Same Sex Marriage

[jayleew]

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?

I think we need to clarify that it is the Catholic churches, not Protestant that have the problem of not dealing with their priests accordingly. They obviously forgot to listen to Timothy.

Protestant and Catholic are "Christian" but the Catholics adopt additional interpretations that have little scriptural support. I don't want to bash the Catholics here, but let me just say I was brought up Catholic, and now I'm not. They remind me of a group that lived in the past during the time of Christ, who put Jesus on the cross, while I drove the nail. Those who do not learn their history are doomed to repeat it!

About homosexual marriage:
If it is legalized, the Christians will definitly be forced to compromise their position; thereby, ground will be lost in the religious freedom in America. You boil a willing frog a few degrees at a time.

 

[SnakeLord]

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!

I'm sorry, but yes. Since when did the 'couple' pay for the wedding? It is a rare occurence. Usuually the wedding is paid for by the wife's father, and the tax benefits can be huge, (huge enough for me to be happy with the saving). Why people are here saying it should only apply to fags and married people is beyond me. Lower tax for all!

That's what I say.

(Unfortunately Charles just missed my point.. wait, he missed my entire post).

 

[charles cure]

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.

no im not, im doing exactly what youre doing, giving my opinion because i have the time and energy to do so. get over it, i challenged your assessment of the situation, i had every right to. its nothing personal, i dont know you and dont want to, this is just intellectual ping pong. im not whining, im asking you why you wont stop whining.

Because I felt like giving my opinion. Once more: Is that ok with you, or do I need special permission?

do you want my permission? because im sure you know you don't need it. you gave your opinion and no one stopped you, just as no one stops you now. i just challenged your opinion. thats what the forum is all about. come on, you must know that.

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.

i didnt miss the point, i just dont agrre with it. you can say that you dont care all you want, but your consistent weighing in on the subject with strong opinions sort of contradicts the "i dont care" stuff.

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.

i didn't get a hard on over it. i think you think i'm mad about it or something, i'm not. i was just saying that "in my opinion" you dont understand the motivating factors of the same-sex marriage controversy. thats all i really did. you however, seem to have taken this as some type of personal derision or insult. thats not what i was trying to accomplish. i'm sure that you are a great and intelligent person, but im not going to shy away from challenging any statement made by anyone on this board whenever i feel like it because thats wht the discussion forum is set up for. if i walked up to you on the street and did that, maybe your attitude would make more sense, but this is a place for open debate. as far as i can tell, all statements are open to dispute or at least discourse. thats what i was attempting to do and thats what you seem to have a problem with.

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?

i dont have a problem with it beyond the fact that on an intellectual level, i just dont agree with it. so what? my opinion is no better than yours or anyone else's on here just by virtue of it being mine, but i do make an attempt to reason out my stance on an issue and contend with ones i dont necessarily agree with. do what you want with your post.

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".

i agree. i have made that case at several points in this thread. the laws regarding marriage are unfair to nearly everyone at some point in time, so why not just get rid of them. it seems at least we agree on that. however, since that doesn't look like its happening anytime soon, the more pragmatic approach seems to me to be advocating for what is, at least in my view, greater fairness in marriage law.

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.

right but your poker club isnt a public institution, and it doesnt deny anyone else the right to start their own poker club if they want. thats how come its not the same issue. i would have thought you could see that.

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.

so whats the point of this statement? same sex couples aren't asking the church to sanction their relationships, theyre asking for the right to just a legal recognition of their relationship. in lieu of marriage this is called a civil union or whatever, but the issue centers on gay marriage because in some places the law makes no distinction between church marriage and strictly legal marriage, or even common law marriage. so gay marriage, gay civil union, its all the same, the difference is only a nominal thing really.

I did, you ignored it. understand? good.

yeah i did because it was largely just you beating around the bush and saying you dont care about anything.

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.

actually what you did was characterize the same-sex marriage movement (if thats what it is) as a trivial political slap fight over a ring and a piece of paper, when thats not what it is, as evidenced by about a million seperate incidents and debates taking place on a daily basis about the nature of rights for subsections of the population and the morality of homosexuality in general all over the world. that is how the debate is taking place, those are the issues in it. you said you didnt care about what they do and then you implied something like "oh why dont they just get over it cause its no big deal". well yeah, i guess not to you or me, but to some of my friends it is, and knowing them, their concerns, and the myriad issues that arise from the question itself,i know that you misunderstand it, whether you care or not. just because you dont know or care about an issue doesnt make your opinion correct, and it doesn't place it in some special realm beyond contestation on a debate forum.

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?

First off lets be real, some opinions are fact-based, others are pure fantasy. there is in fact a way to lend validity to one opinion over another or else there would be no discussion on any issue except for the endless back and forth of "well thats your opinion" and "well, thats your opinion". you said that the fight is over a ring and paper. thats all well and good, but i at least presented some reasons that there is indeed more at stake to many people than just that, especially the people who do care about it, which are the ones involved in framing the debate. you however just keep saying that you dont care about it.

I left others out of it because this thread is called "Same Sex Marriage" not "Marriage Rights for Horses" not "Marriage Rights for Illegal Aliens", not "Marriage Rights for Children". when you are having a discussion about an issue it helps to attempt to stay focused on that particular issue. and i have at times in this discussion said that i think marriage rights arent fair under most circumstances and that we'd be better off if everyone had them or no one did. I'm not fighting for anything at all, my "support" (if it can even be called that) of gay marriage extends no further than the statements in this thread. i dont go to protests or rallies, or anything. im not emotionally invested in the issue to the point that i am going to do anything except maybe vote for someone who favors it if its convenient. on a message board though, i like to have debate, see what others think and why, be forced to justify my opinions and see how others justify theirs when forced. thats about it.

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.

no shit its unfair. thats the point. the issue for me has less to do with homosexuality than it does with christian definitions of morality that are used to underpin the law. its unfair to everyone, not just them, and i see almost anything that undermines that view or helps to change that situation as preferrable.

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.

im not trying to make you feel sympathy, im trying to convey to you that you should have some empathy for the problem that these people are having, as it is a problem that they share with people like you and i in at least some sense, because the same sex marriage debate is a microcosm of a larger issue in society. that issue, at least in the US is that all non-christians are facing this religious revival among the right wing (and even some left wing) types who control our government. because of this, laws regarding reproductive control, educational policy, marriage, seperation of church and state, child abuse, life saving biomedical research, and even definitions of terrorism are being manipulated or outright dominated by the influence of christianity. eventually you may find yourself aligned politically alongside of those whose behavior you may not agree with because you perceive a common threat, and so advancing their cause also advances your cause. its about that simple.

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.

i didn't ask you if you cared about the issue. not once. i inferred that you cared about it at least a little bit from the amount of derision you spewed in reference to the homosexual practice, and how much you seemed to think it was wrong. you have repeatedly said that you dont care, but the tone of your posts suggests otherwise. i understand that you dont think it matters whether its legal for them to get married or not, because you think it doesnt effect you, but my whole point was that i bet it does effect you somehow. for example, you let the christian element win this round and see how much more forcefully they ram garbage down the throats of children or teach fantasy as reality, or alter the worldview of your friends and neighbors until it results in YOUR marginalization, because it is undoubtedly heading that way as of right now.

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 obviously care or i wouldnt have started the thread. i said i'll get to your post when i think it matters. that means it isnt my top priority right now to sit around and attempt to refute your nonsense when there are other people that at least think the discussion itself is valid and you dont.

how about you just respond to my post? Would be the manly thing to do.

yeah, that's mature. that's the pot calling the kettle black.

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.

yeah its easy to assume what people are like over the internet. would you like me to send you a picture or something so that you can be sure im not a fag? what would you like me to do? i told you i'm not gay, and im not. i'm sure you would be shocked to see what i look like and what i am like in real life. i probably dont do anything like what you assume i do.
and i dont want to be in your poker club to begin with.

 

[Hapsburg]

What is the purpose of marriage, in your opinion

The intended purpose of it isn't what matters, it's what it is: an excuse for women to psychologically castrate thier husbands and generally screw with all of our minds. Marriage is more like slavery than happiness.

If gays want to marry, it's okay by me. They have a right to be as miserable as everyone else.

that's the pot calling the kettle black.

What exactly does that mean?

 

[charles cure]

What exactly does that mean?

oh, he called me immature and then said that answering his post would be the more manly of me. which is pretty immature on his part. so you know, its a saying, from back in the day when a pot and kettle were both made out of wrought iron and were both black. yeah. something like that.

 

[macabre]

I'm just going to give my opinion as a christian myself. I may personally disagree with homosexuality but I have, nor does anyone else have a right to go into someones bedroom and tell them how to live their life. If you are a homosexual and want to get married, then I say go for it. I don't really care. I hope you do better than the 66% of the straight couples who get divorced. Government and everyone else should just stay out of it. What you do in your home is your buisness as long as you are not depriving someone of their right to life, liberty, and so on.

 

[Bells]

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

Men and women who elect to live together are classified as defacto and therefore receive the tax benefits and all the rest of it. However, homosexuals who live together do not have that either. Again, more discrimination.

 

[Bells]

About homosexual marriage:
If it is legalized, the Christians will definitly be forced to compromise their position; thereby, ground will be lost in the religious freedom in America. You boil a willing frog a few degrees at a time.

But you expect homosexuals and non Christians to curb and compromise their position to suit your needs? What about the freedoms of others? Do they not matter?

 

[Hapsburg]

oh, he called me immature and then said that answering his post would be the more manly of me. which is pretty immature on his part. so you know, its a saying, from back in the day when a pot and kettle were both made out of wrought iron and were both black. yeah. something like that.

Oh. I was gonna say "wtf?", 'cause the kitchenware I have are made of steel or some kind of shiny metal like that.

 

[c20H25N3o]

Men and women who elect to live together are classified as defacto and therefore receive the tax benefits and all the rest of it. However, homosexuals who live together do not have that either. Again, more discrimination.

Yes. In the UK they scrapped the Married Person's allowance. Any tax credits are based on the number of dependants a working person is looking after.
Tax credits after all are their to oil the wheels of consumerism, providing relief where cash flow is tight. These days being married does not automatically mean the man will have a 'little wife at home' to support and in the case of homosexual couples, they have much more earning potential in the long run between them than the heteros who elect to have children and one hetero partner chooses to stay at home to raise the children. The UK tax policy recognised that the cash flow of a household only really becomes negatively affected when there are an increasing number of dependants.
Such a policy stops stupid arguments such as these. If there were no tax incentives to get married would gay people still find the ring and the bit of paper worth getting upset over? I do not mean that in a condescending way, I guess I am just making reference to the fact that hetero couples often do not elect to enter into such formalised ceromonies.

peace

c20

 

[Bells]

Such a policy stops stupid arguments such as these. If there were no tax incentives to get married would gay people still find the ring and the bit of paper worth getting upset over? I do not mean that in a condescending way, I guess I am just making reference to the fact that hetero couples often do not elect to enter into such formalised ceromonies.

peace

c20

What many do not seem to realise is that gays and lesbians are not allowed to marry the person of their choice. The tax benefits don't really matter in this argument. What does matter is that we are denying a large group of people the right to marry the person they wish to marry. Heterosexuals can take it for granted and say that it's only a ring and a piece of paper and therefore not worth it. However gays and lesbians do not have that choice. They have been denied the rights that the rest of us take completely for granted. We can harp on about how we are an equal opportunity society and blah blah blah, but even mention the words homosexual marriage and it all goes out the window. Tolerance no longer exists because of the preconceived notions of what many in soceity constitute as being 'ewww'. We have no right to dictate the sexual orientation of others.

Even the athiests on this forum believe in the Christian doctrines in regards to homosexuality. Homosexuality is normal in nature, yet we heterosexuals wish to deny what is natural to many people. While I as a woman feel normal and natural for me to be attracted to a man, I do realise that not everyone is wired to be attracted to the opposite sex. So who am I to tell that person that they are somehow wrong because they are not as I am? In that, who am I and who in the hell is anybody else to dictate whom a homosexual can marry and to deny them the right to marry the person of their choice? It's not just about the piece of paper and ring. It is about being granted the right to get or not get that little piece of paper and ring. It is about allowing them to have the choice that the rest view as our natural right to accept or refuse.

 

[c20H25N3o]

What many do not seem to realise is that gays and lesbians are not allowed to marry the person of their choice. The tax benefits don't really matter in this argument. What does matter is that we are denying a large group of people the right to marry the person they wish to marry. Heterosexuals can take it for granted and say that it's only a ring and a piece of paper and therefore not worth it. However gays and lesbians do not have that choice. They have been denied the rights that the rest of us take completely for granted. We can harp on about how we are an equal opportunity society and blah blah blah, but even mention the words homosexual marriage and it all goes out the window. Tolerance no longer exists because of the preconceived notions of what many in soceity constitute as being 'ewww'. We have no right to dictate the sexual orientation of others.

Even the athiests on this forum believe in the Christian doctrines in regards to homosexuality. Homosexuality is normal in nature, yet we heterosexuals wish to deny what is natural to many people. While I as a woman feel normal and natural for me to be attracted to a man, I do realise that not everyone is wired to be attracted to the opposite sex. So who am I to tell that person that they are somehow wrong because they are not as I am? In that, who am I and who in the hell is anybody else to dictate whom a homosexual can marry and to deny them the right to marry the person of their choice? It's not just about the piece of paper and ring. It is about being granted the right to get or not get that little piece of paper and ring. It is about allowing them to have the choice that the rest view as our natural right to accept or refuse.

Source

Although same-sex unions have been recorded in the history of a number of cultures, marriages between same-sex partners were rare or nonexistent in other cultures. Same-sex marriage remains infrequent worldwide, especially as it remains illegal in most countries. However, some countries recognize same-sex marriage, including the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, and Spain; in the United States same-sex marriage is legal in the state of Massachusetts. "Civil unions" are recognized in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Germany, France, Portugal, New Zealand and the U.S. states of Vermont and Connecticut, and will be recognized in the United Kingdom from December 2005; a growing number of American states and various localities, such as Maine, recognize domestic partnerships, which offer parity of spousal rights, to different degrees, with marriage.

>>> End Source

Seems to me that western countries are easing up on the impositions placed upon gay couples in general!

Having been married officially for 2.5 yrs which ended in disaster and unnofficially for 10 years, I can say that formal marraige isn't worth the paper it is written on if infidelity is on the menu; in other words marraige is a matter for the heart primarily in my opinion.
The only reason for my current partner and I to get married would be so that everyone in our house shares the same surname. I dont think it would bother my partner though (the surname thing) if we didn't have children who bore a different surname to her though.

peace

c20

 

[charles cure]

Men and women who elect to live together are classified as defacto and therefore receive the tax benefits and all the rest of it. However, homosexuals who live together do not have that either. Again, more discrimination.

in the US it depends on which state you live in whether you can be considered "common law married" or not, because some states recognize it and some dont. new york for example doesnt. the time you have to be cohabitating before you are common law wed is also different depending on the state you are in. nowhere though do homosexuals have the right to common law marriage, except for recently in one or two states that now allow gay marriage. i think hawaii is one of them.

 

[Hapsburg]

Well, in KY, if they live together for five years, they are considered married, even if there never was a ceremony, for tax reasons probably.

And, yeah, it's in hawaii and massachucetts that allow same-sex commonlaw marriage, in that way.

 

[SnakeLord]

you can say that you dont care all you want, but your consistent weighing in on the subject with strong opinions sort of contradicts the "i dont care" stuff.

Not at all, it just seems you've misunderstood what I've said, or more likely you didn't even read it.

One more time for the sake of the deaf: If tomorrow morning there's an article in the newspaper saying gays can get married I wont be affected in any way. The same is true if there is no such newspaper article tomorrow or ever. What gay people can or cannot do is of no consequence in my life.

you however, seem to have taken this as some type of personal derision or insult. thats not what i was trying to accomplish.

Well then Charles, I doubt calling me a dick helped. In my part of the world calling someone a dick is an insult. I'd just advise that in future if you're trying not be personal or insulting, that you refrain from uhh... giving insults.

however, since that doesn't look like its happening anytime soon, the more pragmatic approach seems to me to be advocating for what is, at least in my view, greater fairness in marriage law.

But then why queers? Why sit here trying to demand, (or hope), that queers be given specific rights and ignore everyone else? You might aswell fight for everyone and demand lower tax for all people - married or not, gay or not.

actually what you did was characterize the same-sex marriage movement (if thats what it is) as a trivial political slap fight over a ring and a piece of paper, when thats not what it is

But marriage is a piece of paper and a ring. I still vote lower tax for all, but a person can love someone just as much, live together, have children etc etc yada yada regardless to whether they go through some specific ceremony or not.

you however just keep saying that you dont care about it.

Yeah, and you keep telling me that I keep telling you that I don't care about it. By now I thought you would have let it sink in. One last time.. Sure, I'm all for lower tax for everyone, but I still do not care whether gay marriages are allowed or not.

when you are having a discussion about an issue it helps to attempt to stay focused on that particular issue.

Don't talk down to me like I'm a fucking idiot. Ok? Topics are not rigid, there should always be some room to move, to expand upon an original comment, idea or post. You are here arguing that gay people should have marriage rights for the legal benefits that they would get upon doing so. I am now extending that and saying you might aswell include everyone.

1) Any legal benefits should be removed from marriage - and applied to everyone equally, regardless to age, sexuality, colour etc etc yada yada.

2) Marriage can remain as it is now, (without the legal benefits).

3) Those who conduct marriages can decide who they want to or don't want to allow to get married.

4) Someone, if they so choose, can make a gay marriage ceremony, a non-religious person marriage ceremony, and a donkey/man marriage ceremony. Nobody will get any legal benefits, but they'll all feel happier.

im trying to convey to you that you should have some empathy for the problem that these people are having

Well no offence, but if you had have read my very first one sentence statement, you'd know by now that I don't give a shit. They can get married, jump off cliffs or fly to Mars.. It is entirely inconsequential to me. Their problems are not my concern.

as it is a problem that they share with people like you and i in at least some sense

And as we all suffer from similar problems, I would rather sit here and fight to get my problems sorted. I have no need to care about them when I've got my own issues to deal with. No?

that issue, at least in the US is that all non-christians are facing this religious revival among the right wing (and even some left wing) types who control our government. because of this, laws regarding reproductive control, educational policy, marriage, seperation of church and state, child abuse, life saving biomedical research, and even definitions of terrorism are being manipulated or outright dominated by the influence of christianity.

Yeah, it ain't good. But I still don't care about queers. I openly fight against religion being taught in schools to young children - because it affects me as a father. I fight against child abuse because it affects me as a father. I fight against terrorism because nowadays I can't even catch a bus, but I do not care what queer people do or don't do. That is their fight and they can have it. It doesn't affect me and thus I'm not really interested.

eventually you may find yourself aligned politically alongside of those whose behavior you may not agree with because you perceive a common threat, and so advancing their cause also advances your cause. its about that simple.

Sure, we're all fighting the same people. I'll deal with the issues that concern me, they can deal with the ones that concern them. I don't personally intend to turn gay or get married - thus I'm not interested. It's that simple.

i didn't ask you if you cared about the issue. not once.

You shouldn't have to, considering my very first statement was that I don't care.

i inferred that you cared about it at least a little bit from the amount of derision you spewed in reference to the homosexual practice

My dislike for benders doesn't change me from not caring about whether they can or cannot get married as long as they stay away from me.

you have repeatedly said that you dont care, but the tone of your posts suggests otherwise.

It just seems you're not paying enough attention to understand what I've been saying. That's ok, it can be hard when you're responding to like 3 people at the same time.

i understand that you dont think it matters whether its legal for them to get married or not, because you think it doesnt effect you, but my whole point was that i bet it does effect you somehow.

You shouldn't gamble, most often you'll find you lose.

you let the christian element win this round and see how much more forcefully they ram garbage down the throats of children or teach fantasy as reality

How? Gays haven't ever been allowed to marry. How do you figure my children will have more shit rammed down their throats because gays still can't do what they never could? Besides, when they try I just take my child out of school.

or alter the worldview of your friends and neighbors until it results in YOUR marginalization, because it is undoubtedly heading that way as of right now.

The opinions of my friends or neighbours isn't of any issue to me.

yeah, that's mature. that's the pot calling the kettle black.

Asking you to get to my post is immature? How?

 

[Jan Ardena]

charles cure,,

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.

What a load of nonsense (apologies if you are offended). This is the problem with atheist dogma, it uses "the theory of evolution" for everything. Has the purpose of eating evolved also, sleeping, laughing, walking. People (nowadays) may get married for different reasons, in the same way people may eat certain foodstuffs for different reasons, but neither purpose has changed.

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.

How can the nature of marriage change? It is what it is. You may not wish to adhere to its basis, but that does not change anything other than percpective.

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.

The religious/spiritual aspect of marriage contains the legality also, the public aspect is a celebration of such a union, two people becoming one in spirit. Man is given the responsibility to uphold the marriage from a legal point of view, in order for it to be benificial. What has happened is, man has become corrupt and perverted (compared to the spiritual standard), eventually concealing the real purpose. The same can be said of most, if not all, of natural things.

...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,

Even thinking that, changes the spiritual aspects of it. Maybe you need to take the spiritual aspect of it more seriously, and try at least to understand what it is, instead of just using the word as if it is some kind of trend.

...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.

You mean have two types of marriages, one spiritual and one secular/humanist?

...ts only your opinion. to some people it obviously isn't that way.

Okay, so what is the point of two men getting married in the eyes of God?

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.

I have not made any judgements as to whether it is good or bad, and I don't intend to. So please don't assume my personal position on the subject, in the hope that this discussion never becomes personal.
I don't have a problem with same sex (so called marriage), I just don't take it as a marriage. I accept that society WILL accept this as normal in due course of time and as such humans will have no choice but to accept it as normal.

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.

The purpose of marriage is to join a man and woman together for life, outside of that, it has no purpose. Man and woman can enjoy each other without getting married, so its purpoes must lie beyond that. In every society past and present there is some kind of system of marriage, a system of ownership or belonging to, no matter how uncivilised the society may be. I do not know of one society where it normal for homosexuals to be included in this system. Maybe you can enlighten me.
Christian marriage is "marriage" but from a christian perspective. The basic elements of marriage is there, a union of a man and a woman. Within a marriage, there is no promise of off-spring, the only promise is to stay together, to become one, as long as you both shall live. To me, that is the purpose of marriage.

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".

Forget your obsession with Christianity. I bet you the first marriage (if indeed there is such thing as a first) was between a man and a woman.

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.

This is atheist dogma, there is actually no way of knowing that with any real certainty.

..e 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.

What is the point of gay marriage in a spiritual context?
Why don't they have a ceremony for gays which allows them to become what we see as married?
Why change the meaning and purpose of marriage?

the application of the marriage law here issues forth from a Christian aversion towards homosexual relationships,

That may be so for some, but for others, they see the sexual act as seriously disrespecting to God. Why object to that? Marriage was never about the whimsical act of sexual relations, if it was there would be no need of marriage, we would just live like the animals. Why not
develop (evolve) a ceremony for the purpose of homosexuals?

Jan Ardena.

 

[Hapsburg]

Gay people should have the right to be as miserable and depressed as everyone else who is married. I see no reason why they shouldn't. Religion and government are not supposed to be mixed, it fucks around with human rights.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Why concern yourself with a person's sexual orientation? If the objection is because gays are living in sin then let the religious cast the first stone because they're all just a bunch of hypocrites. If we're all sinners then who gives a shit who marries who?

 

[Hapsburg]

Apparently, the religious right forgets of the main concepts that the united states was founded on: seperation of church and state.

 

[charles cure]

Not at all, it just seems you've misunderstood what I've said, or more likely you didn't even read it.

One more time for the sake of the deaf: If tomorrow morning there's an article in the newspaper saying gays can get married I wont be affected in any way. The same is true if there is no such newspaper article tomorrow or ever. What gay people can or cannot do is of no consequence in my life.

look for the last time, why continue to vehemently discuss a subject you don't care about at all?

Well then Charles, I doubt calling me a dick helped. In my part of the world calling someone a dick is an insult. I'd just advise that in future if you're trying not be personal or insulting, that you refrain from uhh... giving insults.

well, if you actually read it, you'd notice that what i said was - don't be a dick. that means i was trying to get through to you before you turned into one. plus don't act like you haven't insulted a shitload of people with your references to gays as "poofters"...etc. in your posts. i thought maybe you'd be able to deal with it, you know, like a man or whatever. what i meant was i wasn't trying to bring you down when i responded to your initial post, i was just taking issue with it, until you threw a tantrum about how i missed your point and didnt respect your opinion because of it.

But then why queers? Why sit here trying to demand, (or hope), that queers be given specific rights and ignore everyone else? You might aswell fight for everyone and demand lower tax for all people - married or not, gay or not.

i am not demanding anything or hoping for it, i'm having a discussion about it and expressing my ideas about it. and i think i made it pretty clear that i would support abolition of the legal aspects of marriage, or did you miss that part?

But marriage is a piece of paper and a ring. I still vote lower tax for all, but a person can love someone just as much, live together, have children etc etc yada yada regardless to whether they go through some specific ceremony or not.

right so then if thats all it is how come there's any controversy about the issue? i would argue that its because it really isn't just that for the majority of people and represents something more important, and that just because you view it that way doesn't mean it is that way for most people.

Yeah, and you keep telling me that I keep telling you that I don't care about it. By now I thought you would have let it sink in. One last time.. Sure, I'm all for lower tax for everyone, but I still do not care whether gay marriages are allowed or not.

well it doesnt sink in when you continue to argue about it like you do care. i would have thought you would understand that when you dont care about something you usually dont wast time and effort on it or arguing about or even paying attention to it. until you do that i'm going to guess that it will continue to seem to me and probably almost everybody else who reads your posts that you actually do care.

Don't talk down to me like I'm a fucking idiot. Ok? Topics are not rigid, there should always be some room to move, to expand upon an original comment, idea or post. You are here arguing that gay people should have marriage rights for the legal benefits that they would get upon doing so. I am now extending that and saying you might aswell include everyone.

dont be one then. i started a thread about gay marriage, i stick to the topic. its that simple. wanna talk about horse marriage and under 18 marriage - go start a thread about it. i gave you the reasons that i dont think those situations have anything to do with this argument, because they are seperate issues unless you buy into the christian hyperbole about how gay marriage must necessarily lead to interspecial marriage...etc.

Well no offence, but if you had have read my very first one sentence statement, you'd know by now that I don't give a shit. They can get married, jump off cliffs or fly to Mars.. It is entirely inconsequential to me. Their problems are not my concern.

"i dont give a shit" isnt a substitute for an argument. if you dont care, just leave it alone.

And as we all suffer from similar problems, I would rather sit here and fight to get my problems sorted. I have no need to care about them when I've got my own issues to deal with. No?

right, we all know how much you don't care about anyone but yourself. your point is made. shut the fuck up about it already.

Yeah, it ain't good. But I still don't care about queers. I openly fight against religion being taught in schools to young children - because it affects me as a father. I fight against child abuse because it affects me as a father. I fight against terrorism because nowadays I can't even catch a bus, but I do not care what queer people do or don't do. That is their fight and they can have it. It doesn't affect me and thus I'm not really interested.

i see here we have part 3 of the "i don't care" argument. finished yet?

Sure, we're all fighting the same people. I'll deal with the issues that concern me, they can deal with the ones that concern them. I don't personally intend to turn gay or get married - thus I'm not interested. It's that simple.

oh...just when i thought it was over...revenge of the "i dont care" argument.

You shouldn't have to, considering my very first statement was that I don't care.

wait, you dont care about it? you're kidding. how come you didn't tell us earlier? oh wait you did, 1,200 times, yet you continue to post about it...interesting.

My dislike for benders doesn't change me from not caring about whether they can or cannot get married as long as they stay away from me.

its starting to sound like a broken record dude.

How? Gays haven't ever been allowed to marry. How do you figure my children will have more shit rammed down their throats because gays still can't do what they never could? Besides, when they try I just take my child out of school.

i'd respond to this, but i already know you don't care, so why bother.

The opinions of my friends or neighbours isn't of any issue to me.

right, let me guess...you dont care?

Asking you to get to my post is immature? How?

no, i meant a dude like you calling me immature is hilarious. but im sure that doesnt matter to you, because you dont care.

if you want to continue this discussion, lets do it over private messages, because its a waste of time for other people to read our pointless bickering. do what you want, i wont bother responding to you here again because i know you dont care.