Thought on homosexuality and same sex marriage

[Tipsy]

As I have said, and as you have said (Even saying it was "obvious"), sexual intercourse has NOTHING to do with marriage. What you are suggesting is banning homosexual couples from having sexual relations, period. Which, I might add, is downright religious extremism and a hilarious joke. Let's ban cussing, too!

In that one example I was stating that he put the two together had nothing to do with each other. The only thing sex has to do with marriage is the pre-marital sex thing which doesn't effect the argument, just pointing it out.

The religion extremism is your opinion, maybe other have the same, but it is still just an opinion.

What is this cherished 'sanctity'? Two barely legal teens forced to be married to support a child? A whore who marries an old rich man to get his left-overs? A man who beats his wife and frightens her from letting anyone know about it? This is fine by you, but allowing two consenting, mature, and same-sex adults from having a sexual marriage is beyond your reasoning? Please.

For the paragraph above, i'll go through each example one by one.

Two barely legal teens forced to be married to support a child?

That is what adoption is for. Children put into adoption in the United States actually do get adopted faster than the sterotype puts it. Normally couples who attempt to have children and cannot are forced to adopt children that are from other countries.

A whore who marries an old rich man to get his left-overs?

I have no idea why the church would bless this marraige.

A man who beats his wife and frightens her from letting anyone know about it?

That is a little thing called sin right there.

As for the sanctity of marriage, if two gay same sex adults are allowed to marry it will defile the term of marriage in my opinion. Marriage brings a male, a female, and God together in a contract, not two same-sex people and God. It is my opinion to follow what the church teaches and you cannot base your entire argument off the fact that you believe the church is wrong, God does not exist, etc.

This is fine by you, but allowing two consenting, mature, and same-sex adults from having a sexual marriage is beyond your reasoning? Please

The reason behind this I believe I have already explained but I might as well do it again.

So your entire basis of argument is to disallow two peoples marriage because, in your 'eyes', it is morally wrong and you believe you should have the authority to say that they cannot (and some garbage about violating a natural law, which is totally irrelevant)? You find nothing wrong with this?

This is somewhat what the other person has been saying. To do what I did when quoting him, i'll act like you.

So your entire basis of arguement is to allow two peoples marriage because, in your 'eyes', it is morally correct and you believe you should have the authority to say that they can. You find nothing wrong with this?

As I have stated, this is why I believe it should be banned. If your morals/opinions/values/beliefs differ from mine, thats find and dandy by me. I believe that it should be banned, and if most Americans believe that then, well, it will be banned. I have stated my opinion and my first post states everything I think on this matter. You do the same thing the other guy does. I state my opinion and then you say yours as if it is a fact or logical and your mind clicks and says that your opinion makes mine wrong. I respect your opinion even don't agree with it, I only ask that you do the same in return.

Edit: Black~Enthusiasm, just saw your post after I posted. Just wondering if you are on one side or the other, or still just staying somewhat neutral as you pretty said you'd do on the first post. This is just an opinion question, there is no right or wrong answer (for everyone who will say there is one).

You are incorrect, we live in a democratic republic.

and

Quote:
Meaning there is also a majority in the Supreme Court, and in other bodies of the government, majority everywhere



The supreme court would not be doing their job if they upheld that law, they are there as a form of control, to strike down laws that go against the constituion.

Congradulations, your pointless nitpicking of examples that effect the argument nonewhatsoever has reached an all time high! You deserve a cookie.

What an interesting concept, humans doing evil and not doing their job? If it is true in whatever world you live in that humans can't do wrong then I want to come live there, for where I live humans do wrong all the time throughout history.

Now i'll end the sarcasm and get to the point.
1) It may be a shocker but some people don't do the job they are hired/appointed/whatever to do.
2) Democracy, Republic, Choclate Cake, it doesn't make a difference at this point. You have dug yourself in a hole and you just keep on digging. Can you not accept the fact that you can be wrong?

Also, can someone else tell Forge that humans are not perfect so he gets it from a source other than me? Please?

 

[Forged]

You seem to think that since it is against christianity that homosexual marriage should be banned, but you never answered my question. What about the churches that do marry homosexuals willinglly.

Can our goverment step in and say they are not churchs? If so that is ****ing terrifying.

 

[B~E]

You seem to think that since it is against christianity that homosexual marriage should be banned, but you never answered my question. What about the churches that do marry homosexuals willinglly.

Since they dont represent the mainstream christian thinking, I dont think they should be taken into account of how religion see things as a whole.

Tipsy : Well, even if my opening statement in this topic was concervative, the whole purpose of why I started this topic was to find the "right" opinion to have on the subject, so im 100 % open to both side of the issue. And "right" here is being defined as flawless. And so far, the concervative opinion seems more logical, however less popular within the forum.
However, there is amrtin comment about the state not being completly secular, like it should, thats posing a problem... damn you amrtin !

 

[Forged]

Since they dont represent the mainstream christian thinking, I dont think they should be taken into account of how religion see things as a whole.

However it is not our goverments place to choose one doctrine over another.

 

[Tipsy]

However it is not our goverments place to choose one doctrine over another.

The government is choosing a law for itself, if it agrees with doctrine of the church so be it. The ten commandments say "Thou Shall Not Kill", does that mean the government can't agree with that commandment because it is choosing a law which makes sense to the majority of its' people and just happens to agree with church doctrine?

 

[Forged]

There is a world of ****ing diffrence between murder and gay marriage,

 

[Tipsy]

There is a world of ****ing diffrence between murder and gay marriage,

Yet according to your argument murder should be legalized because it agrees with church doctrine and the government does not have the right to choose between doctrine.

Also, for the seperation between church and state. On top of my statement that religion influences the morals, values, opinions, beliefs, etc of people and thus influences how they act, vote, etc, there is an article I would like to show you:

"...However, even a cursory reading of the Founding Fathers (FF) writings will reveal that this is a completely erroneous concept that is being promoted by those who have an agenda for our country and its future. The FF fully expected government to be God-based, and even up to the mid 20th century, the Supreme Court of the U.S. utilized biblical law and precepts as their guide in making decisions. This can be proven through the various rulings and decisions handed down in the past. It was common thought and belief by the FF that God was behind the "making of America" and that their responsibility was to uphold His laws and make them a natural part of "secular" law. In truth, there was no "separation" made between God and state.

It must be remembered that the U.S. Constitution was drafted by men who believed strongly in the God of the bible. They believed that freedom and liberty were gifts from God to all people. They also had a profound insight into human nature and governmental power. Because of these two factors, they eventually completed the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, something that has been declared as some of the best written documents ever produced..."

 

[B~E]

I think that forged is exagerating when you say that the state lose its secular quality simply because its see eyes to eyes with the churche over one issue.

 

[Forged]

Yet according to your argument murder should be legalized because it agrees with church doctrine and the government does not have the right to choose between doctrine

Either I have not made myself clear or your reading comprehension is ****ing awful, I think I will go with both.

To explain myself better, murder is not an act that effects no one. It is an act that hurts another being, you without their consent take their life away from them.

Homosexual marriage however is an act between two consenting adults to form a loving relationship, this harms no one.

Your basis for homosexuality being wrong was it was immoral to your paticular denomination. Now this would make sense if your denomination held a monoply on marrige. They however do not.

How would you feel if you couldn't marry your 2nd cousin?

 

[B~E]

Homosexual marriage however is an act between two consenting adults to form a loving relationship, this harms no one.

I agree, but homosexual marriage enter in conflic with the religious definition of marriage, so this is why its unacceptable.

You should try to focus on why religion shouldn't hold anything on marriage anymore, because this is the core of the issue : the religious quality of marriage conflicting with homosexuality.

 

[Forged]

I think the goverment should get out of marriage and only grant civil unions, but I don't see that happening.

Homosexual marrige however only conflicts with certain denominations of christianity and islam so I don't see how that is ground to ban it. If some religons or religous sects allow it then homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Inbred rednecks do not hold a monoply or olgoply or anything like that on marriage.

 

[Tipsy]

Either I have not made myself clear or your reading comprehension is ****ing awful, I think I will go with both.

To explain myself better, murder is not an act that effects no one. It is an act that hurts another being, you without their consent take their life away from them.

Homosexual marriage however is an act between two consenting adults to form a loving relationship, this harms no one.

Your basis for homosexuality being wrong was it was immoral to your paticular denomination. Now this would make sense if your denomination held a monoply on marrige. They however do not.

How would you feel if you couldn't marry your 2nd cousin?

I will repeat myself once more, read carefully:
"Yet according to your argument murder should be legalized because it agrees with church doctrine and the government does not have the right to choose between doctrine."
To put it in simpler terms, it does not matter what the effects are, your entire argument is based on the our government not being able to pick one doctrine over another, or as you put it:

However it is not our goverments place to choose one doctrine over another

. If you did not mean to say this sentence then say so and try to put your argument on something logical.

I think the goverment should get out of marriage and only grant civil unions, but I don't see that happening.

Homosexual marrige however only conflicts with certain denominations of christianity and islam so I don't see how that is ground to ban it. If some religons or religous sects allow it then homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Inbred rednecks do not hold a monoply or olgoply or anything like that on marriage.

I personally think the government should have never gotten into marriage if there was suppose to be seperation between church and state. But I guess that is what happens when the country is founded on mainstream Christain values. The founding fathers never ment in any way, shape, or form for there to be this massive seperation between church and state. Even the right to let other people practice their religion (tolerance) is a Christain value. As I have said, I don't think there ever can/will be a seperation with religion existing. In my opinion I see non-gay marriages a step in the right direction, and civil unions a step in the right direct, but I don't think they should be joined as in a marriage. Hey, let the state grant friends, brothers, sisters, etc the economical rights of government marriage. I only care to protect the sanctity of the Roman Catholic sacrament of marriage.

 

[Forged]

wow I didn't know it was possible to have so much dumbass all wrapped up in one person...

To put it in simpler terms, it does not matter what the effects are, your entire argument is based on the our government not being able to pick one doctrine over another, or as you put it:

Ok let me try this one more time....

Murder harms people, it is not a religous moral it is fact. If you kill someone they are ****ing dead, you don't need faith to know that.

However the only thing wrong with homosexual marriage is that to some stupid bigot ****s think their god scourns upon it...

 

[Tipsy]

wow I didn't know it was possible to have so much dumbass all wrapped up in one person...



Ok let me try this one more time....

Murder harms people, it is not a religous moral it is fact. If you kill someone they are ****ing dead, you don't need faith to know that.

However the only thing wrong with homosexual marriage is that to some stupid bigot ****s think their god scourns upon it...

To put it simply, your argument is flawed. That is all that it is saying. This one thing has nothing to do with homosexuality, only what you are basing your argument on.

Once again, I repectfully for you to read:
""Yet according to your argument murder should be legalized because it agrees with church doctrine and the government does not have the right to choose between doctrine."

Third time I have posted this.

 

[amrtin77]

k tipsy, im back. i see this thread has continued.. and i se you keep ignoring everything everyone is saying.


so you say your opinion is your opinion, and mine is mine, and thats that and im stupid for not seeing it. no i see it, i just dont ****ing care. the point of this is to tell WHY our opinion is right or wrong, and SUPPORT it with a real base. you just keep saying "WELL ITS MY OPINION AND YOU CANT CHANGE IT, SO GAY MARRAIGE IS WRONG... AND THE CHURCH SAYS SO."

thats what your argument boils down to. so what if alot of people think gay marraige is wrong? tell me WHY it is wrong. i know you think its wrong. i want you to tell me a real reason why.


besides religion. if christianity can make its way into the government, affecting EVERYBODY, then why cant a religion i make up do the same? religion must stay seperate unless it gives good reason to be considered. like god coming down from hevan on a cloud telling us what to do.

until you can prove god exists you better ****ing not use him as a basis to the law.

quit being thick and saying "YOU CANT PROVE HE DOESNT EXIST THOUGH!!" no shit i cant. should i have to waste my time disproving something so rediculous that it cant even be proven? if you want to make a rediculous illogical claim, dont exp-ect people to disprove it. expect them to think your a retard until you can prove yourself.



so if i say right now i am an alien, not a human, and you say "send me a pic or i wont believe ur an alien"

i can just say "prove im not an alien"

then you believe im an alien? thats a bit dumb if you ask me.

 

[Tipsy]

so you say your opinion is your opinion, and mine is mine, and thats that and im stupid for not seeing it

Almost. My opinion is my opinion, your opinion is your opinion, and that I cannot prove you wrong, and you cannot prove me wrong with opinions.

i just dont ****ing care. the point of this is to tell WHY our opinion is right or wrong, and SUPPORT it with a real base. you just keep saying "WELL ITS MY OPINION AND YOU CANT CHANGE IT, SO GAY MARRAIGE IS WRONG... AND THE CHURCH SAYS SO."

'
I stated my opinion and it was attacked so I defended my reasoning. You may not like my reasoning but it is what you ask for me to respond with when you attack it.

thats what your argument boils down to. so what if alot of people think gay marraige is wrong? tell me WHY it is wrong. i know you think its wrong. i want you to tell me a real reason why.

It disagrees with those people morals/values/beliefs, so it is wrong in their mind. It may agree with other people's morals/values/beliefs, so it is right in their mind.

besides religion. if christianity can make its way into the government, affecting EVERYBODY, then why cant a religion i make up do the same? religion must stay seperate unless it gives good reason to be considered. like god coming down from hevan on a cloud telling us what to do.

If your religion becomes as influential as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc is in the United States then sure, your religion can make its' way into the government and I would respect that. I think I have already stated on a solid base that it is not possible with religion existing for there to be a seperation.

until you can prove god exists you better ****ing not use him as a basis to the law.

This is what you have been doing the whole time. Once again I will act like you. Until you can prove god doesn't exist you better ****ing not use him as an excuse that everyone who believes in him is wrong.

quit being thick and saying "YOU CANT PROVE HE DOESNT EXIST THOUGH!!" no shit i cant.

Once again to act like you. Quit being thick and saying "YOU CANT PROVE HE EXISTS!!" no shit I can't.

should i have to waste my time disproving something so rediculous that it cant even be proven? if you want to make a rediculous illogical claim, dont exp-ect people to disprove it. expect them to think your a retard until you can prove yourself.

And once again I act like you... Should I have to waste my time proving something so rediculous, that it cant even be disproven? If you want to make a rediculous illogical claim, dont' expect people to disprove it. Expect them to think you are a retard until you can yourself.

so if i say right now i am an alien, not a human, and you say "send me a pic or i wont believe ur an alien"

No, I will respect whatever your beliefs are, even if you say that you can shoot lightning out your ass. The Roman Catholic church preaches tolerance which is exactly what I am practicing towards you.

i can just say "prove im not an alien"

Why would I want to? I respect your beliefs and will not attack them, I will only defend my beliefs when they are attacked.

then you believe im an alien? thats a bit dumb if you ask me.

I did not say I believe you, I said I will respect what you say.

Once again, I must point out that you are using pointless argument and I can use the exact same words to say the exact same thing oppositely. I have not seen one piece of logical evidence on your part as you claim to have. If you wish to state your opinion, feel free to do so, I have done it myself, but do not attack what you cannot disprove because you will fall in the realm of the fools.

I am sorry if I have to go to these levels of repitition to get a point across. Opinions cannot prove other opinions wrong if they have no proof, can anyone disagree with this statement?

 

[Forged]

Yet according to your argument murder should be legalized because it agrees with church doctrine and the government does not have the right to choose between doctrine

That is not what I said, but you are far to ****ing stupid to continue this with so I think I will just quit before I beat my keyboard to oblivion...

 

[amrtin77]

Why would I want to? I respect your beliefs and will not attack them, I will only defend my beliefs when they are attacked.

ok, time for the hammer.

i say im an alien, you say "ok, your probably not, but ill allow you to think you are coz i dont really care and i respect your beliefs"

thats fine. because im nor hurting anything by saying im an alien.

but if i say "i killed her, and she deserved it because she was too fat"
do you still say "i respect your opinion, she deserved to die because thats your opinion and i respect that"


respect opinions all you want, but when it hurts someone we gotta draw a goddamn line.

homosexual marraige isnt hurting anyone, so why should someone be able to say "its against my beliefs, they shouldnt be able to do that even though it affects me in NO WAY WHATSOEVER."



tipsy, for one second listen and dont mock me.


LISTEN. do i have your attention? of course the argument is reciprical. thats my point. i cant prove god DOESNT exist. but given the IMPROBABILITY of such aa beings existance, i can assume he doesnt until i am provided with proof.

the burden of proof lies on you... im not the one saying theres an all powerful god watching everything with a plan for no apparent reason.

I DONT HAVE TO DISPROVE IT! THATS MY POINT! theres nothing to disprove! its just a wild imagination! why should i think something exists without any proof for its existance? DO YOU UNDERSTAND?!

 

[B~E]

Your basis for homosexuality being wrong was it was immoral to your paticular denomination. Now this would make sense if your denomination held a monoply on marrige. They however do not.

Religion doesn't hold a monopoly on religious marriage ? Really ? and how is that so ? And is it because a handfull of rogue churches decided that they didn't whanted to follow the bible to the letterthat it mean the whole view point of the religion, as awhole, should be changed ?
Forged, if you pull that one off, I'll shit on myself, admit your guys are right, that im wrong, and close the topic.

so you say your opinion is your opinion, and mine is mine, and thats that and im stupid for not seeing it. no i see it, i just dont ****ing care. the point of this is to tell WHY our opinion is right or wrong, and SUPPORT it with a real base. you just keep saying "WELL ITS MY OPINION AND YOU CANT CHANGE IT, SO GAY MARRAIGE IS WRONG... AND THE CHURCH SAYS SO."

Well, since this subject is all about the churche and religion, its only normal that we bring it into account when talking about it, isn'it ? I'm sorry, but to talk of same sex marriage without discussing religion is like holding a debat on WWII without mentioning the Nazi regime.

thats what your argument boils down to. so what if alot of people think gay marraige is wrong? tell me WHY it is wrong. i know you think its wrong. i want you to tell me a real reason why.

There isn't any reason why homosexuality is wrong. The bible see it as a sin, but in "real life", homosexuality clearly have no personal impact whatsoever on anybody, and one can wonder why would anybody would take personal offence of homosexuality...

Still, as I said, it all about what the bible says...

besides religion. if christianity can make its way into the government, affecting EVERYBODY, then why cant a religion i make up do the same? religion must stay seperate unless it gives good reason to be considered. like god coming down from hevan on a cloud telling us what to do.

Well, your made-up personal religion would need a lot of followers to make its way into the government.
Anyway, marriage was a religious institution in the first place, and its the state thats making its way into religious matter here, not the other way around.

until you can prove god exists you better ****ing not use him as a basis to the law.

He doesn't need to be proved to exist. All that is needed is enough people to believe in it in order for religion to influence their live. So this is kind of, well, irrelevant.

homosexual marraige isnt hurting anyone, so why should someone be able to say "its against my beliefs, they shouldnt be able to do that even though it affects me in NO WAY WHATSOEVER."

It isn't hurting anyone, but its going against a very old institution in which many people still have faith in, hence the nationwide argument over the subject. And this is why im trying to have the best opinion on the subject. Maybe in 20 years when those people will be dead, fine, the population will change this institution through democracy, but it doesn't seem like they have that power yet.

 

[amrtin77]

And is it because a handfull of rogue churches decided that they didn't whanted to follow the bible to the letterthat it mean the whole view point of the religion, as awhole, should be changed ?

nonono, the religion doesnt have to change anything. the government does. thats the argument. i dont care what christianity does, i care about what the government does.

the church can marry whoever they want, and no legal benifits will follow. but the state must recognize you as married to give you benifits. so the STATE, not the church, is who must change their beliefs. and the state is supposed to be secular as it is. so where exactly is the problem? no one is forcing the church to do anything at all. they dont have to marry anyone they dont want to, the state will.

please tell me your understanding me. i know your not at thick as tipsy -.-