008

But anyway, whether it's "natural" or not isn't actually the point. Using computers isn't exactly "natural", but you wouldn't consider enforcing legal discrimination on that basis.

Also, your personal aesthetic reactions to same-sex displays of affection is not a valid basis for legal discrimination. I find obese people disgusting and unnatural, but I'm not (yet ;)) calling for them to be legislated against. Come to think of it, I feel much the same way about the views you are expressing here - but I wouldn't consider arguing that you should be discriminated against for holding them.

wfarid

03-25-2004, 10:32 AM

the only reason your not bothered by opposite sex couples dry kissing is because you've been so exposed to it and you've been conditioned to think that it is ok for couples do this... I would love to see a more open and understanding society where its just cute to see any1 dry kissing...

dicki

03-25-2004, 10:38 AM

I've had a couple few threesomes with 2 girls on me and enjoy that immensely.

show off ;)

so these 2 girls avoided touching each other at all? one of them must have got damn bored when you were doing your thing with the other... if they did touch each other and its ok in that situation why is it wrong without you being there?

theres dozens of sexual "perversions" (i think thats a daft word... if all involved parties are happy with whats going on whos to say they are preverted!) that don't lead to kids and we do them just for the fun of it so why not add same sex into that mix?

wfarid

03-25-2004, 10:44 AM

right on dicki! totally agreed... you know greg that if u came to the states chicks (and dicks) would enjoy ur accent and u'd def get laid... so like come over to the states and u'll prolly get f*cked! Then maybe u'll stop *****ing about being single for 10 years...

Gregorach

03-25-2004, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by wfarid
right on dicki! totally agreed... you know greg that if u came to the states chicks (and dicks) would enjoy ur accent and u'd def get laid... so like come over to the states and u'll prolly get f*cked! Then maybe u'll stop *****ing about being single for 10 years...

I don't actually have that much of an accent unfortunately - I can ham it up a bit, but it's difficult to maintain... ;) 'Sides, if that was all I was interested in I'd just need to go out to the local cattlemarket on a Friday night and flash some cash around - much cheaper that a ticket to the States...

wfarid

03-25-2004, 10:55 AM

man what did i say before about f*ckin animals... in this case, NO MATTER how cute that COW looks you can't F*ck IT!!!

wfarid

03-25-2004, 10:56 AM

jp dude :D apologies if i offended u

Gregorach

03-25-2004, 11:00 AM

No probs... ;) Actually, I dunno if the term translates - over here, we use "cattlemarket" to refer to those clubs that all the young folks go to to get stupidly drunk and pick up one-night-stands. You know, the kinda place where just about anyone with a pulse and a wallet can get some...

wfarid

03-25-2004, 11:03 AM

ooo, ok... in the states cattlemarket = clubs... So u'd say yea i just go clubbin on friday nites and pick up some hoes dawg... and everyone in the US would understand you..

Gregorach

03-25-2004, 11:13 AM

Not all clubs are cattlemarkets, and vice-versa... It's more down to the clientelle than the venue. Anyway, we're veering wildy off-topic now...

wfarid

03-25-2004, 11:25 AM

bring it on CONSERVATIVES!!!

wfarid

03-25-2004, 11:44 AM

Male on Male and Female on Female sex is unatural.

DID you know that male on male and femal on female sex is PROTECTED by the United States Government (as long as its done in privacy of one's home). These two gay people got caught having sex and they were jailed, prosecuted (and found guilty) and fined. SO they decided to fight and it ended up in the supreme court and the SC declared that it was unconstitutional to have anti-sodomy laws. Thus saying that GAy sex is A ok!!! This case was called Lawrence v. Texas fyi...

Player0

03-25-2004, 12:39 PM

There are still plenty of anti-sodomy laws in existence which also affect hetero relationships.

I dont know about you, but I dont like the government telling me how I should be using my penis.

Republicans have always confused me. Not to get off topic, but here you have a group of mostly traditional and religious people who usually fight to keep the government UNinvolved with the populous. But it's always this group which is the first to stomp on civil liberties and the first to go to war.

Frankily, I dont want to see two guys making out EVER. Two women, well... but anyway, I'd rather watch two people making love even if ones Comic Book Guy and the other one is Seymour's mother, than turn on CNN and watching bodies explode all over the place. Thats what UT04 is for.

So it's okay to shoot and kill someone in the name of 'peace and country' but it's not okay to develop loving relationships outside of the standard religious normality.

Obviously, there are two schools of thought here, and there is no convincing one side of the other. It's also worthy to note that I don't beleive there is a RIGHT answer to this situation. I don't beleive there is any rulebook or goal to life. So who's to say that living a constrictive life ISNT correct?

PS - Religion is simply a name for a set of morals a person has. I have my own set of morals. It could be argued that having no religion IS a religion, although very few people truely have NO morals.

PPS - Regarding 'unnatural sex', any sex for pleasure would be classified as unnatural if it doesnt lead to birth. Wolf packs have lots of 'gay sex'. Dolphins have lots of sex for pleasure. Monkeys masturbate. Sex is a chemical desire that all animals have when it 'turns on'. Relationships CAN be formed outside of sex, and that is really what we are talking about here. My grandparents haven't had sex in probably 60 years, but that doesn't mean that they shouldnt be married ;)

spldart

03-25-2004, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Gregorach
So sex which cannot lead to procreation is unnatural? Is that what you're saying? I refer you to my comments about infertile couples and post-menopausal women above. In fact, that argument could be used against any form of non-procreative sex, including your threesome (assuming that you didn't knock both of them up) or any sex involving any form of contraception. Should infertile people be prevented from marrying?

That counter is just silly. Just because a couple can't reproduce by choice or by medical issue doesn't mean that the act they are performing isn't natural. That is a baseless counter. They are still reproducing the natural act that causes reproduction. And there is no reason that male-female couples should perform the act just for fun.

spldart

03-25-2004, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by Gregorach
While we're on the subject, many people would consider your threesome profoundly unnatural - does that mean you should lose any of your legal rights? And who decided what the "purpose" of sex is anyway? Is it wrong to have sex purely for pleasure? You don't seem to think so, unless the people involved are of the same sex...

You seem to have forgotten that I don't propose making homesexuality illegal. I have even voiced support for giving same sex union the same benefits as conventional marriage.
Freedom for all.

I have never said sex for fun is wrong. Obviously I think it is.

spldart

03-25-2004, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Gregorach
You say that some of your kids have reached the age where their hormones have kicked in and they're finding the other sex attractive. That's the whole point of homosexuality - when their hormones kick in, they find the same sex attractive. It is not a "lifestyle choice", it's a fundamental aspect of a person's identity.

I've yet to see proof that a homosexual is born and has not chosen their lifestyle. I know some claim to have found slight differences in the brain but I propose that conforming to an entirely different lifestyle may have caused these slight changes. Also it may be possible to have confused sexual orientation for those with severe hormone imbalance as compared to their outward gender. But right now I'm talking about women and men who are outwardly and hormonaly single gendered.

spldart

03-25-2004, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Gregorach
But anyway, whether it's "natural" or not isn't actually the point. Using computers isn't exactly "natural", but you wouldn't consider enforcing legal discrimination on that basis.

Tool use is completely natural for many higher primates.
And I haven't proposed any discrimination.
I doubt simply protecting conventional marriage and creating a new form of union with all the same benefits for homosexuals is discrimination. Everybody has freedom and an institution is protected.

Player0

03-25-2004, 01:15 PM

The definition of natural isn't really part of this debate. Because someone has non-hetero sex, has nothing to do with whether or not they should be married. I wasn't asked how I mate my wife when we got married. It's highly possible that what some hetero-couples do exclusively is definitely not natural by that definition, yet they are allowed to be married.

However, everyone has different definitions of this, and its another debate that cannot be won.

However, submitted for your thought: Anything that occurs in nature is natural.

Gay people do exist. For some reason, they were created by nature. Therefor it is natural for some people to be gay.

Just because something USUALLY happens a certain way in nature, doesn't mean that when a variance occurs, it is unnatural.

Usually, it doesn't snow. That doesn't mean that snow isn't a natural event. It's part of what happens in life and the physical world. The same as gay tendancies. It's a result of certain chemical or genetic reactions, or whatever.

From a religious point of view, and I am almost certain that this will sound bad to a lot of people, but if god created man, then god created gays as well. Is it our job to rectify a 'mistake' that god made? Or is gods plan simply too infinite for us to ever understand? Even if you beleive in the bible, I find it hard to beleive that EVERY answer is in there. I beleive that if there is a god and he has given us the bible, that there is a larger scope to existance that he hasnt deemed us ready to know about yet. We are his 'children', and children are not told how everything in life works.

spldart

03-25-2004, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Gregorach
So how does it exist? It's a well known and studied phenominon, and the latest studies indicate that there is a biological basis for it. Approximately 10% of rams are homosexual - that's hardly "anomalistic".

How does evolution support ram homosexuality if it does exist? Homosexuality does not beget offspring. It's existence is most likely anomolous.
Evolution supports survival to reproduction. That's it.

Player0

03-25-2004, 01:19 PM

I'm also surprisingly pleased how civil this thread has been. I half expected some anonymous flaming already. (usually, people resort to creating fake user accoutns to let their real opinions, which just goes to show you how much they really stand up for their ideals).

Its very interesting how very regional this debate is. It should be some good fodder for someones essay ;)

spldart

03-25-2004, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by spldart
That counter is just silly. Just because a couple can't reproduce by choice or by medical issue doesn't mean that the act they are performing isn't natural. That is a baseless counter. They are still reproducing the natural act that causes reproduction. And there is no reason that male-female couples should perform the act just for fun.

Should> Shouldn't :O

Have fun. Practice safe sex :D

Player0

03-25-2004, 01:25 PM

I've yet to see proof that a homosexual is born and has not chosen their lifestyle. I know some claim to have found slight differences in the brain but I propose that conforming to an entirely different lifestyle may have caused these slight changes. Also it may be possible to have confused sexual orientation for those with severe hormone imbalance as compared to their outward gender. But right now I'm talking about women and men who are outwardly and hormonaly single gendered.

I dont think that there is a homosexual gene either. I beleive that these people are just born with a more 'open' mind, and have decided that they are more confortable with same sex parteners. Now, thats dangerous thinking because the homophobes see that as a threat, as tho gayness can spread. However, I have seen people become more open minded about certain acts. And I know straight guys who have tried gay sex.

So, I still think theres a predisposition that cant be ignored, but I would tend to agree that there is no linkable proof in genetics for 'gayness'. We all have an X chromo somewhere.

Whether its an anomaly or not, it cant be prooved. It may be a genetic population control. It may very well serve a purpose. We dont understand ourselves well enough to know.

Player0

03-25-2004, 01:29 PM

Evolution supports survival to reproduction. That's it.

Evolution also supports survival in non-reproduction, when there is an over population. Non-reproductive members often help raise children or help work and supply food WITHOUT adding further burden to the social group.

In a species that loves sex as much as humans, how else could 'life' control the population than to make gayness.

Hell, when I think about it like that, it's one of the most clever damn things I've heard of. Built in population control which still provides sexual release for a very 'productive' species.

Gregorach

03-25-2004, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by spldart
Tool use is completely natural for many higher primates.
And I haven't proposed any discrimination.
I doubt simply protecting conventional marriage and creating a new form of union with all the same benefits for homosexuals is discrimination. Everybody has freedom and an institution is protected.

OK, we're down to the crux now. What is the institution of marriage, other than a civil contract entered into by 2 parties, recognized and regulated by the State, conferring certain legal rights? What exactly is it that you're trying to protect?

If you confer the same benefits on gay couples under the same circumstances, aren't they particpating in the same institution, regardless of what its called?

Imagine if this were applied to a different institution and a different minority, in a different time... What if the response to the campaigns for the enfranchisement of blacks or women was "I don't mind them having the benefits of the vote, as long as you call it something different"? Would that make any sense at all? Or would it just be a last-gasp attempt to preserve some vestige of special status for white men, even if only in a name?

I've yet to see proof that a homosexual is born and has not chosen their lifestyle.

What do you think that proof might look like? I have to admit that I can't actually prove this point either way. However, I've known a fair few gay people over the years and that's what they tell me - and I figure they should know. I know that I couldn't choose to change my sexuality, so why should I expect anyone else to be able to? I simply don't find men attractive, and my gay freinds simply don't find women attractive. Neither of us has any conscious choice in the matter.

]Originally posted by Player0
I'm also surprisingly pleased how civil this thread has been. I half expected some anonymous flaming already. (usually, people resort to creating fake user accoutns to let their real opinions, which just goes to show you how much they really stand up for their ideals).

Me too. It's refreshing to be able to actually discuss such matters like the reasonable adults we're supposed to be. :) I must commend everyone who's posted in this thread for their reasonableness and maturity, even if I completely disagree with their opinions.

Anyway, I'm signing off for today... I'd just like to finish with an old Groucho Marx joke: "sure, marriage is a great institution - but who wants to live in an institution?" :D

Gregorach

03-25-2004, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Player0
Evolution supports survival to reproduction. That's it.

Evolution also supports survival in non-reproduction, when there is an over population. Non-reproductive members often help raise children or help work and supply food WITHOUT adding further burden to the social group.

In a species that loves sex as much as humans, how else could 'life' control the population than to make gayness.

Hell, when I think about it like that, it's one of the most clever damn things I've heard of. Built in population control which still provides sexual release for a very 'productive' species.

OK, one last post... ;)

The effect you describe here has been well observed in rats. Once population density reaches a critical threshold, homosexual behaviour increases dramatically.

Denovin

03-25-2004, 04:09 PM

Im sorry, but if someone wants to rump someones anus, which the anus is not used for things going into, but out of, then I dont want anyone thinking its right, because its not made to be used in this way by nature and God.

Next.. if there is ever proof, that homosexual activity is "natural" then so is humping dead people, and animals. I wont stop there, if it is "natural" then why even have marriage? Why dont homosexuals try to abolish marraige? why dont people who cheat on there significant others try to abolish it? It only makes sense, down with control and rules regulations, lets kill people if we feel like it, cuz if we feel like it, its "natural" and MUST be right!

Player0

03-25-2004, 05:37 PM

then I dont want anyone thinking its right

Having opinions is fine. Forcing your opinions on other people is another thing. It's not up to you to decide what is right for someone else. Everyones personal beleifs should be private and personal. Yet, many Christians (a minority religion sect on this planet) beleive that they must save the rest of us. Which has lead to many many wars, usually in the middle east. I really find that to be a dangerous concept.

Next.. if there is ever proof, that homosexual activity is "natural" then so is humping dead people, and animals.

Well, again, this has little to do with the gay marriage thing. It's not that people are arguing against gay marriages, its about homosexuality itself. to some, homosexuality is a disgusting thing, a plague or sometthing that needs to be wiped out.

The real problem here is that some people just don't see a larger picture to reality. They feel that their morals are 'right' and there can be no other way. The problem is, not everyone can be right. But there CAN be other ways of living, and they dont necessarily have to threaten the quality of the rest of our lives.

I wont stop there, if it is "natural" then why even have marriage? Why dont homosexuals try to abolish marraige? why dont people who cheat on there significant others try to abolish it?

I don't know why we have marriage honestly. I'm not a historian. There seem to be a few main reasons to do it. First, there are tax and legal benefits granted by the state. Secondly, its part of social acceptance within the family and Thirdly, because it is a human tradition and people like the party. There are other reasons of couse, but they are personal and differ from person to person.

It only makes sense, down with control and rules regulations, lets kill people if we feel like it, cuz if we feel like it, its "natural" and MUST be right!

I do not beleive in religious based morality. I do not beleive in any current mass religion, nor do I accept most of the principles they imply. However, I do beleive that there needs to be government mandated morality, based solely on consequences for the societies good as a whole. Murder is wrong because it creates anger and revenge in the population, which is bad for the society as a whole. Same thing with rape, or traffic laws, or whatever other laws exist to protect the fabric of our socieity. However, there are many laws in existance right now that are based on religious morality that I feel should be made obsolete. Laws that infringe too far in to our personal freedoms. Things that do not cause anyone else any harm, yet are still illegal. Like seat-belt laws. Not hurting anyone else but myself, yet I will go to court, and maybe even jail, if I do not wear one. I *DO* wear one because it is smart, but I beleive I have the right to make that choice. The government does not need to make that choice for me.

wfarid

03-25-2004, 05:39 PM

but thats NOT the point here, the point is marriage. Gays have been given the right to f*ck each other as much as they want.

Again the point is gay marriage, and the question is whether the government should recognize it, and why it shouldn't... Sexual relations are irrelevant to this discussion about marriage... The government cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation and cannt deny some1 the liberty of whom they wish to marry, the government cannot deprive the legal goodies one gets when one is married based on sexual orientiation...

Oh yea and this helped a lot for my essay, thanks guys! I had to consider the opposite view point and stuff and tackle it and denovin helped a lot (thanks!!!)

And it is really cool how we all arent like f u and stuff, nice civil discussion is really cool...

Gabriel

03-25-2004, 05:40 PM

<flees from thread with opinions intact>

Too rich for my blood.

Player0

03-25-2004, 05:45 PM

And it is really cool how we all arent like f u and stuff, nice civil discussion is really cool...

Might be a first for us LOL

Synthohol

03-25-2004, 07:39 PM

ok, here goes.....
the concept of marrage and weddings was originally formed as a HOLY bond of wedlock, lots of religious beliefs there right?

take the religeon out of marrage and now its simply a shared LEGAL bond between two people.

gay marrage imho is a way for a couple to not only "sanctify?" their bond but also will allow spouses to be covered under medical insurance.

today, anyway, i believe the marrage liscence should be issued to whomever applies as a LEGAL bond. gay marrage in a religious ceremony seems out of place under the "eyes of god" as it were.

hell, i despise liver or any organ on my dinner plate... but i wont stop others from eating it!

the communion and bond shared between a gay couple does not require a "holy wedding" merely just a paper that says there is a legal union and let the couple celebrate the LEGAL union however they see fit for them.

for my opinion on god and organized religeon, please see my posts in the "Under God" thread if you care to see where i'm coming from.

spldart

03-25-2004, 08:22 PM

The state should have stayed out of marriage and shouldn't be involved in marriage now. It is religious in nature. Not governmental.
I guess the state can handle divorces however since their is often property and custody issues to be handled by courts.

Synthohol

03-25-2004, 09:03 PM

it was only the spread of diseases and inbreeding that caused a health concern for the states which is why you needed a licence and a blood test to marry.
the blood test should be optional by now i think.

ralf_c

03-25-2004, 09:33 PM

bit off topic again

on the public affection issue, i don't mind a gay or straight couple hugging, pecking or showing other subtle acts of affection but godamnit i really don't like to see couples (gay or straight) getting it on like mad on the street, it ain't right.

someone mentioned straight couples making out at theaters or clubs, i don't mind seeing something like that in such places as it expected and very ignorable but when people get it on like crazy at a place like a bus stop its not acceptable behavior.

DCMan

03-25-2004, 10:11 PM

ok - erm...

I don't know why we have marriage honestly.

This raised a scary point in my mind. I think marriage is an important thing. I cant wait to be married, knowing that I have found one person who I know is perfect for me, and that I can share anything and everything with for the rest of my life (call me a romantic, whatever.... ;) ). It is something that confirms the life relationship between two people to God, family, friends, state and whoever else decides to look into the matter.

Although I dont agree with or like the idea of homosexuality, I know there is nothing I can really do about it in a legal (or any other) sense. I accept that it is now becoming more and more a part of todays culture, and I put up with it (i hope that doesnt sound to harsh!). I have gay friends and I dont see them as any different to my straight friends. They still socialise etc etc with everybody in the same way as normal. They are still human! I do have issues with what they may do behind closed doors, but all of my gay friends know my standpoint on it. It is left at that.

I think this is where the difference stands. To alot of people - me, and apparently Denovin included - marriage constitutes a life relationship witnessed primarily by God. As already said in this thread (I think), this is where marriage began, and to many, is still what marriage is. The legal stuff could almost be taken as secondary. If taken from this view, a legal gay marriage is almost a contradiction in terms.

Call it anything you want, a union or whatever, I will disagree with it, but I wont mind it as much as long as its something other then marriage.

I actually agree with this. I would still disagree with the idea of a gay marriage, but the fact that its not a "marriage" would somehow make it less grating. I think its because there would be no mention of anything to do with God or it being associated with my beliefs.

Call me pinikity, but thats my opinion on the subject (so far ;) )

Also, just wanted to respond to a couple of things said earlier in the thread not necesarily related directly to the topic.

Yet, many Christians (a minority religion sect on this planet) beleive that they must save the rest of us.

(i'm sorry you got another quote picked P0 ;) ) Its not just Christianity that does this. I'm not the most knowledgable person when it comes to world religions, but i'm sure almost every religion would have issues with a gay marriage. If this is the case, according to research, the non-religous part of the population make up around 15% of the people on this planet (around 850,000,000) whereas the religious lot of us make up the other 85%. Even if half of that 85% do not have issues either way, there is still a 42%(ish) to 15%ish split. when looked at like that, then numbers add up different :)

They quote all the bits from Leviticus about how a man shall not lie down with a man, but miss out all the bits about stoning adulterers to death

I really dont wanna sound like i'm putting the world to rights here, or being pedantic or preaching or anything like that! I kinda feel a bit dumb posting this, but i think its relavent to that comment. If you look in John 8 of a Christian bible, it talks about that very situation.

To paraphrase, a group of people were about to stone an adulterer.

They kept at him (Jesus), badgering him. He straightened up and said, "The perfect one among you, go first: Throw the stone." Hearing that, they walked away, one after another, beginning with the oldest. The woman was left alone.

That is the way the modern church operates.

Right, I think i'm done here! I apologise if I have stepped on anyones toes, or annoyed anyone by going a little off topic, and I hope no-one will think any less of me for saying stuff about what I beleive. I just want to emphasise that these are my opinions. I am not trying to force anything on anyone...

Aaron :)

(ps - i think this is my olngest post ever.... :D hehe)

Gregorach

03-26-2004, 06:30 AM

I think this is where the difference stands. To alot of people - me, and apparently Denovin included - marriage constitutes a life relationship witnessed primarily by God. As already said in this thread (I think), this is where marriage began, and to many, is still what marriage is. The legal stuff could almost be taken as secondary. If taken from this view, a legal gay marriage is almost a contradiction in terms.

Yep, that's pretty much the central issue - is marriage a religious institution, or a secular institution? It seems obvious to me that unless you have an enforced state religion, then it has to be secular - after all, no-one's arguing that Bhuddists shouldn't be allowed to marry, but they don't believe in a God as such.

As I stated earlier, I really couldn't care less what this or that religious sect has to say about the matter, as long as the legal benefits confered to married couples by the state (of which there are over 1000) are available to all regardless of sexual orientation. If you really, really must call it a different name then I guess I can live with it, but it seems pretty stupid and arbitrary to me.

They quote all the bits from Leviticus about how a man shall not lie down with a man, but miss out all the bits about stoning adulterers to death
really dont wanna sound like i'm putting the world to rights here, or being pedantic or preaching or anything like that! I kinda feel a bit dumb posting this, but i think its relavent to that comment. If you look in John 8 of a Christian bible, it talks about that very situation.
[...]
That is the way the modern church operates.

Yeah, I'm perfectly well aware of that parable, and most of the teachings of Jesus. However, my point was that many (all?) of the extremist preachers pushing this issue on cable (the Jerry Falwells of the world) never quote any of that stuff. Nor do they quote any of the stuff about adultery or divorce, as they are mostly divorced adulterers. If you truly believe that the modern church operates in accord with actual teachings of Jesus in the New Testament, then I think you have a very narrow view of what constitutes Christianity in this day and age. Yes, there are many progressive churches carrying Jesus's message of love and goodwill, but there are just as many preaching Old Testament fire-and-brimstone intolerance. Some even advocate all-out holy war so as to herald in the Apocalypse...

DCMan

03-26-2004, 07:26 AM

Yeah, I guess saying "this is the way the modern church operates" was a bit of a blanket statement... It was gone 2am and I think I got fed up of typing! hehe... I was more leaning to the idea that this is what the modern institutions should be based on... certainly anything I have ever been involved in has gone with this view..

And, er, I dont have cable... lol... cant say I have ever watched any of the TV evangelists in action. cant really comment on that one... :)

And just to add to what everyone else has said... its so good this hasnt turned into a mass flame war :)

dicki

03-26-2004, 08:49 AM

Have fun. Practice safe sex

right on! :D

but thats NOT the point here, the point is marriage.

this discussion seems to keep coming back to the religious argument... and i think most of us have agreed there is a difference between a marriage under god and a marriage in law.

can we add a new word to our discussion to aid understanding? i'm going to suggest we have

SEX = The pure physical act. This can be modified by adding gay, straight, homo, hetro or whatever.

MARRIAGE = The Religious union of 2 people in the eyes of god.

BOND = The Legal Union of 2 people in the eyes of the law.

now religious people have a duty to respect the beliefs of others as they respect yours this is the only way for religions to survive, if they became to militant in enforcing these beliefs it would be all out war.

the law has a duty to treat everyone equally with no consideration of age, gender, race, foot size, whatever.

if these two above statements can be agreed upon (and if they can't i think the world is in real trouble) then a legal BOND between 2 people (any two people) MUST have the same benefits and responsibilities layed upon it.

dicki

Player0

03-26-2004, 12:09 PM

I just find it difficult to understand that the only leg supporting anti-gay marriage has to do with grammar. Marriage is an English word, not a Christian or Jewish word. Marriage in it's root form isn't even a prinicple, it's a definition.

mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
a. The state of being married; wedlock.
b. A common-law marriage.
c. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
d. A wedding.

2. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).

3. Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

As much as I'm not religious, I have studied religion and philosophy to a decent extent. I've always contended that the Bible is man's creation, even if it contains the word of god. Man is imperfect, the bible could have been corrupted, and assuredly has been as it has been passed down, translated, stolen, and slowly but surely more of the faults of man creep in to it's language. It is also left WAY too open to interpretation. For example, it seems as though God likes fulfilling his own wrath, yet in modernish times, man has interpreted the old and new testaments to fulfill hate crimes and war and all sorts of behavior I doubt God or Jesus or whatever you beleive had in mind.

I think the Bible was an idea. Stories that inspire and should give people hope and faith and principles. But too often the stories are taken far too literally, or too much reading has gone on between the lines. Which is especially bad because I'm sure that a lot has been lost in the translation. But so many things are carried out in religion using the bibles as defense. But I simply see this as the idea behind these books being overlooked for the raw symmantecs.

I doubt the word of God could even have the ability to be misinterpreted. So I dont beleive the bible is perfect, and I dont beleive that god's answer to whether gay marriages should be allowed or not is in there. And although gayness was around back then, im sure it was looked down upon by all men ALOT worse in those times, and it would be understandable for the writers to certainly influence the rules a little because of that. If God was speaking through these men, then surely some of their 'voice' is also on these pages.

Gregorach

03-26-2004, 01:15 PM

Well, actually, in pre-classical times the only group I know of with a strong objection to homosexuality was the Isrealites, and even then only after the Exodus. In Egyptian, Greek, and Babylonian society it was regarded as perfectly normal, AFAIK... In Sparta, it was actually compulsory. The current "moral" obsession with other people's sexual activities is almost entirely a Victorian-era invention.

Something just about everyone seems to forget about the Bible is that it isn't actually a single work - it's a compendium of largely disconnected material, that's been subject to endless revision and re-editing by a huge range of extremely partisan people. Heck, most of traditional Christian doctrine was decided in committee at the Council of Nicea in 384 AD - not by priests or prophets, but by Emperor Constantine and his advisors who were trying to design a new State religion for the Empire. They actually

As for the "word of God" - I have one very strong principle on that matter. You cannot ever hear, speak or write the word of God (if such a thing exists). Anyone who claims to speak or know the word of God is either a liar or a megalomaniac or worse. As far as I'm concerned, that's what the commandment that you shouldn't take the Lord's name in vain is all about (6th?) - that no-one should ever claim to know His intentions. It's the worst form of hubris imaginable, to both believe in an omnipotent, omniscient being and simultaneously claim that you know his (/her/it's) mind.

Not that I actually believe in God in any traditional sense, you understand...