Gay Marriage
- Thread starter 1X83Z
- 2,302 comments
- 85,018 views
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,455
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
So the debate really hasn't changed much in over 400 posts, eh? Well, nothing more to add then what was already said....unless I haven't mentioned this before. In any case, I'll state it again.
Wheither you believe in evolution or creation, or something in between......we, as a race of people, have continued to survive though our most primal feelings of desire for the oposite sex. Without it, our race would have died out long ago. I suppose that we are much more civillized now that we can reproduce through some other means? Oh, but that brings up another topic, why am I associating marriage with sex....silly me.
With that I will bow out, and might check back at post 800 to see if we have come to any conclusions.
BTW - It isn't the government that can declare how much a couple loves each other, but it sure makes a nice tax benifit to be married under the eyes of the government.
~Peace~
Wheither you believe in evolution or creation, or something in between......we, as a race of people, have continued to survive though our most primal feelings of desire for the oposite sex. Without it, our race would have died out long ago. I suppose that we are much more civillized now that we can reproduce through some other means? Oh, but that brings up another topic, why am I associating marriage with sex....silly me.
With that I will bow out, and might check back at post 800 to see if we have come to any conclusions.
BTW - It isn't the government that can declare how much a couple loves each other, but it sure makes a nice tax benifit to be married under the eyes of the government.
~Peace~
- 3,425
The US is odd. we debate over gay marriage and other gay rights but we also think that nudity is a sign of the devil or some such crap. janet Jako's left tit makes you go blind...very strange. civil unions seem to be the way to go , just be shure that all the legal rights are the same for both and the problems solved ..right ?
- 375
I don't want my kids growing up and there'll be two guys making out on the street. If this is legalized it'll just prove beyond doubt America's degradation of morals. It's time we raise the standards, not lower them. It's seen in different way on television on pretty much every channel. Janet's boob, Queer Eye, and shows such as the Bachelor, which degrades heterosexual marriage. If you ask me, people should worry about the integrity of straight marriage before they even think about legalizing homosexual marriage. Then again I'm not a time-traveller. Who knows, maybe in twenty years heterosexuals may be a minority. I doubt it though.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
So it's OK to see two heterosexuals making out on the street? Or is it that only gays can't be trusted to keep their hands and tongues to themselves? Or what?
How is this relevant to the topic of gay marriage? Are homosexuals physically and morally incapable of monogamy?
Wouldn't allowing committed, loving, monogamous gay couples to officially declare their wedding vows actually reinforce the concept of marriage?
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
Because intelligent people like to understand the underlying concepts behind what they think, and they are willing to put some effort into that understanding.Originally posted by K_Speed
LMFAO
CAN SOMEONE TELL ME WHY THIS TOPIC IS SO LONG
PFHAHAHA
Originally posted by Pako
I think you missed the point, but then again...it wouldn't have been the first.
It's interesting to me that someone who can't seperate religion from government is telling me I've missed the point.
Do you think I'm immoral because I'm not religious?
I've gotta agree with my man #1. I can't approve of it. The U.S. just isn't ready yet for gay marriage. I guess i'm somewhat going along with the biblical arguement, with marriage being reserved purely between man and woman. But come to think of it...I don't even approve of regular marriage!
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,455
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
Wow...all this from my little "BTW". Again, missing the point entirely!
Ok...I'll try to explain my comment in a manner that is easy for you to understand.
Let me brake it down into two parts.
The first will address this part of the comment, "It isn't the government that can declare how much a couple loves each other,". What is the purpose of government or state recognized marriages? Is it to show how much a couple loves one another? The answer is no. A couple can express and acknowledge their love for each other without the need for state intervention. Does this make sense? Am I calling you immoral because you are not religious? No. Please let me know if any of this is unclear to you and I will try to further explain my comment.
Part Two as stated, "but it sure makes a nice tax benefit to be married under the eyes of the government.", implies only one thing, and that is the fact that there is a tax advantage to being married and being able to claim married on your tax return instead of single male. Did I in any way imply something else with that statement? Am I assuming that all gays that want to get married only want marriage so they can have a tax brake? I can't see anywhere in my post that would have stated that.
I have a biased right, that is not fair to people of same sex relationships in that in the state of Montana, I can get married, divorced and remarried as many times as I want. Same sex couples do NOT have that same right under the laws of the state of Montana. Yeah for me, and sucks to be them. Their lifestyle of choice (open for debate) has it's costs as do most of the decisions that we make (also open for debate). We, as a society, have become so dependent on "Entitlement" (see milefile's thread) that it's sickening. Everyone is entitled to everything.... Well, maybe not so much and that pisses people off that they can't have what the next guy has.... So, either get over it, or protest for what you think your entitled to. That's all....
Try not to read more into what I'm saying than what's there... You had a preconceived idea what you "thought" I was saying based on prior experience in reading my posts not doubt. This is a sad case of one sided thinking. This proves that you have already decided who's right and who's wrong without even really digesting what's being said by the members in this thread...
Just sad I guess, but all to typical.
But do you think I am? Do you think a non-religious person can be as moral as a religious one? Do you think I can be as moral as you?
Actually, you did - you said that I thought your 'tax break' statement referred to all gays, but I never said that. I just caustically responded to your unfair statement to provoke you into using the rolleyes smile. Nevertheless, I think you believe that gays are getting married or want to get married in part for a tax break.
From now on, I want the Christian religion to make and enforce all of my laws. It's not like we're in a free society or anything.
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,455
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
Originally posted by M5Power
But do you think I am?
As I stated earlier, no.
Do you think a non-religious person can be as moral as a religious one?
Define religious. A person's religion might influence their morals, but being religious doesn't mean you're a moral person. Morals are values that you have adopted into your decision making process. I would hazard to guess, though, that your personal morals have religious background wheither you know it or not. It is a part of western culture. The ancent Hawaiian's used to throw their babies into the ocean if they had any kind of birth defect at all.... In our culture today, we would call it barbaric, and certainly immoral. Not to mention having relations with other family members. It was acceptable in their culture, but we would find that to be a moral disgrace.
Do you think I can be as moral as you?
I wouldn't know one way or another.
Actually, you did - you said that I thought your 'tax break' statement referred to all gays, but I never said that. I just caustically responded to your unfair statement to provoke you into using the rolleyes smile. Nevertheless, I think you believe that gays are getting married or want to get married in part for a tax break.
Care to further explain your sarcastic remark then? On the subject though, isn't that why ALL people want to get married under eyes of the State? It's all about financial benifits. What other reasons would there be for a State sanctioned marriage?
From now on, I want the Christian religion to make and enforce all of my laws. It's not like we're in a free society or anything.
Why you gotta hate? More sarcasim? What..
But do you think I am?
As I stated earlier, no.
Do you think a non-religious person can be as moral as a religious one?
Define religious. A person's religion might influence their morals, but being religious doesn't mean you're a moral person. Morals are values that you have adopted into your decision making process. I would hazard to guess, though, that your personal morals have religious background wheither you know it or not. It is a part of western culture. The ancent Hawaiian's used to throw their babies into the ocean if they had any kind of birth defect at all.... In our culture today, we would call it barbaric, and certainly immoral. Not to mention having relations with other family members. It was acceptable in their culture, but we would find that to be a moral disgrace.
Do you think I can be as moral as you?
I wouldn't know one way or another.
Actually, you did - you said that I thought your 'tax break' statement referred to all gays, but I never said that. I just caustically responded to your unfair statement to provoke you into using the rolleyes smile. Nevertheless, I think you believe that gays are getting married or want to get married in part for a tax break.
Care to further explain your sarcastic remark then? On the subject though, isn't that why ALL people want to get married under eyes of the State? It's all about financial benifits. What other reasons would there be for a State sanctioned marriage?
From now on, I want the Christian religion to make and enforce all of my laws. It's not like we're in a free society or anything.
Why you gotta hate? More sarcasim? What..
- 715
This is an amazing thread that started with this simple question...
It is also interesting that you asked it the way you did instead of asking it the other way around... "Is there any reason why it should be allowed?"
I think before I respond to the question, I would like to have you clarify what you mean by "free society"? Do you mean the US as it defines "free" through it's laws, traditions, lifestyles, history, etc... ? Or are you talking about say, the UK or France or Germany as they define "free" through their laws, traditions, etc... ? Perhaps you mean Israel as it defines "free" through it's laws, traditions, etc... ? Or seeking to define what a "free" society means and should include just in general? Perhaps through your own determinations of what a "free" society should be just in general?
My point is simple but very important to recognize. If you want to know if it should be okay for gays to marry or not in a given government, then you have to account for the beliefs/ethic on which that government was founded (and all governments are founded in some sort of system of beliefs or ethics whether it involves God or a god or not) or you have to change that government to account for your own beliefs or some other different system of beliefs...
phattboy
Who are you, Wesley Clark?
That's why I didn't ask if you knew.
To celebrate their love? Duh?
Yeah - it was sarcastic, but it was a fair point also.
The thing is, I can think of a few legal reasons why they should be allowed to marry - but I can only think of religious reasons why they shouldn't. And in this government, with its seperation of church and state, religious reasons are supposed to take a backseat to the constitution. Otherwise President Kennedy would've consulted the Pope everytime he made a decision.
- 715
Actually, that isn't historically what "seperation of church and state" means but that is a digression that is meaningful to this discussion. Historically, the reason for the "seperation of church and state" was so the "state" part couldn't impose religion on the "people" part. It is important to make that distinction and to get it right.
It is equally important to recognize what "free" means in society:
In the instance of the Republic of the United States of America, you have several issues to consider. As a republic, there is representation voted in by the public that determines what the laws are going to be for governing (supposedly based on what the majority of the representatives constituents wish though not always the case). Those laws of governing determine what free means in that society. In a republic, those laws are determined ultimately by how the representation has voted and therefore, free is as they have determined and not necessarily what everyone would deem as free.
In this case, you also have to couple that truth with the fact the government of this particular country is rooted/founded in the Judeo-Christian ethic. Marriage is page one of the Judeo-Christian ethic. That particular ethic does not traditionally condone homosexual marriages and likewise, the laws of the country have not condoned it either. Any discussion on the subject has to recognize the validity of the arguments stemming from the beliefs of that ethic for allowing or not-allowing those marriages. It is, after all, the only reason those laws are there in the first place They are the product of what the representation believed/believes to be what free meant/means in the Judeo-Christian ethic.
Then, of course, there are the individual state laws and constitutions at which level most marriage laws reside. Those individual governments are also steeped in similar historic ethic although more individually influenced by localized social/religious climates at their forming. Check out Utah for a prime example or the state governments in the so-called Bible Belt.
There is rich religious history in any government and the laws and freedoms are reflective of that history. It is religious beliefs that have always driven history and government. What I am saying is there are no other reasons but religious reasons and they are as valid as those who believe them.
So, in light of that, Is there any actual reason it should be banned in free society? I would say that a lot of people sure thought/think so and it was/is completely based in religious beliefs of what the definition of marriage is and this is not that definition.
Other questions that need to be asked:
Why do gays want to take ownership of something that is not theirs and was not defined by them?
Why not call what they want something else something more akin to what it is?
Why wouldnt they be content to call it something else and have the same benefits financially or otherwise they seek? Why must it be marriage? Why not a new category to be recognized by the state?
Surely it isnt because the real attack going on here is not from the largely Judeo-Christian society on the Gay community but the Gay community making a full-frontal attack on the Judeo-Christian believer right at the heart of the basic element of that Judeo-Christian belief at the very most important things to that believer on earth marriage, family, faith?
phattboy
Sage
Staff Emeritus
- 12,533
- United States
- GTP_Sage
It must be marriage because the government isn't willing to make another "category" that has all of the same benefits as marriage. My bet is that most gays don't exactly want "marriage" for the wording than just for having the same benefits as anyone else.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
Why define a new concept, when a perfectly valid concept exists that fits the bill? I mean really.
Is Der Alta not married because he and his wife are never going to have children? That would be absurd to propose... so why is it absurd to think that gays want to share in a concept that already exists and describes their desired union perfectly?
Is Der Alta not married because he and his wife are never going to have children? That would be absurd to propose... so why is it absurd to think that gays want to share in a concept that already exists and describes their desired union perfectly?
- 715
But that is just my point... Marriage in the classic sense does not describe the desired union between two gay people perfectly. It misses the key ingredient of what the Judeo-Christian ethic (as well as many other historic faiths) defines marriage as... And what we all know to be true here is the Gay community are not the ones who originally defined what marriage is.
This isn't just about children and I'm not sure why you go to that other than you must not understand or simply refuse to accept what they believe so you can have a point to argue that you think holds water. First and foremost, the sanctity of marriage for those who hold to that faith is all about the sacred union of a man and a woman. It's principles are taught as fundamental truths from the God in whom they hold their faith and it starts on page one. For them it goes well beyond the propagation of the species and defines far more than just a mother and father. It is wrong by the teaching of their faith to have same sex marriage. In fact, wrong to the point of being an affront to their God.
Right, wrong or indiferent to how you might believe in your "enlightened" self, this is not something they can just throw to the side. To do so would be a denial of what they believe God has taught them for thousands of years. To deny it is to deny what they believe is God's teaching and to turn from that God. It is no different than you refusing in yourself to deny what you believe is the foundation of your life here on earth.
Why is it they who must accept the gay and what the gay believes even to the point of demanding they deny their God? Why not give they who hold to that Judeo-Christian ethic the same courtesy of accepting what they believe? Is that not trying to force the gay beliefs down peoples gullets while accusing those people of trying to force their Judeo-Christian beliefs down the gay's gullet?
Why a new concept? How about because that is what they want is... a new concept. And I ask again... Why attack and redefine marriage to suit their needs? Why not try redefining friendship? It doesn't fit friendship in classic definition and, in the same fashion, it doesn't fit marriage in classic definition. It is something different altogther. And while they are at that new concept, why don't they get their own name for it instead of this beligerant insistance on using/redefining what marriage is?
Greg
This isn't just about children and I'm not sure why you go to that other than you must not understand or simply refuse to accept what they believe so you can have a point to argue that you think holds water. First and foremost, the sanctity of marriage for those who hold to that faith is all about the sacred union of a man and a woman. It's principles are taught as fundamental truths from the God in whom they hold their faith and it starts on page one. For them it goes well beyond the propagation of the species and defines far more than just a mother and father. It is wrong by the teaching of their faith to have same sex marriage. In fact, wrong to the point of being an affront to their God.
Right, wrong or indiferent to how you might believe in your "enlightened" self, this is not something they can just throw to the side. To do so would be a denial of what they believe God has taught them for thousands of years. To deny it is to deny what they believe is God's teaching and to turn from that God. It is no different than you refusing in yourself to deny what you believe is the foundation of your life here on earth.
Why is it they who must accept the gay and what the gay believes even to the point of demanding they deny their God? Why not give they who hold to that Judeo-Christian ethic the same courtesy of accepting what they believe? Is that not trying to force the gay beliefs down peoples gullets while accusing those people of trying to force their Judeo-Christian beliefs down the gay's gullet?
Why a new concept? How about because that is what they want is... a new concept. And I ask again... Why attack and redefine marriage to suit their needs? Why not try redefining friendship? It doesn't fit friendship in classic definition and, in the same fashion, it doesn't fit marriage in classic definition. It is something different altogther. And while they are at that new concept, why don't they get their own name for it instead of this beligerant insistance on using/redefining what marriage is?
Greg
Sage
Staff Emeritus
- 12,533
- United States
- GTP_Sage
Well, what about the rest of us who aren't Christian? I'm an atheist, and thus my definition of marriage is a sanction between two people who love each other. You can't deny other people their rights just because of your personal religious beliefs.
What if I had a religion that said nobody on the face of this Earth could eat wheat, and that my god would be angry at me and send me to fireland if they did? Just because that's my religion, and just because those are my beliefs, doesn't mean that they should be enforced onto everybody else.
If you're Christian, and don't believe in gay marriage, then don't marry somebody of the same sex – but do leave everybody else alone for pete's sake.
What if I had a religion that said nobody on the face of this Earth could eat wheat, and that my god would be angry at me and send me to fireland if they did? Just because that's my religion, and just because those are my beliefs, doesn't mean that they should be enforced onto everybody else.
If you're Christian, and don't believe in gay marriage, then don't marry somebody of the same sex – but do leave everybody else alone for pete's sake.
- 715
So you are who defined what marriage is? And, you are right in the second part of this statement and that is my point exactly whether you religiously practice atheism or Theism. "You can't deny other people their rights just because of your personal religious beliefs." Christians are not seeking to deny others their rights here... they are only seeking to defend their own.
First of all, I would have to say you're in trouble because there are a lot of folks eating wheat. And secondly, the ones trying to impose their beliefs on others here are not those who are simply defending their beliefs. The attack on the sanctity of marriage as it was/is defined is the imposition they are endeavoring to enforce on everyone else.
But you see, the attempted change/redefinition is not coming from the Christian... The institution has long been defined what it is... So it should be said: No... you leave everyone else alone for pete's sake.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
That is absolutely, completely, and utterly not true! Honestly, if you can say that, you have made a fundamental error of logic. It is a common one. In fact, I'm going to repost some words I said about it earlier in this thread:
The post quoted above is the classic fallacy of social Conservatism. I'm going to use Christians as the example only because they are the most identifiable by far. What they don't understand - deliberately or not - is this:
Gays are not lobbying to change Christians' lives. They are only lobbying for their own freedoms. Christians, on the other hand, are lobbying against the gays. Right-wing conservatives are lobbying to stamp out the freedoms of other groups.
That's such a clear and fundamental difference. You MUST be able to understand it. You must.
Gays want the freedom to be gay. Gays want Christians to have the freedom to be Christian, too. But Christians, who presume that their own freedom is sacrosanct and unquestionable, are looking to prevent everybody else from having those freedoms, if they disapprove of them on moral grounds. And by "moral grounds", I mean "consenting adult" morality. No one rational thinks murder, violence, or theft is moral and no one rational would condone that kind of anarchy.
I mean that Christians of this type want to prevent me from doing something they disapprove of. That's immoral, in my book. I'm not asking Pako to give up his beliefs or Gil to deny the things his pappy taught him throughout his life. I'm not trying to change their lives at all.
I'm just trying to get the Right Wing Conservatives to stop changing my life. I can't put it any clearer. If that's not an understandable difference, I'm forced to say it's because you don't want to understand.
Those who want to live a strict, pious life, are welcome to do so without interference from me or the law! But if my life doesn't fit their mold of "morality", that's just too bad. I'm not making them to join in - but I won't tolerate them trying to interfere, either. I'm already leaving them alone - now it's their turn to keep their blue noses out of my business.
But this is also not correct logically. Bill and Bob, loving each other and wishing to get married, can in no way affect your morality. Nor can they possibly do any harm to any one.
Gay marriage cannot injure your morality if you choose not to be in a gay marriage. Seeing happy gay people may offend you, but you know what? I'm offended by seeing fat people in tiny bathing suits... but I'm not out campaiging against their right to wear little Speedos that disappear under their bellies. Their decision does not affect my appearance, so why is it my business? What possible right would I have, assuming their genitalia is covered, to impose my idea of what looks appropriate on them?
Another thing that is quite offensively presumptuous here is your implication that that gays cannot possibly hold marriage sacred. You seem quite sure that gays only want to co-opt "marriage" as a way of rubbing their lifestyle in your face. I find that quite cynical and un-Christian. Surely it is possible that gays actually desire the sanctity, dedication, affirmation and commitment of marriage for precisely those attributes?
So, being a long-standing tradition is good enough to exempt an institution from change? Let's take that to the next logical step:
Slavery is a long-standing tradition within human society. Strong peoples have enslaved poor peoples for all of recorded history. Therefore, slavery should be an accepted practice and we should resist any attempt to infringe on this tradition. Leave slave owners alone, for Pete's sake.
Right?
Danoff
Premium
- 34,134
- Mile High City
Is it denying them of a right sage? Do gay people (or any people) have a right to get married? Are religious people really trying to supress the rights of others, or are they merely trying to surpress others from getting the same benefits that they enjoy? There is a difference.
The real argument here is that it is unconstitutional for the government to descriminate based on gender - not that gays have rights that are being denied. It would be difficult to make the claim that all people have the right to get married under the law.
Similar threads
