Gay Marriage

[Swift]

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)?

Really? You don't know that the term "know" in the bible many times means sex? Such as: Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

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"?

Famine, do you read anywhere in that passage you quoted, the punishment for eating said fish? I'll be here

About your six situations. When you have someone, born with a mutation of both types of reproductive organs. Or at least more then the normal set for a gender, who would I be to say they can't marry who they want as long as their partner is OK with it. This is not the case with homosexuality as it is a choice of the person not something their born with.

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.

There are cases of people that die if they don't get a sex change?

And actually, no. You're niece was supposed to live. Why? Because she was born in a time where it is possible to transplant a kidney. Just a short while ago it was not. Correct?

 

[TheCracker]

About your six situations. When you have someone, born with a mutation of both types of reproductive organs. Or at least more then the normal set for a gender, who would I be to say they can't marry who they want as long as their partner is OK with it. This is not the case with homosexuality as it is a choice of the person not something their born with.

How do you know that people are not born as homosexuals? Are there any scientific studies that prove that it's purely a lifestyle choice?

 

[FoolKiller]

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?

He told them not to sin, not to judge for him.

But if we want to play this game let's go with the Ten Commandments.
1) You shall have no other Gods before me.
No freedom of religion for non-Christians? We can't condone their sinful acts, right?
2) No false idols
No more Mickey Mouse. That definitely looks like an idol.
3) Shall not take the name of God in vain
Limits on freedom of speech. Can't condone that sinful act.
4) Rememeber the sabbath, to keep it holy
No one works on Sunday (or should it be Saturday?). We shouldn't condone that.
5) Honor your father and mother.
What do we do to disobedient children or people who stick their elderly parents in nursing homes?
6) You shall not commit murder
This makes sense no matter who you are.
7) You shall not commit adultery
What to do with my father.
8) You shall not steal
Yay! No more wealth redistribution!!!!
9) You hall not bear false witness against your neighbor
Perjury laws go beyond the courtroom now.
10) You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's
No more of this keeping up with the Jones's crap.

OK, most of that was me being facetious, but the point is that allowing a gay marriage is not condoning homosexuality any more than allowing freedom of religion is condoning Satanism.

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.

Using that same example:
Football

Football

Lots of words can mean multiple things.

 

[Swift]

How do you know that people are not born as homosexuals? Are there any scientific studies that prove that it's purely a lifestyle choice?

Actually, that would be for you to come up with if you wish to claim that they are born homosexual.

Also, Famine stated in a post a while back that there is no scientific evidence either way.

 

[TheCracker]

Actually, that would be for you to come up with if you wish to claim that they are born homosexual.

Also, Famine stated in a post a while back that there is no scientific evidence either way.

So your statement is wrong too then?

This is not the case with homosexuality as it is a choice of the person not something their born with.

 

[Pako]

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.

Do you have any idea or clue what it costs to make/change law? Do you have any idea what the cost of a ripple effect of every new law has on this country? The fact that I have to explain morals to you is the very reason I have a problem with this. America is loosing sight of it's morals and is continuing to make moral compromises by making grey area law. What happens when everything is grey, when there is no definitive definition. I'm not talking specifically about gay marriages, as sometimes it might seem, is the entire system as a whole. It used to be that if you committed a crime, you were actually punished for it. We, as a society, have made the process so arduous and painful, we have people falling through the cracks. We have a great system in place but it's alarming what it's turning into. I go back to this attitude of entitlement and where everyone's the victim and no one is accountable for their actions. Again I say, marriage is a concept I hold in high regards and respect because of my morals. I don't want to see my morals compromised with the change of this law. Marriage is an elite club, deal with it. Either you're part of it or you're not. Just like due process, certain requirements are necessary for marriage. Same gender relationships do not meet the basic needs for marriage. Two friends living together to not meet the needs for marriage, which brings up a point, a couple of guys live together, are best friends...are not homosexual as they are not sexually active with each other, but have lived together for years. Are they not also entitled to the benefits of marriage?

 

[Swift]

He told them not to sin, not to judge for him.

But if we want to play this game let's go with the Ten Commandments.
*snip*

OK, most of that was me being facetious, but the point is that allowing a gay marriage is not condoning homosexuality any more than allowing freedom of religion is condoning Satanism.

Tolerated something and condoning it are two completely different things. Jesus himself tolerated getting beaten to a pulp. That doesn't mean he condoned it.

Also, my main stance against homosexual marriage is not religious. As I said before, I firmly believe that this country's society is based on the family unit and homosexual marriage changes that identity at it's core.

So your statement is wrong too then?

No, it's my opinion based on, here it comes, scripture. Since there are no scientific facts either way(that I have been made aware of), what else should I go on?

 

[Mark T]

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.

Turkey has been used since the 1520s. Touching 487 years. Marriages between opposite sex couples have been taking place in the presence of a priest since 1563. I consider both of those long standing traditions.

I don't think the tradition of marriage is outdated. I believe the introduction of civil unions is perfect for homosexuals.

 

[UnoMOTO]

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"?

Maybe I can entertain an answer to your question since everyone seems to be avoiding it.

It wouldn’t be recognized in Gods eyes as a marriage because he knows how you where born and changing your appearance would never change how he made you. It is our beliefs that god would not be accepting of that behavior or lifestyle. The good thing about how we believe our god works is that no matter how bad you get it wrong, at any time you can make it right. To us all it takes is an acceptance of Jesus Christ as the son of God and everything will be forgiven and the pearly gates begin to open for you. Is that what you are looking for? Do you want to here one of us say that we think that behavior would earn you the right to spend eternity in hell if not accepting the teachings of Jesus Christ? Yes...by our teaching it tells us that all other religions would suffer the same fate. We are taught to love every man. I love my gay friends but I also need to let them know the error in there ways. In the end we are not the judge so this BIG problem is not left up to us to decide the fate of any person.

EDIT...this thread moves fast enough that this might seam late.

 

[TheCracker]

Turkey has been used since the 1520s. Touching 487 years. Marriages between opposite sex couples have been taking place in the presence of a priest since 1563. I consider both of those long standing traditions.

To quote from Wiki:

Prior to World War II, turkey was something of a luxury in Britain, with goose or beef a more common Christmas dinner [1] (In Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol, Bob Cratchit had a goose before Scrooge bought him a turkey). Intensive farming of turkeys from the late 1940s, however, dramatically cut the price and it became far and away the most common Christmas dinner meat. With the availability of refrigeration, whole turkeys could be shipped frozen to distant markets. Later advances in control of disease increased production even more. Advances in shipping, changing consumer preferences and the proliferation of commercial poultry plants for butchering animals has made fresh turkey available to the consumer.

So it's been a tradition in the UK for only the last 60 years.

 

[jammyozzy]

No, it's my opinion based on, here it comes, scripture. Since there are no scientific facts either way(that I have been made aware of), what else should I go on?

How about a statement from a gay person? If they told you that it isn't simply a choice, that they didn't simply sit down and decide to be gay, would you change your opinion?

 

[Swift]

Maybe this I can entertain an answer to your question since everyone seems to be avoiding it.

It wouldn’t be recognized in Gods eyes as a marriage because he knows how you where born and changing your appearance would never change how he made you. It is our beliefs that god would not be accepting of that behavior or lifestyle. The good thing about how we believe our god works is that no matter how bad you get it wrong, at any time you can make it right. To us all it takes is an acceptance of Jesus Christ as the son of God and everything will be forgiven and the pearly gates begin to open for you. Is that what you are looking for? Do you want to here one of us say that we think that behavior would earn you the right to spend eternity in hell if not accepting the teachings of Jesus Christ? Yes...by our teaching it tells us that all other religions would suffer the same fate. We are taught to love every man. I love my gay friends but I also need to let them know the error in there ways. In the end we are not the judge so this BIG problem is not left up to us to decide the fate of any person.

EDIT...this thread moves fast enough that this might seam late.

Well said. 👍

How about a statement from a gay person? If they told you that it isn't simply a choice, that they didn't simply sit down and decide to be gay, would you change your opinion?

No. For two main reasons.

1. I do talk with gay people and they all have different stories(kind of like Christians being born again) but the with same conclusion.

2. You could use the same argument for any lifestyle. Like an alcoholic or a drug addict.

 

[FoolKiller]

Tolerated something and condoning it are two completely different things. Jesus himself tolerated getting beaten to a pulp. That doesn't mean he condoned it.

How would tolerating them entering into a marriage be condoning it?

Also, my main stance against homosexual marriage is not religious. As I said before, I firmly believe that this country's society is based on the family unit and homosexual marriage changes that identity at it's core.

I don't see how two same-sex parents can change a family unit anymore than female CEOs can change the executive unit of a business. The gender may be different than it has traditionally been in the past, but the quality of the unit can be better or worse depending on the people themselves.

 

[Swift]

How would tolerating them entering into a marriage be condoning it?

If I knowingly, let them call themselves married as heterosexual couples are married, that would be condoning it.

 

[TheCracker]

I don't see how two same-sex parents can change a family unit anymore than female CEOs can change the executive unit of a business. The gender may be different than it has traditionally been in the past, but the quality of the unit can be better or worse depending on the people themselves.

In fact a same-sex parent family set up could potentially be a stronger family unit. Same-sex parents have to be really dedicated to actually have a family, for obvious reasons. How many hetro parents are there out there who never really wanted to have children but ended up with them anyway. Is this a better enviroment to bring up a family?

 

[Danoff]

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.

The concept of "marriage" doesn't have rights.

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.

The tradition used to be owning slaves. I say if black people don't like that then too bad. Life sucks, wear a helmet. Eveeryone's the victim and everyone's entitled to something they don't have (rights, freedom I guess we're handing that out like candy these days). Society gets to pay for it.

You cannot justify discrimination on the part of the government (which is objectively unjust and immoral) by saying that they should just cope or that they're whining.

Circular discussions here. As Swift and myself have said countless times until we are blue in the face, it is the title and definition of marriage that we aim to protect as we value what marriage is and what it stands for. By allowing any other union beside that of a man and woman would devalue what a marriage is.

You would value it less because you pass judgement on others and wish for your government to pass the same judgement upon them. Unfortunately for you this government is not ruled by Christian law, and so you don't have a leg to stand on. I'm afriad you'll have to separate the cocnept of a religious marriage and a legal marriage in your mind in order to "preserve" it's "sanctity".

Marriage is not "sacred", legally speaking. Legally speaking nothing is "sacred" because the law is not based on religion. If it were, this country is one giant hypocrisy. Luckily, our laws are based on logic and rationality - and as such, we can and should eliminate/adjust any portion of our laws that are based on religion.

Duke, Danoff, and the like are not debating for Civil Rights, they are debating for the demoralizing of American law.

You are the one arguing for demoralization of American law. You are the one arguing for discrimination based on religion. You are the one seeking to continue compromising the basic principles of America. The basic concept of rule by religion is fundamentally un-American. It's sharia right? This is what is done in the middle east. Sins are punished. The law forbids women to show their faces because their holy book says that it must be so. You have to find a way to rise above that kind of scriptural rule and recognize that not everyone agrees with you - and that that's something you need to tolerate. Not accept, tolerate.

Because our law was founded on religious principles and morals, any instance where a shred of religious tone or moral is present, they are quick to judge as discriminatory.

Our law was not founded on religious principles and morals. And, hence, that is NOT the reason why any shread of religious tone is deemed discriminatory. Our law was founded on reason, any religious elements that are not based on reaoson ARE discriminatory because they require the people who live under them to be OF that religion in order to find the law moral.

Religious morality is not objective - but that does not mean that morality doesn't exist.

They want to twist the truth into something that is simply is not and attack good moral practice at the expense of this country.

You wish to discriminate against othes at the expense of this country. You wish to twist this nation into a theocracy and attack good moral practice. Give me an objective, rational reason for government discrimination and maybe you can change my mind. As long as you keep relying on a religious basis for law you're spouting anti-American rhetoric to me.

Look around, watch the news, read what their doing in the schools all in the name of liberal demoralization of this country.

What am I doing in the schools? Getting rid of prayer? I'm sure that would bug you, but the bottom line is that you shouldn't be forcing muslim, hindu, and atheist kids to sit there and listen while the teacher (paid for by these kids parents) sits and spouts religious nonsense and all the Christian kids take the opportunity to chant along with her.

The country is loosing their moral understanding of how they should behave with boundaries being taken down in the name of civil rights.

Just like the nation lost it's moral understanding of how blacks are an inferior race. We're refining our understanding of what is right, and what the government should be allowed to do - discrimination is not one of those things.

There are some really good and moral things that came out of changing bad law, hateful law, but this liberal movement is taking our country down a path that is dark and destructive. A little self control goes a long way. Setting boundaries and moral standards is a good thing. Realizing the value of the family unit is a good thing. Being part of your community and contributing to your neighbor is a good thing. Doing without so others can have is a good thing. Keeping the marriage between a man and a woman sacred is a good thing. Don't neglect the rights of homosexuals by denying Civil Union laws, but don't demoralize marriage by changing the definition.

The function of marriage legally is not a moral one, it is a legal one. You cannot demoralize marriage from a legal point of view because it is not legislated morality. There is such a thing as rightful legislated morality, but marriage is not it.

...and no, a Christian theocracy is not a good thing.

Do you have any idea or clue what it costs to make/change law?

The same thing it costs to keep it the same. We don't pay our legislators any more to NOT change the law than we pay them to change it.

America is loosing sight of it's morals and is continuing to make moral compromises by making grey area law.

America is gaining sight of it's morals - by understanding that it is IMORRAL for the government to discriminate.

Again I say, marriage is a concept I hold in high regards and respect because of my morals. I don't want to see my morals compromised with the change of this law.

The law should not dictate your religious morals to you, because you do not live in a Christian nation. You live in a free nation.

Marriage is an elite club, deal with it. Either you're part of it or you're not.

Being married does not make you "elite" or superior. It does not make you more of an American, or more important in any way (legally). Marriage is a legal construct designed to help with property/guardianship rights. As a legal construct, it should be available to anyone - not an elite club available only to the religiously blessed.

Whoa, hold it right there. Debating for the demoralization of America? That's a mighty accusation there. Morality is subjective. What is moral to some isn't to others.

While I agree that some people have different notions of morality, objective morality does exist. It is not religious in nature, but morality does exist. Not everyone's notion of what is moral is equally correct - and the majority's decision on what is moral is also not necessarily correct (see my signature).

 

[UnoMOTO]

In fact a same-sex parent family set up could potentially be a stronger family unit.

How could two MEN possibly teach a little girl everything she needs to become a woman. Sure that girl might be loved more than a typical family but she would NOT be better off with the lack of growth that a mother would bring. It does not take a villiage, it takes a man and a woman to rear a child properly.

 

[Danoff]

How could two MEN possibly teach a little girl everything she needs to become a woman. Sure that girl might be loved more than a typical family but she would NOT be better off with the lack of growth that a mother would bring. It does not take a villiage, it takes a man and a woman to rear a child properly.

I guess we should make single-parent families illegal then. I guess when one parent dies, the other one should have to either find a new mate or give up their child.

But I think gay men could teach a little girl everything she needs to know. A gay man could probably raise a little girl more femininely than my wife could (she's a bit of a tom boy). It's a gay man raising a BOY that you should be concerned about.

 

[Mark T]

So it's been a tradition in the UK for only the last 60 years.

In the mainstream population, 60 years. It has been used by the upper class in the UK for over 400 years.

 

[UnoMOTO]

I guess we should make single-parent families illegal then. I guess when one parent dies, the other one should have to either find a new mate or give up their child.

That wrong does not make gay marriage right. So stop wasting our time repeating that argument.

But I think gay men could teach a little girl everything she needs to know. A gay man could probably raise a little girl more femininely than my wife could (she's a bit of a tom boy). It's a gay man raising a BOY that you should be concerned about.

Yeah...Maybe he could teach her how to shop! that's a real good life long trait to have. Can he sympathize with her about how she feels about her first bra or her first tampon or how to say no to an agressive boy? NO, NO, NO...This list would go on forever. Us men...even GAY men would never begin to understand how the mind of a woman works! You can't possibly argue with that statement...or can you? You are Danoff after all.

 

[Mark T]

Being married does not make you "elite" or superior. It does not make you more of an American, or more important in any way (legally). Marriage is a legal construct designed to help with property/guardianship rights. As a legal construct, it should be available to anyone - not an elite club available only to the religiously blessed.

It is available to homosexuals in the form of a civil union. (I'm not aware of all the places it's available, especially the US)

 

[Danoff]

It is available to homosexuals in the form of a civil union. (I'm not aware of all the places it's available, especially the US)

It's not available in that form in (most of) the US, but it doesn't fix the whole problem. Calling it a civil union unnecesssarily categorizes groups of people. I had an earlier post where I gave examples of how unnecessary categorization can be destructive.

 

[Mark T]

It's not available in that form in the US, but it doesn't fix the whole problem. Calling it a civil union unnecesssarily categorizes groups of people. I had an earlier post where I gave examples of how unnecessary categorization can be destructive.

Homosexuals and hetrosexuals are two different categories. Why is there a Gay pride celebration and no straight pride celebration?

Why are there MOBO (music of black origin awards) and no MOWO (music of white origin awards).

The list can go on...........

 

[Pako]

It's not available in that form in the US, but it doesn't fix the whole problem. Calling it a civil union unnecesssarily categorizes groups of people. I had an earlier post where I gave examples of how unnecessary categorization can be destructive.

We have a group of people that don't want to follow the rules. We are not discriminating those people, they simply want to do things differently from normal people. The response to that desire is Civil Unions. (Can I say 'normal' or is that discriminating non-normal homosexuals?) By the way, I thought of you being all super hot and super sexy all night. I just couldn't get that image out of my head. Oh and....I mentioned to my wife how lucky I felt to be "pair bonded" with her.....yeah, that didn't go over so well.

 

[Danoff]

Homosexuals and hetrosexuals are two different categories. Why is there a Gay pride celebration and no straight pride celebration?

Why are there MOBO (music of black origin awards) and no MOWO (music of white origin awards).

The list can go on...........

Private vs. government. One is law, the other is a private group of people doing what they want. There's a HUGE difference, and you should see it.

We have a group of people that don't want to follow the rules. We are not discriminating those people, they simply want to do things differently from normal people. The response to that desire is Civil Unions. (Can I say 'normal' or is that discriminating non-normal homosexuals?) By the way, I thought of you being all super hot and super sexy all night. I just couldn't get that image out of my head. Oh and....I mentioned to my wife how lucky I felt to be "pair bonded" with her.....yeah, that didn't go over so well.

Just like blacks who wanted to be free didn't want to follow the rules.

Let me put it as plainly as I can. Having a law which singles out a particular lifestyle is discriminatory. Having a legal function that allows two people to legally mingle is not discriminitor. Having a law which says only THESE KINDS of people can legally mingle - like only black people, or only fat people, or only men, or only women - that's discriminatory and you'd feel that way too if marriage was legally defined as being between two men only.

 

[Swift]

Danoff, as much as we would love to live in a world where everyone is the same, the ideal of Dr King, that just isn't reality. Reality is a black person can say nig ga and it's fine. A white guy says it and he's racist. You can have government sponsored programs to help people of a specific ethnic group but not others. and so on...

Gay marriage is just that. It's not the same as what we have as a marriage now. Everytime I hear this on a radio program, I say, just get a civil union and call it a day. They all say they want to have the power to decide DNR or not, go to the hospital room, get the tax benefits(that's still so stupid that we get them at all) and the like. If a civil union does all this what's the difference?

This is not the same as separate but equal with blacks and whites. There are no facilities or public funds going to two separate schools, courthouses and the like. It's simply saying that a marriage between a man and a woman is different from two men or two women.

 

[Danoff]

Danoff, as much as we would love to live in a world where everyone is the same, the ideal of Dr King, that just isn't reality. Reality is a black person can say nig ga and it's fine. A white guy says it and he's racist. You can have government sponsored programs to help people of a specific ethnic group but not others. and so on...

An imperfect world is not an excuse to maintain a flawed sysetm.

If a civil union does all this what's the difference?

If there wasn't a difference, you wouldn't care if we called it marriage.

This is not the same as separate but equal with blacks and whites. There are no facilities or public funds going to two separate schools, courthouses and the like. It's simply saying that a marriage between a man and a woman is different from two men or two women.

I doubt you would say the same thing if there the protection of marriage bill said that black people also had to have civil unions, and that only white people could get married. I'll bet if that were the case you see a real big difference between the two.

 

[Pako]

You don't choose your race but you choose who tickles your pooper? Circular, we've already discussed this.

 

[Swift]

very circular...

 

[Danoff]

You don't choose your race but you choose who tickles your pooper? Circular, we've already discussed this.

Ok, substitute the word black for something you choose... like a religion. Let's say the bill said that marriage could only be between a man and a woman, and only between non-Christians. All others had to get a civil union.

Now do you see a difference between marriage and civil union?

Try not to just pick at whatever technicality you see in my post. Try to think about the spirit of what I'm trying to convey, I'd appreciate the courtesy. Thanks.