C
charles cure
Guest
Baron Max said:
right, except that people desiring incestous marriage, under 18 marriage, and plygamous marriage (which i might add IS allowed in many places around the world and even some here in the states) are a far smaller percentage of the population than homosexuals. in addition, the thing seperating these people from homosexuals is their right to choose this kind of relationship. supposedly, gay people are incapable of choosing homosexuality as their sexual preference. all these other groups choose the deviant relationship or sexual practice that they might engage in. i would say that makes a crucial difference.
Baron Max said:
really, you think society has accepted it well huh? remember that kid matthew shepard who was murdered in wyoming because he was gay? or a guy named Billy Jack Gaither who was killed in Alabama because he was gay? countless instances of gay bashing, verbal abuse, familial alienation...etc. thats how society has dealt with it in the past and sometimes how it does now. i wouldn't say thats taking it so well. in fact two gay guys were arrested in texas in 2004 for practicing gay sex in their own home when two cops accidently burst into their house mistaking it for the one next door which had been broken into. i think we may have different opinions of what taking it well means.
if you accept homosexuality, you don't have to accept everything else. you just say, hey we accept homosexuality and not these other things because they are different seperate issues. its easy.
Baron Max said:
there is denying it, they dont want special rights, they want the law to be fair in the first place.
Right.Bells said:
Cohabitation without both the father and mother is not the best atmosphere for children. There are over 1000 psychological studies that show the effects of male and female parents, male only parent, and female only parent. They all conclude that a child is better to have both.Bells said:
As I said, studies show those children do not develop properly.Bells said:
As I said before, it doesn't. Allowing homosexual marriage is a threat to Christianity and Canada is a prime example of religious freedom injustice because of the laws. Stop and think how many government programs rely on the traditional marriage definition. You change the definition, and you might have a problem depending on the program.Bells said:
If homosexual marriage is allowed, Christians will be forced to change their sermons that are directed to their own congregation, and maybe even the Bible itself. And that would be a tragedy for us.
Christians in Canada are being forced to suppress from speaking about the sin of homosexuality.
The final thing I have to say is just give it some thought about the impact on society aside from just marriage itself. Homosexual marriages have been shown to have no effect on the marriage and divorce rate in the countries that allow the practice, so we cannot tell if it is a bad idea in itself (as far as the family unit). However, we can clearly see the effects on the other laws that depend on the definition of marriage.
If you all take this step, you must decide what impact the decision we make today will have on the future. This right, if given, will effect everyone in one way or another. Do you want the effects, or not? Look into it as I did a few days ago.
If you all take this step, you must decide what impact the decision we make today will have on the future. This right, if given, will effect everyone in one way or another. Do you want the effects, or not? Look into it as I did a few days ago.
As I said, studies show those children do not develop properly.
And making them believe in gods, angels, demons, etc. as a reality somehow does allow them to develop properly?
Do you want the effects, or not? Look into it as I did a few days ago.
Why not just list them here?
And making them believe in gods, angels, demons, etc. as a reality somehow does allow them to develop properly?
Do you want the effects, or not? Look into it as I did a few days ago.
Why not just list them here?
C
charles cure
Guest
jayleew said:
what bothers me is that a lot of christians see this debate in terms of "homosexuals want special rights" but then fail to recognize that the whole legal structure of marriage has given mainstream couples who accept judeo-christian marriage special rights for decades and now they refuse to give them up by either agreeing to equalize the legality of marriage for more than one group, or do away with the legal aspects of marriage in order to preserve it as a "private institution". you cant have your cake and eat it too as they say.
*************jayleew said:
M*W: And there are a multitude of beholders who see the same thing as I. You are caught up in that evil, and you cannot see it with your eyes, but you sure as hell are beholden to those invisible Egyptian chariot wheels on the floor of the Red Sea! It's one thing to be evil, it's another to be stupid. You are both!
*************charles cure said:
M*W: Yeah, marriage is a great institution, and all that, but who the hell wants to live in an institution?
(Q) said:
I already have already speculated on the effects, and I have given the evidence to support the hypothesis. It is your job to decide if it is a valid conclusion. You can take a look at Canada and California, and decide if that is what you want happening in your state.
charles cure said:
I understand that now, Charles, that is why I had to go and look for the implications of accepting homosexual marriage. The act itself has no effect on me, and it is right to do for them. However, the ripple effects threaten my ability to express myself as a Christian, and also will effect this society's government programs. All I can say now, is that I am concerned with the outcome of allow homosexual marriage, and not just because my interpretation of the Bible says its wrong.
What bothers me, is that everyone is only seeing the surface effect of allowing homosexual marriage which is in the forefront of the issue. But, there is no consideration on what such a right is doing to Canada and California. It's great to give the right, but is it the right thing to do for the good of all?
C
charles cure
Guest
jayleew said:
look, if, as a group, gays begin to demand that all private groups who do not accept them be penalized, then they are just as wrong as anyone else who demands a special and elevated group status in a presumably equal society. the christian church can allow or deny anyone it wants, it is a private organization and not a public entity. the legalization of gay marriage however, does not automatically produce such a result. people have to be logical in their assessment of what is right and wrong for all sides of a debate and not play to each others worst fears. yes, in canada and california some ridiculous things have happened, but at the same time, ridiculous things are enshrined in law all over the state of california on a yearly basis. apparently the people there have a different attitude about a lot of things and i dont necessarily agree with it, as for canada, i dont know. i do know that neither of those outcomes is what definitely has to happen as a result of lifting the ban on gay marriage.
The comment is such a waste of space, it's hardly worth the attention. Instead of fanny-farting around with irrelevant and inconsequential garbage, how about you just get to my post?
Bizarre really, considering the sheer length of my post should show that I have done just that. You're now wasting my time talking about trivial and worthless matters that aren't even related.
You said: "you missed the point". I voiced my opinion - something I can freely do. What point did I miss? Yours? I wasn't interested in it.
I disagree with that opinion of yours. You could have said: "I disagree with you", but instead came across like the only opinion that mattered was yours, and if for some reason I didn't agree with it, it's because I'm missing the point. I've seen you do it many times, to many people and I felt the need to tell you there was no call for it. You as a homosexual want rights, I don't care whether you get them or not. End of story. A very simple sentence, try and read it.
Anyway, once you're done with the petty bollocks, how about getting to my post? Thnx.
Bells
Staff member
You still have not answered as to what this has to do with same sex marriages. So what does children being brought up by a mother and father have to do with granting homosexuals the right to marry at law?jayleew said:
As to your claim. Yes, most children would benefit having two parents, just as some benefit more from having only one parent, if for example one parent is an abuser (physical and of substances) or has passed away, etc and those children turn out just fine. Children brought up by terrific mothers and fathers can also turn into right royal little turds and into adults who are plagued by problems be it criminal or psychological.
Again, what does this have to do with same sex marriages? Surely you aren't claiming that all children brought up in a single parent household do not develop properly?
The biggest threat to Christianity today is Christianity in itself. The reason being is that they are losing members at a terrific rate due to their outdated ideals and ideologies. And again... what does Christianity have to do with granting homosexuals the right to marry at law? Christianity is a religion and has nothing to do with the law. So how does it apply in this situation?
The Government programs that rely on the traditional marriage definitions discriminate against homosexuals to ensure that the Government and big insurance companies for example can then pocket the benefits.
Yes. Heaven forbid that Christians move forward with the times.
What a tragedy that would be for Christians to keep up with a changing and bettering of society. How dare anyone think that Christians would want to ensure that every member of society were seen as being equal at law.You much prefer to maintain the ideologies of the dark ages when women with birthmarks were burnt at the stake for being witches.
Just as the Christian churches are suppressing victims of child abuse, at the hands of the members of the Christian churches, are being suppressed from speaking out about the sin of their abuse. Paybacks a bitch huh?
charles cure,
What is the purpose of marriage, in your opinion
If you change the legal definition of marriage, then you change the nature of marriage, it stands to reason. The religious nature of marriage is the commitment of a man and woman, to join together, to become one, till death they do part. They make a vow before God, a promise. If the legal definition is adapted to make way for a constantly changing society, then the whole point of marriage is lost, and ceases to become "marriage", and becomes a ceremony based on whim and condition.
The reason is not so much "unchristian" as it is pointless.
Yes, in the sense that it demeans the true purpose of marriage. Increasingly more people get married in the church because of the tradition of church weddings. They get caught up in the superficial aspect of it, disregarding, to varying degrees of the real purpose of marriage in the eyes of God. As such they go into it knowing that they can come out of it if things don't go according to plan, or if they get bored of each other. That is not the purpose of marriage, IMO. And if the purpose has changed, then what value is there in getting married (outside the tax breaks etc..).
I don't see how you can call such a marriage "traditional". You must either be atheist, or ignorant.
From a purely materialistic and modernistic, point of view, I understand your point. But at the same time, anything can go as there doesn't seem to be any instrinsic, human values.
As gay marriage is a product purely of society, having no spiritual value, it, becoming leagal could be used as a reasonable argument to encourage beastiality as a feasible practice, and seek for the marriage laws to be changed in favour of.
Marriage has a purpose which involves man and woman, that is its point. Even if the law changed to suit homosexuals as well, they can never fit the original criterea, therefore will never, really be married. They can only say they are married, witnessed by the authority of man.
That is not correct, although the bible does have this criterea, the union of man and woman (male and female) marriage, is a natural process, which has been in existence since time immemorial, regardless of whether it is a religious process or not.
Then you wouldn't object to someone wanting to marry their pet dog?
Jan Ardena.
What is the purpose of marriage, in your opinion
If you change the legal definition of marriage, then you change the nature of marriage, it stands to reason. The religious nature of marriage is the commitment of a man and woman, to join together, to become one, till death they do part. They make a vow before God, a promise. If the legal definition is adapted to make way for a constantly changing society, then the whole point of marriage is lost, and ceases to become "marriage", and becomes a ceremony based on whim and condition.
The reason is not so much "unchristian" as it is pointless.
Yes, in the sense that it demeans the true purpose of marriage. Increasingly more people get married in the church because of the tradition of church weddings. They get caught up in the superficial aspect of it, disregarding, to varying degrees of the real purpose of marriage in the eyes of God. As such they go into it knowing that they can come out of it if things don't go according to plan, or if they get bored of each other. That is not the purpose of marriage, IMO. And if the purpose has changed, then what value is there in getting married (outside the tax breaks etc..).
I don't see how you can call such a marriage "traditional". You must either be atheist, or ignorant.
From a purely materialistic and modernistic, point of view, I understand your point. But at the same time, anything can go as there doesn't seem to be any instrinsic, human values.
As gay marriage is a product purely of society, having no spiritual value, it, becoming leagal could be used as a reasonable argument to encourage beastiality as a feasible practice, and seek for the marriage laws to be changed in favour of.
Marriage has a purpose which involves man and woman, that is its point. Even if the law changed to suit homosexuals as well, they can never fit the original criterea, therefore will never, really be married. They can only say they are married, witnessed by the authority of man.
That is not correct, although the bible does have this criterea, the union of man and woman (male and female) marriage, is a natural process, which has been in existence since time immemorial, regardless of whether it is a religious process or not.
Then you wouldn't object to someone wanting to marry their pet dog?
Jan Ardena.
C
charles cure
Guest
Jan Ardena said:
my opinion is that the purpose of marriage has evolved over time from a social institution that was developed for the sole purpose of mutual survival and procreation, to one that facilitated a family's class mobility, increase of wealth and power, and to preserve political alliance and stability. In the last century and a half, the nature of marriage has changed to reflect people's increased individual freedom in the form of favoring romantic love couplings over ones that might be more practically beneficial. so my answer would be that the purpose of marriage is constantly developing and shifting.
Jan Ardena said:
thats not true. marriage has at least two aspects to it. one is religious/spiritual, and one is legal and public. by changing the specifics of one, you do not necessarily change the other. by widening the circle of allowed marriages to include another group for legal purposes does not HAVE to change the spiritual aspects of it for any one religious group, unless they believe that marriage is only valid according to their criteria and no other, and cannot accept the fact that religious doctrine and legal doctrine often differ in order to preserve freedom in a diverse society. so no, it doesn't stand to reason at all.
Jan Ardena said:
thats only your opinion. to some people it obviously isn't that way.
Jan Ardena said:
it doesn't demean the true purpose of marriage, because marriage does not and has never had only one single purpose. the problem you have with same-sex marriage is that you believe marriage has a singular purpose and that everything outside of that is no good. marriage pre-existed the formation of any christian ritual and across different societies has been performed for a variety of purposes, some of which, i would submit, have had nothing to do with sexual reproduction. christian marriage is not the only form of marriage, neither is it the "right" form of marriage for everyone.
Jan Ardena said:
i'm an atheist. and if you did a little research on marriage i bet you'd find that the first one wasn't performed in a christian church and that the purpose of it has indeed changed much over time. tha nature of each different type of marriage ritual depends on the development of a traditional "style".
Jan Ardena said:
there is no such thing as a human born with an intrinsic set of values. values are determined by rearing and environment, they are not a set of inborn instincts. depending on what society you are raised in and whether or not your upbringing reinforces that society's values or clashes with them determines your moral stance to a large degree. the reason not just anything goes is because societies develop laws to restrict certain behaviors or activities that they deem harmful. a just society uses, as the basis for law, an underlying appreciation for the freedoms of the people in the society as a whole, and allows for changes in culture and technology to be reflected through legal evolution. the ban on gay marriage is indicative of a legal approach that refuses to yeild to the will of a contingent of the population that has a valid conflict with it. this refusal to even reevaluate the validity of the underlying roots of the law as it applies to marriage has bad implications for wider society. the application of the marriage law here issues forth from a Christian aversion towards homosexual relationships, whether they be demonstrated as harmful or not. that, to me is not a good way to apply the law or a good reason to have it, as the pronouncements of the bible cannot be proven to be right or wrong or authoritative in any way to people other than christians and jews. its a bastion of absolutism in a supposedly "free" society, and if all laws were like this one, every single person would find themselves on the wrong side of it at one time or another and understand what it feels like to be marginalized by someone elses belief system enshrined as legal authority.
Jan Ardena said:
no it couldn't unless you substitute precedent for reasoning. the argument for gay marriage is not the same as an argument for legalized beastiality would be or anything else. and, just out of curiosity, do you think that "regular" marriage is anything but a product purely of society?
Jan Ardena said:
What is the purpose of marriage that mandates that it can only be a relationship between a man and a woman? sexual reproduction? if that is the purpose, then should married couples who have failed to reproduce have their marriges annulled after a certain period of time? should men and women have to take a fertility test to validate their capability to fulfill the true purpose of marriage? or is it something else other than reproduction? is it that god defined the criteria for marriage? if so, whose god? according to which holy book? i think that you can't demonstrate any one "real" or "true" purpose for marriage because there isn't one.
Jan Ardena said:
oh its a natural process is it? you mean like photosynthesis? do you believe that it is inevitable that men and women will get married, even if you could reset the clock back to neaderthal times and watch people develop society and civilization over again? i disagree. and societies in the past have also recognized marriages between a man and many women, so does that mean we should honor that also? homosexuality, it could be demonstrated, dates back to the ancient world as well. ancient roman society accepted it, in fact not only accepted it but promoted it to a certain extent as a beautiful expression of love between people. their empire lasted far longer than the whole of current western civilization has at this point. so do you believe that we should now pick and choose which ancient traditions are ok to honor inflexibly and which ones should just be disregarded? i think we should be able to use reason to decide which ones best fit our current mode of living and make alterations when and where necessary to fit changing purposes.
Jan Ardena said:
yeah i would, for reasons explained in other posts on this same thread, but here let me save you the trouble and go find it:
charles cure said:
C
charles cure
Guest
SnakeLord said:
here's why i didnt respond to your post earlier, because youre impossible to deal with in rational terms. your response on this thread when you can't defend one of your points is "i don't care what people do as long as its away from me", when you patently do care or else would not have posted about it in the first place. so im saying make up your mind, if you dont care, why bother wasting your breath or type or anything on it? if you do care, fucking admit it at least and defend your position.
i said you missed the point, and i was right. you do miss the point from the perspective of the homosexual people and others advocating the right to same-sex marriage. you said:
All this fuss for a ring and a piece of paper? Come on.
its not a trivial pursuit of a piece of paper and a ring or it would be over by now. it is about something completely different. i told you that you had misunderstood the terms in which the conflict was defined and what exactly was at stake to those in favor of gay marriage. you clearly did misunderstand it and so i dont feel bad about having pointed that out. i'll get to your post when i think it matters, so calm down.
by the way, just to clarify, i am not now and never have been homosexual. however i do think that the opposition to homosexual marriage is discriminatory and the implication of this denial of rights disturbs me.
Last edited by a moderator:
What a load of old blithering nonsense. I didn't "respond" to anything, I merely left a one sentence opinion. What are you asking me to defend? I left my opinion to which you told me I had apparently missed the point of something that I had no interest in to begin with. I made my opinion, because I felt like giving my opinion and you're still whinging about it like a sissy pants.
Because I felt like giving my opinion. Once more: Is that ok with you, or do I need special permission?
My point, that you missed, was simply that I could not care if they allowed gays to marry or not. In short I'm the man in the middle. If they do it's no skin off my nose, and if they don't it's no skin off my nose.
For some reason you demanded more from me, and as such I have obliged, and yet that has all been ignored in favour of you still busting my balls over one simple opinion I made three pages ago. I must ask that if I am "impossible to deal with", why you even bothered getting such a hard on over my original one sentence post. You managed an entire paragraph response over a 10 word post, and yet can barely manage a 10 word response over a 300 word post.
Tell you what.. I can see my original post is burning your balls, so I will withdraw the entire thing and we can start from scratch. Ok?
1) I think gays should have the same legal benefits that normal married couples have. In saying, I also think everyone else should have the same legal benefits that married couples have. I too want lower tax. It's only fair. why discriminate against me all because I object to the religious ideal of marriage?
As such I would ask that the thread title be changed to "lower tax for all, gay or not gay".
2) The ceremony known as marriage is about a man getting together with a woman, not a man and man. It is like my poker club that doesn't allow women. A woman can argue all she likes, she still aint getting into my poker club.
It is a religious thing that you have no rights to trample upon. You would be pissed off bigtime if some religious fundies started trying to interfere and intrude on purely secular things, (which they often do - such as trying to get creationism taught in science class), and the same must, to save looking like a hypocrite, be true in reverse. Of course because of the legality aspects, the non-religious have intervened - and created registry office weddings - same thing, no religious bollocks. As I have now stated several times, I am all for legal benefits for everyone - gay or not, married or not, etc - but in no way see anything "logical" about having to include poofters in a man/woman ceremony.
I did, you ignored it. understand? good.
But there's the thing you still to this moment do not comprehend. I did not imply that I gave a shit about poofter perspective or anything else. I merely said I wouldn't care either way. If tomorrow gay marriage is legalised, I wont care. If it remains as it is, I still wont care. It doesn't affect me. I have my missus, kids, pet dog, budgies, snakes, and my computer. I'm happy regardless to what benders can or cannot do. In summary: I didn't miss any point, I just wasn't interested in any point. I gave my opinion as a man with the power and freedom to do so.
Yeah but in my opinion it is. In your opinion it isn't, but who are you to tell me your opinion is of any more merit than mine? People are marrying for green cards, for lower tax bands, to have more rights over their children and so on. We might like to think that there is more to it, but in general it is a piece of paper allowing people more legal rights, (as you yourself have stated). Why you are then fighting for queers to have those same rights is beyond me, unless you're willing to fight also for the rights of everyone else who does not get those benefits. Why are you neglecting everyone else?
I will openly refuse to get married on the basis that it is a religious thing. The same goes with my funeral. I can't apparently even die without some jerkoff wearing a collar sticking his nose in. So, here I am paying a higher tax band. Why? Because I was born without a religious gene? Because the very idea of a 'god' is so fucking laughable to me that I can only sit in amazement at how anyone can even conceive such a silly notion? I have to pay higher tax because of that? Give me a break wouldya. And tell me Charles, why do all these religious people get extra time off work? Why do some of us have to graft for a living while these people can get paid time off to sit around fasting, or talking to the clouds? It's unfair I tell ya, unfair.
Yet here you are trying to somehow make me feel some sort of sympathy for some bum shovellers. My only stance, because either way I am doomed to pay higher tax, is to say that I don't care. Whether they can marry or not does not in any way lower my tax. It does not afford me more rights of say over my children, it does not reduce my tax level, and it does not in all honesty affect me in the slightest.
I debate religion because it does affect me. It forces me to drag my child out of school because they're ramming their inane and ludicrous garbage down my daughters throat - and were doing so before she could even read or spell or understand the very basics of life. I will debate religion because I cannot seemingly die without some paedophile getting the last words in, or pay the same tax as some other jerkoff who took the time to say "i do" in front of one of these paedo's, but when you ask me if I care what a gay man can or cannot do, I can only respond that I don't personally care as long as it doesn't affect me. Hell, if it gets me lower tax then I'm all for it - you've got my vote right now, but otherwise it is entirely inconsequential to my life.
My opinion? Once more: They can jump off bridges for all I care. If it doesn't get me lower tax, then why would I care?
If it doesn't matter, why the fuck are you busting my balls over one sentence? Hell, to quote you:
"you patently do care or else would not have posted about it in the first place."
I generally am always very calm, even now having to put up with your immature and condescending attitude that belongs on a school playground. Instead of trying to pass it off as it's somehow my fault, how about you just respond to my post? Would be the manly thing to do.
I have a 47" penis.
Oh, how it's so easy to say things over the internet. Look, you like a bit of man, who am I to complain? It's your life pal, live it as you see fit. Of course, having said that.. you wont get into my poker club.
Human nature is perverse. Men and women can elect to get married and receive tax benefits as a result but how many are just electing to live together instead and forego the rather pathetic tax relief that they may otherwise receive?
Gays probably would elect to just live together if they didnt feel like they were missing out on something. Truth is lots of hetero couples these days just find that their love for eachother is enough. Who cares for ceremony, pomp and show or tax breaks?
Are the measly tax breaks on offer really worth selling your love out over? They probably dont amount to the cost of a wedding anyway!
peace
c20
Gays probably would elect to just live together if they didnt feel like they were missing out on something. Truth is lots of hetero couples these days just find that their love for eachother is enough. Who cares for ceremony, pomp and show or tax breaks?
Are the measly tax breaks on offer really worth selling your love out over? They probably dont amount to the cost of a wedding anyway!
peace
c20