Gay Marriage

[Mark T]

Come on now - we've established that "That's what the law says" is a pretty weak point. Any law reflects what was acceptable/necessary at the time it was made and can be changed when it's no longer acceptable/necessary. Laws were made to prevent women from voting and to prevent black people from owning property because, at the time those laws were made that was acceptable behaviour. They were changed when it became apparent that it wasn't acceptable. Your argument - that's what the law says - indicates that you think law is immutable and shouldn't be subject to change.



Let me just change a couple of words there:



Now some might opine that one cannot equate black with gay as black is genetic but gay is a choice - which may or may not be the case. So let's fiddle a bit more.



As danoff said earlier, "separate but equal" - or rather "equal but separate".

To be completely honest I'll admit that I was brought up to believe being gay is different from being hetrosexual. I don't want the law to change on gay marriage simply because there is a perfectly good alternative for homesexuals. Some might call that discrimination which would be there opinion and I accept that. I think this thread is going round in circles because there are two different beliefs here.

On the one side you have those who think that the law should be changed to accomodate those who are homesexual. Then you have the other side who say the law shouldn't be changed just because it could be deemed as discrimitary.

There are things in life which sometimes do not need to change. The argument here is not about your race. Things have moved on from our previous history of segregation and slavery.

There are so many laws that could be changed if you look into this too deeply. For example, there are women only clubs for sports such as golf and tennis. Should I as a male try to get the law changed so that I can play in a particular womens club? No I accept that I cannot join and go to a mens club. After all, if I joined a womens tennis club, it would no longer be exactly that. It would change. Exactly the same could be said for gay marriage. There cannot be gay marriage because marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

[TheCracker]

There are so many laws that could be changed if you look into this too deeply. For example, there are women only clubs for sports such as golf and tennis. Should I as a male try to get the law changed so that I can play in a particular womens club? No I accept that I cannot join and go to a mens club. After all, if I joined a womens tennis club, it would no longer be exactly that. It would change. Exactly the same could be said for gay marriage. There cannot be gay marriage because marriage is between a man and a woman.

These aren't laws - they're private club rules. The two things are completely different. You can't compare the wishes of a small group of people (club members) to the laws of the land.

 

[Sureboss]

Let me ask you something Danoff. Why should the institution change it's terminology for people that choose to be different? It simply makes no sense. If they want to be together fine. But the sheer fact of the matter is that their lifestyle is very different from heterosexual marriage so why should it be the same thing.

Fantastic generalisation there.

Also it's not a choice but that's maybe another flame to throw into the fire.

 

[Mark T]

These aren't laws - they're private club rules. The two things are completely different. You can't compare the wishes of a small group of people (club members) to the laws of the land.

Exactly. If I can't change the club rules why should homesexuals be allowed to change the laws of the land when they have a perfectly good alternative.

 

[Famine]

Exactly. If I can't change the club rules why should homesexuals be allowed to change the laws of the land when they have a perfectly good alternative.

Because government (and thus law), voted for and funded by ALL PEOPLE should never discriminate against anyone for any reason.

To be completely honest I'll admit that I was brought up to believe being gay is different from being hetrosexual.

It is. Being black is different from being white. Being male is different from being female. Liking volleyball is different from not liking volleyball.

Life is about differences. We're (almost) all different. Why should our laws mark us out differently because of it.

I don't want the law to change on gay marriage simply because there is a perfectly good alternative for homesexuals.

Why does anyone have to settle for an "alternative" instead of the "real thing"?

Let's remove marriage for a moment. Let's go on to death. I'd like you to imagine, for one moment, that golfers are not permitted to have a funeral or death certificate. What they can have is a civil ceremony - which may only take place in a separate, licensed place rather than a church/crematorium - called an "Occasion of Passing", and are issued with a "Certificate of Expiration", just because they choose to play golf. I mean, that's good enough, right? Their lifestyle choice makes them different to the rest of us, and they have a perfectly good alternative. Right?

 

[TheCracker]

Because a club is a private institution. A countries laws are there to goven the whole of the countries citizens and like Famine posted - are there to be amended when those laws are seen to discriminate.

 

[Mark T]

If somebody said to me you can't have a funeral or a death certificate because I play golf I would simply say "fair enough". It makes no difference to me whether I have one or not. That's my laid back opinion which is the same for marriage. If I was a homosexual and I was offered a civil union which was a good alternative to marriage I would say brilliant. It does exactly what I want it do. It creates a legal commitment between me and boyfriend.

I cannot account for every gay couple. Some are happy with civil unions (over 15,000 taken place in the UK) and some aren't. The only way that these things can be determined is by our government. If gay marriage is legalized I wouldn't create an uproar. I would accept it but I wouldn't agree with it.

 

[Duke]

If somebody said to me you can't have a funeral or a death certificate because I play golf I would simply say "fair enough". It makes no difference to me whether I have one or not. That's my laid back opinion which is the same for marriage.

Apparently NOT, since you're arguing so vehemently that the law should not be changed. If your statement were true, then you'd say, "Fair enough, might as well call it marriage whether it's gay or straight."

@ Swift: Would you love your wife any less if your neighbors were gay? Would your mother love your father any less?

Didn't think so.

The only way a homosexual couple can damage the strength of your marriage is if you decide they must.

 

[Mark T]

Apparently NOT, since you're arguing so vehemently that the law should not be changed. If your statement were true, then you'd say, "Fair enough, might as well call it marriage whether it's gay or straight."

@ Swift: Would you love your wife any less if your neighbors were gay? Would your mother love your father any less?

Didn't think so.

The only way a homosexual couple can damage the strength of your marriage is if you decide they must.

I'm arguing that I would like to see it stay the traditional way. If however the law does change I'm not going to start protesting about it. I'm just stating my opinion on what I think should happen.

 

[TheCracker]

I'm arguing that I would like to see it stay the traditional way. If however the law does change I'm not going to start protesting about it. I'm just stating my opinion on what I think should happen.

So you don't object to the legal union of a gay couple - just their right to use the word 'marriage' for that union?

 

[FoolKiller]

Really, so it's just cool to be gay and they should be the same as a traditional married couple because they CHOSE to be different?

OK, I have seen this theme of those opposed to gay marriage being pretty sure that it is a choice to be gay.

It is convenient to make that assumption and then put your foot down and say you are right, but you are not a gay person and you do not know if it was a personal choice or something that they naturally feel. All you do know is that they are gay, not how or why. If a gay person told you that they are just attracted to the same sex would you just not believe them and assume they are lying? That is a convenient way to not have your preconceived notions upset.

And then even if it is a choice, why does it matter? If I choose to be a car salesman or a lawyer or a tax collector (which is much worse in my opinion) should I be held back because I chose a profession only fitting to those with a low moral caliber? If their choice does not infringe the rights of any other person then why are you trying to infringe on theirs?

The seperate but equal argument for civil unions is silly. Was segregation right? Was it fair to make every black child go to a certain school, even if they had the same opportunities? Should black people have to sit in the back of the same bus? Or if we want to say it is a choice, should the punk guy with the spikey hair and 50 face piercings have to sit in the back because he looks scary to you? What about the muslim man in full head garb?

Or, let's turn the tables. If somehow Muslim politicians gained control of Congress and the Presidency and passed a law saying that Christians could not be married because it is a Muslim tradition, would it be right?

And for those taking this from a Christian perspective, it's obvious I am a Christian too, but I see things like this: Christ turned no one away, hung out with the lowest of his society, and forgave all those who came to him. He treated everyone equally. Are we not supposed to try and live our life in his example? Is it our place to judge? If they have chosen to live a sinful lifestyle should we be their judge? Or is it that they will be judged later? Treat them the same as every other person and let God decide what should be done with them, not you.

 

[Mark T]

So you don't object to the legal union of a gay couple - just their right to use the word 'marriage' for that union?

Exactly. I have no problem with a gay couple committing to eachother under a civil union. It just shouldn't be considered marriage as that is when two members of the opposite sex commit to eachother.

 

[Famine]

Exactly. I have no problem with a gay couple committing to eachother under a civil union. It just shouldn't be considered marriage as that is when two members of the opposite sex commit to eachother.

And why is it?

 

[TheCracker]

Exactly. I have no problem with a gay couple committing to eachother under a civil union. It just shouldn't be considered marriage as that is when two members of the opposite sex commit to eachother.

But 'marriage' is just a word - a word that most dictionaries consider to mean the legal union of a hetro or homo sexual couple. I can't see why people get upset over a word, especially since they have no objections to the actual legal union!

 

[FoolKiller]

But 'marriage' is just a word - a word that most dictionaries consider to mean the legal union of a hetro or homo sexual couple. I can't see why people get upset over a word, especially since they have no objections to the actual legal union!

I struggle to understand this because they don't care if it is legal equality but they somehow want themselves to be distinguished seperately because they are a hetero couple. All I can figure (and I hate to think this might be right) is it is because they want to have some sort of a superior, for lack of a better word, title because they don't want to be lumped in with those who have an "abominable lifestyle."

 

[Swift]

And for those taking this from a Christian perspective, it's obvious I am a Christian too, but I see things like this: Christ turned no one away, hung out with the lowest of his society, and forgave all those who came to him. He treated everyone equally. Are we not supposed to try and live our life in his example? Is it our place to judge? If they have chosen to live a sinful lifestyle should we be their judge? Or is it that they will be judged later? Treat them the same as every other person and let God decide what should be done with them, not you.

You missed one major part about Christ there FK. After he sat with the sinners and sick he told them to "sin no more". From a christian perspective, homosexuality is a sin. So how could Jesus possibly condone the continued practice of a sinuful act?

 

[Mark T]

And why is it?

Because that's the way marriage was founded and it has been like this for hundreds of years. Why change it now when homesexual couples can have a civil union?

But 'marriage' is just a word - a word that most dictionaries consider to mean the legal union of a hetro or homo sexual couple. I can't see why people get upset over a word, especially since they have no objections to the actual legal union!

If it's just a word then why don't homosexual couples just accept a civil union? My dictionary and dictionary.com says that marriage is between a man and a woman.

I struggle to understand this because they don't care if it is legal equality but they somehow want themselves to be distinguished seperately because they are a hetero couple. All I can figure (and I hate to think this might be right) is it is because they want to have some sort of a superior, for lack of a better word, title because they don't want to be lumped in with those who have an "abominable lifestyle."

Football/Soccer? There are loads of words that mean the same thing. Why not keep marriage for a man and a woman and civil union for homosexuals? Why should it be changed when the definition has been the same for hundreds of years.

 

[Famine]

You missed one major part about Christ there FK. After he sat with the sinners and sick he told them to "sin no more". From a christian perspective, homosexuality is a sin. So how could Jesus possibly condone the continued practice of a sinuful act?

It's only a sin in Leviticus. You've already said that the punishments for the sins in Leviticus no longer apply. If homosexuality is still a sin, then so is eating shellfish. You can't have it both ways.

Because that's the way marriage was founded and it has been like this for hundreds of years. Why change it now when homesexual couples can have a civil union?

Why should it be changed when the definition has been the same for hundreds of years.

Because they can't have a marriage.

Why is "tradition" a reason not to change things?

 

[Swift]

It's only a sin in Leviticus. You've already said that the punishments for the sins in Leviticus no longer apply. If homosexuality is still a sin, then so is eating shellfish. You can't have it both ways.

I said the PUNISHMENTS no longer apply. That doesn't mean that sin is still not sin.

 

[Famine]

I said the PUNISHMENTS no longer apply. That doesn't mean that sin is still not sin.

And are all the other things said to be "an abomination" in Leviticus still sins?

Better not serve prawn cocktail at my wedding, I guess.

 

[Pako]

I ran out of weak sauce for my eggs this morning so I had to come to this thread to get some more.

So what's wrong with tradition? Traditions give people something to look forward to. It gives a fair amount of security because of it's predictability. We've already given authority for Civil Unions and all the legal benefits of marriage to homosexuals. If homosexuals don't like that, then too bad. Life sucks, wear a helmet. Everyone's the victim and everyone's entitled to something they don't have, and society gets to pay for all of it, monetary or otherwise.

 

[Mark T]

It's only a sin in Leviticus. You've already said that the punishments for the sins in Leviticus no longer apply. If homosexuality is still a sin, then so is eating shellfish. You can't have it both ways.



Because they can't have a marriage.

Why is "tradition" a reason not to change things?

Well we can't have everything we want even if we think it is unfair.

Tradition is good reason not to change things.

Birthday cards, presents, turkey at christmas, remembrance day are all traditions. I like it the way it is. Should those be changed simply because there traditions? Well no I don't think they should, but I cannot account for everyone. There may be some people who want to change those things just because they can.

Marriage is more than tradition, there is a law to protect it. It is defined as being between a man and a woman and I don't believe that should be changed.

 

[Swift]

And are all the other things said to be "an abomination" in Leviticus still sins?

Better not serve prawn cocktail at my wedding, I guess.

Again, the passage you talk about is certainly about being Kosher.

But since you love to look at the scriptures as much as I. Let's look at another account where homosexual actions caused the downfall of a people.

Gen 19:1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing [them] rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
Gen 19:2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.
Gen 19:3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
Gen 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, [even] the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
Gen 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

Gen 19:28 And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.

Gen 19:29 And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt.

So from scripture I can point to yet another instance, BEFORE the passage in Leviticus as to how God view homosexuality.

Seriously Famine, you're no were close to being dumb. But, as much as we disagree on this, you can't possibly think that you can use scripture to prove your point, can you?

 

[Famine]

So what's wrong with tradition? Traditions give people something to look forward to. It gives a fair amount of security because of it's predictability.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with tradition - I merely asked if it was a good enough reason to keep a law which discriminates between people.


Need I remind you that something else which discriminated between people was a tradition in your country for 246 years before it was repealed?

Birthday cards, presents, turkey at christmas, remembrance day are all traditions. I like it the way it is. Should those be changed simply because there traditions?

Great. Question was if tradition itself was a good enough reason not to change things. You're talking about changing things because they're traditions. This isn't even close.

So from scripture I can point to yet another instance, BEFORE the passage in Leviticus as to how God view homosexuality.

I'm not reading anything about homosexuality in the bit you posted - but nevertheless, that's the Old Testament. You know, the bit you told me no longer applied after Jesus's birth (or rather that the punishments don't)?

Seriously Famine, you're no were close to being dumb. But, as much as we disagree on this, you can't possibly think that you can use scripture to prove your point, can you?

Yes. As long as you're using it (and inconsistently, to my mind) as your SOLE reference for what should and shouldn't be legal.

I'll note that my question remains unanswered - since the part of the Bible that says, explicitly, that homosexuality is a sin ALSO says that eating seafood is a sin, why will you happily accept the consumption of seafood but NOT homosexuality? If Jesus swept away the punishments for these sins, why is one acceptable to you but the other not? If they remain as sins despite the lack of punishment, why is one acceptable to you but the other not? And lastly, what about the six situations I described earlier - is a male-to-female transsexual marrying a man a "civil union" or a "marriage"?

 

[Zrow]

Pako, you're not paying for anything if gay marriage is legalized. The only thing that happens is gaining of rights - nothing (besides an extra-spicy double-thick weak sauce tradition) is lost. Why is it immoral? Through your whole argument you mention morals time and time again, but I fail to see how it's relevant. What morals are being lost again? You're gonna have to spell it out for me here.

 

[Mark T]

Pako, you're not paying for anything if gay marriage is legalized. The only thing that happens is gaining of rights - nothing (besides an extra-spicy double-thick weak sauce tradition) is lost. Why is it immoral? Through your whole argument you mention morals time and time again, but I fail to see how it's relevant. What morals are being lost again? You're gonna have to spell it out for me here.

Taken from Wikipedia:

A civil union is a legally recognized union similar to marriage. Beginning with Denmark in 1989, civil unions under one name or another have been established by law in many developed countries in order to provide same-sex couples with rights, benefits, and responsibilities similar to those enjoyed by opposite-sex couples in marriage. In some jurisdictions, such as Quebec and New Zealand, civil unions are also open to opposite-sex couples.

Gay couples are not losing out on much, if anything. Everyone's arguing as to why gay couples shouldn't have marriage but they have a perfectly equal ceremony which is recognised as a committment between two people (gay or straight)

 

[Swift]

It's directly relevant.

If a guy changes gender to a girl, which is s/he? What gender person are they then allowed to marry in order not to be a homosexual marriage and, thus, okay in the eyes of God?

I understand it's a difficult question - and it's no trick either. I'm not totally sure myself what the answer to the first part is. But I'm not God and so not omniscient.

Actually, that question isn't hard at all. From a biblical standpoint. To get a sex change is to say, "God, you got it wrong! I was supposed to be a 'blank' "
God doesn't make mistakes. Hence sex changes are a sin.

A second, as-yet-unanswered, question regards marriages of other religions. Is an Islamic/Hindu/Jewish/Sikh/Buddhist marriage valid to Christians?

Did you just ask if a Jewish wedding is considered valid to Christians? I'm guessing you were just coming up with as many common religions as quickly as you could. Especially since Christians and Hebrews have the same basis for marriage.

As far as the other religions, as long as it's a man and a woman, I don't see the problem. I know that some of them have some different tenents once you get into a marriage. However, the one man, one woman thing is usually pretty consistent.

 

[TheCracker]

Well we can't have everything we want even if we think it is unfair.

Tradition is good reason not to change things.

Birthday cards, presents, turkey at christmas, remembrance day are all traditions. I like it the way it is. Should those be changed simply because there traditions? Well no I don't think they should, but I cannot account for everyone. There may be some people who want to change those things just because they can.

Marriage is more than tradition, there is a law to protect it. It is defined as being between a man and a woman and I don't believe that should be changed.

Turkey at Christmas is a very recent change. Goose is what people ate at Christmas traditionally.

Traditions change when they become unfeasable or outdated. Marriage as a hetro only club is becoming outdated, it's a tradition that needs to change.

 

[Famine]

Actually, that question isn't hard at all. From a biblical standpoint. To get a sex change is to say, "God, you got it wrong! I was supposed to be a 'blank' "
God doesn't make mistakes. Hence sex changes are a sin.

Then organ transplants - and indeed ALL modern medicine - are a sin. My niece was born without a functioning kidney. She needed a kidney to live and got one. To get that kidney is to say "God, you got it wrong! I was supposed to live, not die"...

Sex changes correct a physical ailment - and yes, I said physical.

 

[Omnis]

Does gay marriage cheapen the traditional marriage by sharing the same name? If so, the gays' right to be married interferes with marriage's right to be only between man and woman.