Thought on homosexuality and same sex marriage

[Sogeking]

My opinion on Tipsy: I think he's just some homophobe who turns to the Bible to justify his hatred. It's not my problem, it's his.

could you quote him when he said that he hates homosexuals? Otherwise your merely making up crap and i dont think thats very fair.


ill try to use a parrallel

The amish(sp?) live secluded comunities with little no electricity. Then one day, a power loving atheist loves the landscape and moves into the neighbourhood. He descides he wants to have electricity, yet, the people of the community have always had no electricity and tell him that this community is one of electricity free living. The man disagrees and takes them to court.(im assuming the atheist would have had to sign an agreement of sorts to live in the community that he wouldnt use electricity...they have agreements like this for gated communities, except its things like you cannot paint your house a different color or you have to be a memeber of the country club, costing an extra 2k+ a year)

Do you think the amish people should change their way of life to accomidate the person that wants electricity, even though for generations there had been no electricity whatsoever?

i try to tie this into homosexual marriage because religious folks(particularly christians) are like the amish people, they have had marriage between a man and a woman for generation upon generation upon generation(times a lot) and now several people wish to have same sex marriage because they want to marry like everyone else yet they want to marry the same sex and not the opposite sex like everyone else, even though these two factions dont have the same beliefs or they might but disagree over a few things. Similarly, the atheist feels its his right to elecricity and that he should be allowed it wherever he lives.


and where is seperation of church and state for marriage? Marriage/union between man and woman is in the very opening parts of genesis(no sure about ages of the book of genesis, hard to determin with oral tradition) thus one would assume its a religious thing, heck, didnt the Catholic church in the dark ages account all the marriages of europe at the time?(not sure about asia ) thoughts?

 

[Tipsy]

and where is seperation of church and state for marriage? Marriage/union between man and woman is in the very opening parts of genesis(no sure about ages of the book of genesis, hard to determin with oral tradition) thus one would assume its a religious thing, heck, didnt the Catholic church in the dark ages account all the marriages of europe at the time?(not sure about asia ) thoughts?

Just to add onto this, 'marriage' was actually invented by the Hebrew people, though not of what it is thought of today, that didn't come til quote awhile after that. I posted the actual history of marriage pages back, but it seems it has been lost in this ever looping thread.

My opinion on Tipsy: I think he's just some homophobe who turns to the Bible to justify his hatred. It's not my problem, it's his.

All you have to do is go back to my first post and you can see what I think of homosexuals. I never once said I hated 'homosexuals', I just don't want them to destroy marriage. Here's a question for you, how can the bible justify any hatred what so ever?

No, he doesn't have the same rights a heterosexual doesn't have. That's a bit different. We are all citizens, and not based on sexuality, so we are ALL disallowed from having this. This is a law that shouldn't be passed on ANYONE.

If we are all disallowed from having this, isn't that equal?

If the government chooses to vote and pass something that bans homosexuals from having their marriage blessed or represented by the church, fine. But as I have said many times, that isn't what I, at least, am talking about.

The reasoning behind the ban on homosexual marriage is simply put as, "After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity... Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all... America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities."

Those are direct quotes for the actual reason for banning homosexual marriage in the United States.

 

[B)ushid(o]

Marriage has been around since ancient times, from the Greeks to ancient Polynesia. It's not something that was conceived by the Judeo-Christian faith. How can one regulate one of the most ancient and diverse of ceremonies?

 

[ArtOfProtoss]

I'm old-fashioned. I think marriage should just be between a man and a woman. I mean that's how it's defined. However, there should be a union where the couple recieves all applicable benifits; tax cuts, etc... which married people get. People who try to refuse those things have no leg to stand on. They're not inferior just because they're gay. And that would be the only reason they shouldn't get the benifits. If someone does say that, then they're bringing religion into things, which in itself is bad.

 

[Lights]

If we are all disallowed from having this, isn't that equal?

Equality doesn't readily mean "positive". But yes, we are all equally disallowed.

The reasoning behind the ban on homosexual marriage is simply put as, "After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity... Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all... America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities."

Those are direct quotes for the actual reason for banning homosexual marriage in the United States.

1) "Weakening the good influence of society" How so?
2) Why does marriage need to be 'protected'? What 'danger' is there?
3) Whose to say that an allowance of same sex marriage would cause so many problems? Beyond the initial outcry of ultra-conservatives and religious extremists, that is. Who is suffering?

That is a very flowery speech, but lacking on true reasons.

 

[Sogeking]

3) Whose to say that an allowance of same sex marriage would cause so many problems? Beyond the initial outcry of ultra-conservatives and religious extremists, that is. Who is suffering?

so wait, now the ultra conservatives and religious extremists(or regular religious people) are second rate citizens because their religion or their opinions dont matter? interesting

TO bushido:

ok, lets look atancient greek marriage


here's china

draw your own conclusion

 

[Korittke]

I'd hope religious extremists would count as lower life forms and would be shot.

 

[Lights]

so wait, now the ultra conservatives and religious extremists(or regular religious people) are second rate citizens because their religion or their opinions dont matter? interesting

Not at all. I am asking whose rights are being infringed upon by allowing this (aka - "suffering"). Those two groups are not actually suffering, they are whining because it goes against their tradition. Big difference.

 

[Laharl]

Marriage has been around for thousands of years and it hasn't changed at all.

Whites can't marry blacks, women belong to the husband, and divorce is illegal!

(text sucks for sarcasm, I'm afraid )

Marriage has changed. Change is good.

Note: In Canada one of the main forces fighting FOR same-sex marriage is a CHURCH.

Note #2: Keep up the good work Tipsy. You're very amusing. Same with Bastard sword.

 

[Sogeking]

Marriage has been around for thousands of years and it hasn't changed at all.

Whites can't marry blacks, women belong to the husband, and divorce is illegal!

(text sucks for sarcasm, I'm afraid )

Marriage has changed. Change is good.

Note: In Canada one of the main forces fighting FOR same-sex marriage is a CHURCH.

Note #2: Keep up the good work Tipsy. You're very amusing. Same with Bastard sword.

wait, so wehre in the bible did it say that marriage between black and white is wrong, i dont see your point.

the way we fight wars has changed, that must mean atomic weapons are good right?

NOTE: did you know that some churches dont believe the same thing that others do? its true, mormans and catholics alone.


To Lights:

ok thats good. But did you read my thread on the amish and the atheist? so how about nobody complain about anything, maybe it would have been easier for hitler to kill off all the jews if nobody complained about natural rights, damn.

 

[Laharl]

Hmmm. Bad example BastardSword.

Hitler killing the jews was an example of somebody picking on a minority. Thanks for that great piece of proof for our side.

Also, Hitler didn't only kill Jews. He killed communists, political enemies, homosexuals, and many, many more. He even killed those who stuck up for the other groups picked on. Again, bad, bad proof.

Note: Hitler has nothing to do with this debate.

Also, there is a difference between picking on a minority (which is what Hitler did, and what the church is doing), and sticking up for one (Which is sadly, what very few people seem to be doing).

Note #2: Again, it matters little to me what happens in America. If America bans same-sex marriage... A lot of people will move up here.

 

[Sogeking]

Hmmm. Bad example BastardSword.

Hitler killing the jews was an example of somebody picking on a minority. Thanks for that great piece of proof for our side.

Also, Hitler didn't only kill Jews. He killed communists, political enemies, homosexuals, and many, many more. He even killed those who stuck up for the other groups picked on. Again, bad, bad proof.

Note: Hitler has nothing to do with this debate.

Also, there is a difference between picking on a minority (which is what Hitler did, and what the church is doing), and sticking up for one (Which is sadly, what very few people seem to be doing).

Note #2: Again, it matters little to me what happens in America. If America bans same-sex marriage... A lot of people will move up here.

ok, good job at jumping in something i was specifically pointing to lights. i dont really care what you have to say about something that i specifically want to know lights opinion on.

To Lights:

ok thats good. But did you read my thread on the amish and the atheist? so how about nobody complain about anything, maybe it would have been easier for hitler to kill off all the jews if nobody complained about natural rights, damn.

nope, dont see BFH anywhere in there, do you?

anyways, great job at going over everything else i said. I know its really important to you since you went after something i asked lights about.

 

[Laharl]

It's my job to make a jerk of myself. I don't come on here to make friends.

Anyways, the religious right as a terribly weak case (especially in America) which involves "protecting marriage". Churches (in Canada) are proving by supporting same-sex marriage that we don't need to "protect marriage" so to speak. They think it's a great idea

(I don't think I've ever seen a Catholic church up here)

 

[Lizardbreath]

I would openly be against gay marriages if there were some sort of health factor involved. The only thing I can really find health wise is the fact that if they adopt it would definitely cause the kid psychological problems. Past that I think the government should not step in on this issue. And keep giving out "civil unions" too whatever couple wants it (don't explode on me and be like "OMG LB WHAT ABOUT 5 YEAR OLDS!!!!...ya know what I mean when I say this).

 

[AZN_FLEA]

homosex aint moral and that is g00d enough for me. homo dont even make babies and would you really want to see everyone in your county ****ing their own sex?? that would effect the children and shit

 

[B~E]

You mean to tell me this thread is still going on ? I tough we agreed on : gays cant marry in chruch, since chruch is opposed to it. Otherwise, its fine.

 

[Laharl]

B~E, didn't I tell you? There ARE churches that want gays to be able to marry. Therefore, gays can marry in church. Therefore, I win.

Azn Flea won't be given the dignity of a proper response.

edit: Republicans (and, indeed, other right wing organizations) want to stop churches (such as several where I live) that want to marry same-sex couples. They are stepping on the rights of both a religious group (the church) and a minority.

 

[Gummy_Demonz]

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ON GAY MARRIAGES! its the sickest thing ever, causing blasphemy to the church. i am not one to descriminate but i don't see why there should be gay marriages , it moraly ruins the concept of marriage which was naturaly intended in our world. i am not against them living but just marriage since it never happened in the past billion years. if its to escape taxes, the gov should give them the option of seeming married, haveing tax exemptions as if they were married but nothing more than that. PERIOD. i am not a homophobe and what not, infact my relative is gay. but i dont see why the concept of marriage should be stepped on and burned to a crisp. thank you

 

[Zerglite]

heres a way to think about it...

Man ****s woman = kid

man ****s man = nothing

see the point? men dont have dicks just so they can stick it up some guys ass, its there for the continuation of our race, not so we can change what nature intended for us to use them for

same applys to women ~ kinda

 

[Emperor Pan I]

heres a way to think about it...

Man ****s woman = kid

man ****s man = nothing

see the point? men dont have dicks just so they can stick it up some guys ass, its there for the continuation of our race, not so we can change what nature intended for us to use them for

same applys to women ~ kinda

then why is male and female sex for pleasue allowed. it produces no offspring, and yealds the same results as male and male does.