Gay Marriage

[Corn]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Corn
Sorry DM, but he is not being "intolerant of intolerance", his argument/statement paints all "religious people" with the same broad brush. Some religious types use similar arguments with regard to the "gay lifestyle". Both are ignorant. Wake up.

I was agreeing with you. Did you miss that part?

Evidently I must have, my apologies DM.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Todd33
Religious people are bigots. They always fight civil rights. God wanted women to be barefoot and pregnant, God wanted blacks to be slaves, God loves the white man, God hates Muslems, now God hates gays.......

I'm speaking as someone who does not have a religious bone in his body. You sir are a bigot and are no different than the supposed people you are bigoted against. Find a hole and make yourself at home.

:disgust:

It's a fine line between being intolerant of intolerance and become bigoted yourself. I think calling anyone opposed to homosexuals on any irrational basis "bigoted" is entirely accurate. 'Nuff said. There's no need to marginalize the bigots any further than that.

Sorry DM, but he is not being "intolerant of intolerance", his argument/statement paints all "religious people" with the same broad brush. Some religious types use similar arguments with regard to the "gay lifestyle". Both are ignorant. Wake up.

Ah, but who decides what is ignorance?

Since I am the all knowing, all seeing Corn, I decide!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Perknose
I cry at weddings.

My wife cries at the movies........Big Fish nearly dehydrated her to the point of turning her into a pile of salt.

Well, salt does go well with Corn.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Todd33
Religious people are bigots. They always fight civil rights. God wanted women to be barefoot and pregnant, God wanted blacks to be slaves, God loves the white man, God hates Muslems, now God hates gays.......

I'm speaking as someone who does not have a religious bone in his body. You sir are a bigot and are no different than the supposed people you are bigoted against. Find a hole and make yourself at home.

:disgust:

It's a fine line between being intolerant of intolerance and become bigoted yourself. I think calling anyone opposed to homosexuals on any irrational basis "bigoted" is entirely accurate. 'Nuff said. There's no need to marginalize the bigots any further than that.

Sorry DM, but he is not being "intolerant of intolerance", his argument/statement paints all "religious people" with the same broad brush. Some religious types use similar arguments with regard to the "gay lifestyle". Both are ignorant. Wake up.

Ah, but who decides what is ignorance?

Since I am the all knowing, all seeing Corn, I decide!

Hah, hail be to teh almighty Corn!

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: Vic
First, biostud666, what part about "no flaming or trolling please" does your tiny little mind not understand?

Okay... kibbo, oddly enough, all 3 of your "bad ones" do contain some degree of merit, just not in the highly biased way that you presented them.

Taking all 3 in order, the 1st is true but only as a corollary of the 3rd.

The 2nd is true, but only insofar as I believe that the institution of marriage should be completely removed from government control and (hence) benefit. Is that "essentially a pro-gay marriage argument in disguise"? Perhaps. I would completely support gay marriage under those conditions.

The most valid argument is the 3rd one, which is the basis of marriage and its history.
Because human children take so relatively long to raise and nurture, human society believes that it is appropriate for the parents responsible for the conception of the child to make a pact to stay together so that they may raise their child(ren) together. Believe it or not, this is why humans created marriage in the first place. If you look out at other species, you will see that those who also have a relatively long nurture period for their children also tend to engage in a similar male-female bonding (though not always for life and often in what we would look at as polygamous relationships -- this includes many species of birds, many species of fish, wolves, lions, apes, and more).
Does that argument de-legitimize straight couples who do not have children? No, that they can marry is a concession made to them out of pity because not all couple are physically capable of having children. In the past, couples that voluntarily chose not to have children were looked down on. Single-parent families should be devalued, as they have been proven to be (more often than not) damaging to the children involved -- the parents broke their pact made for the sake of their children and that alone can damage children. But the fact alone that the children are damaged more often than not is why they should be de-valued, as an incentive to parents to try to maturely address their differences and maintain their relationship (but this is another controversial argument that I do not wish to start here).

/waits for Moonie or 0roo to come in and call be a "bigot" or "homophobe" again, despite the fact that Moonie's only argument for homosexuality is because he finds the act so distasteful that of course all homosexuals must be born that way.

Vic,
Thank you for the excellent post.

You mention that "couples that voluntarily chose not to have children were looked down on." Do you support that this is good? That this is a valid moral position for society to hold? I don't. I think that this is a big hole in your argument.

Now, I acknowledge the statistics regarding the success of single-parent households. However, a good part of those problems could be attributed to poverty, lack of education of the parent, and the family trauma of divorce. I agree that chidren in these situations get the shaft. I doesn't argue against the "Murphy Brown" scenario, though.

Regarding your assertion that non-gay people will exploit the laws, I will argue that if this were so, you would already see many co-ed roommates trying this. I don't see why same-sex roommates would.

 

[Tab]

Marriage isn't even religious, it was created by the catholic church as a means of organzation. Does the bible ever speak of marriage or condem homesexsuality?

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Todd33
Religious people are bigots. They always fight civil rights. God wanted women to be barefoot and pregnant, God wanted blacks to be slaves, God loves the white man, God hates Muslems, now God hates gays.......

I'm speaking as someone who does not have a religious bone in his body. You sir are a bigot and are no different than the supposed people you are bigoted against. Find a hole and make yourself at home.

:disgust:

It's a fine line between being intolerant of intolerance and become bigoted yourself. I think calling anyone opposed to homosexuals on any irrational basis "bigoted" is entirely accurate. 'Nuff said. There's no need to marginalize the bigots any further than that.

Sorry DM, but he is not being "intolerant of intolerance", his argument/statement paints all "religious people" with the same broad brush. Some religious types use similar arguments with regard to the "gay lifestyle". Both are ignorant. Wake up.

Ah, but who decides what is ignorance?

Since I am the all knowing, all seeing Corn, I decide!

Hah, hail be to teh almighty Corn!

See, now that's what I'm talkin' about. We need more fellers like you in these parts Fingolfin. Yessir!

 

[Zebo]

$

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Vic
First, biostud666, what part about "no flaming or trolling please" does your tiny little mind not understand?

The part I skipped?

I thought it was some rightwinged super attack and when I found out it was just the opposite I stopped reading.

And I would hardly put my remark under flaming or trolling, since it's clearly just a mocking of the most religious zealots, which nobody likes anyway

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: biostud666

Originally posted by: Vic
First, biostud666, what part about "no flaming or trolling please" does your tiny little mind not understand?

I thought it was some rightwinged super attack and when I found out it was just the opposite I stopped reading.

Are you saying that you're only interested in reading stuff that could be considered a rightwinged super attack?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: DonVito
I have a hard time seeing any persuasive, non-religious reason why they should be illegal.

One argument I've heard that you haven't mentioned (and a specious one IMO) is that allowing homosexual marriage will excessively increase costs to health-insurance providers and employers, and encourage a profusion of sham gay marriages to "steal" benefits currently afforded only to spouses.

It seems to me this argument can just as easily be applied to heterosexual marriages, however.

But that is the most valid of all arguments from an economic perspective. If same-sex marriage is allowed, I guarantee that a major court case will occur in the first couple of years in which a same-sex but non-homosexual couple will sue for their right to marry. <edit>And they WILL win.</edit>
As I said in another thread, you don't have to be gay to act gay.

Why would this generate a lawsuit? As any number of couples have proven, you don't have to be straight to act straight, either, and there are already plenty of sham heterosexual marriages. As far as I can see there would be nothing to prevent people from entering into sham gay marriages, so there would be no need for this to become a matter for the courts.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: biostud666

Originally posted by: Vic
First, biostud666, what part about "no flaming or trolling please" does your tiny little mind not understand?

I thought it was some rightwinged super attack and when I found out it was just the opposite I stopped reading.

Are you saying that you're only interested in reading stuff that could be considered a rightwinged super attack?

When I found out that he had the same opinions as me (more or less), there was really no point to continue reading.

 

[Zebo]

Sure they tell the lies about "breaking up an institution" and pander to the extreme rights religiosity but like all things it's about money.

The opposition is from the real power structure of the right, the corporate elite and statists, who recognise how much money it will cost them to allow gays equal footing as straights. Everyone of them hates the idea but insurance Cos and maybe creative companies like disney who employ gays in high numbers.

Because of the equal protection clause, if gays were allowed matrimoney, gays would recieve SS survivers benefits and employers would have to offer gays spousal insurance if they offered it for striaghts. The first would cost the government untold billions when they could use that SS surplus money for some corporate pork instead of gays. The second is the same as far as costing billions, but also effects US corporations bottom line, in turn exec pay, and global compititiveness with this added expense.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Vic,
Thank you for the excellent post.

You mention that "couples that voluntarily chose not to have children were looked down on." Do you support that this is good? That this is a valid moral position for society to hold? I don't. I think that this is a big hole in your argument.

Now, I acknowledge the statistics regarding the success of single-parent households. However, a good part of those problems could be attributed to poverty, lack of education of the parent, and the family trauma of divorce. I agree that chidren in these situations get the shaft. I doesn't argue against the "Murphy Brown" scenario, though.

Regarding your assertion that non-gay people will exploit the laws, I will argue that if this were so, you would already see many co-ed roommates trying this. I don't see why same-sex roommates would.

Taking your paragraphs in order.

You're welcome, I guess. Sometimes it's hard to do so in P&amp;N

No, I really don't. Different times, different thinking. Once again, were government involvement removed from the institution of marriage, this would become a non-issue. For example, some communities or churches could require that couples take a vow to attempt to have offspring, while others (most I assume) would leave that out.

I won't disagree that it is possible to have a successful single-parent household with successful children. Statistically though, that would be less likely than a dual-parent household. As I said, the purpose of marriage biologically is to raise successful offspring. Failure is natural and common, of course, and while I believe in treating all people with kindness, I recognize the realism that we live in a cruel and evil world. If we would seek to curtail disadvantageous environments, then we must work to discourage them.

Answering the last to both you and the Don, I would argue that it would be the gay communities that would take such as issue to the courts. Having won their new right to marry, they would protect it jealously against exploiters. Just my opinion. That the heteros never brought it up is most likely because (1) this exact kind of issue has never surfaced before, and (2) marriages of convenience have an ancient history with the elite classes who create the laws.

Originally posted by: Tabb
Marriage isn't even religious, it was created by the catholic church as a means of organzation. Does the bible ever speak of marriage or condem homesexsuality?

As I pointed out earlier, there are 2 references to the Bible that condemn homosexuality. Taken in context, only one (the one in Romans) could be compared to our modern times. As I also pointed out, using the Bible to condemn homosexuals does not contain much merit.

The institution of marriage is mentioned frequently in the Bible and (from the purely Biblical viewpoint) existed from the beginning of time, having been instituted by God to Adam and Eve. Jesus Himself seemed lukewarm on the subject, saying the marriage did not exist in Heaven, and that getting married was not a requirement of salvation or for earthly service to God (contrary to the ancient Jews of His time, who required that their Rabbis be married). My opinion of Jesus' teachings on marriage was that it was a good thing but not necessary, and that if two people were to take the vows of marriage that they would be required to keep them in full or they would be guilty of adultery. Paul OTOH discussed marriage often and in great detail, and it is his words that are usually quoted at Christian marriages.

Regardless, the Catholic church did not create marriage. That's just ridiculous. It is something that humans have had and done since long before the beginning of history.

 

[InfectedMushroom]

Originally posted by: biostud666
Because God will send anyone who allows it straight to hell.

Who the fvck is that dude and how come you believe what he says?

 

[InfectedMushroom]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Todd33
Religious people are bigots. They always fight civil rights. God wanted women to be barefoot and pregnant, God wanted blacks to be slaves, God loves the white man, God hates Muslems, now God hates gays. They love to use God to hate. Times change and religious type always fight it. We'll all look back in twenty years and laugh at them.

They do the same thing to science.

Actually, any person of religion that I personally know, who uses their religion as a reason to be against gay marriage, does not hate gays. They just disagree with the life style and seek to teach them the wrong of their ways. A true Christian wouldn't hate you for sinning but would instead seek to lead you to redemption and salvation.

That right there is the problem with religious ppl (any religion). They assume that their way of life is the best and that everyone should live like them. But they connot prove the existence of their god, just as i cannot prove it's nonexistence. So how the fvck do they dare try to impose their beliefs on me?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Todd33
Religious people are bigots. They always fight civil rights. God wanted women to be barefoot and pregnant, God wanted blacks to be slaves, God loves the white man, God hates Muslems, now God hates gays. They love to use God to hate. Times change and religious type always fight it. We'll all look back in twenty years and laugh at them.

They do the same thing to science.

Actually, any person of religion that I personally know, who uses their religion as a reason to be against gay marriage, does not hate gays. They just disagree with the life style and seek to teach them the wrong of their ways. A true Christian wouldn't hate you for sinning but would instead seek to lead you to redemption and salvation.

That right there is the problem with religious ppl (any religion). They assume that their way of life is the best and that everyone should live like them. But they connot prove the existence of their god, just as i cannot prove it's nonexistence. So how the fvck do they dare try to impose their beliefs on me?

Feel free to take a time machine back to the pre Christian days and enjoy life as either a slave or the bitch of some tribe. Your utopia awaits.

 

[Kibbo]

Vic,

Right on for distancing yourself from Leviticus. Alltogether too many Christians cite that passage, ignoring completely the laundry instructions that follow it. Lev is by far the most entertaining part I've found in the Bible. It reads like a night at the Improv. Sorry for the sacrelidge, for any who are offended.

Tell me, how valid do you find the passage in Romans, seeing as it's the words of Paul, written after the death of Christ?

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: Vic

As I pointed out earlier, there are 2 references to the Bible that condemn homosexuality. Taken in context, only one (the one in Romans) could be compared to our modern times. As I also pointed out, using the Bible to condemn homosexuals does not contain much merit.

Actually, the bible contains numerous references to homosexuality. Granted, some of them are indirect references, and others could be the result of 'inspired' translations. But for those looking to use the bible as a source of quotes to condemn homosexuality, it is replete with references.

Some are discussed here and here.

I read a parapharsed bible in its entirety not long ago, occasionally comparing the text with older translations when I ran across something that seemed incongruous.

I would say there is better support for condemnation of homosexuality than for the subservience of women, which, for the most part, was introduced by Paul after the death of Jesus.

 

[InfectedMushroom]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom
That right there is the problem with religious ppl (any religion). They assume that their way of life is the best and that everyone should live like them. But they connot prove the existence of their god, just as i cannot prove it's nonexistence. So how the fvck do they dare try to impose their beliefs on me?

Feel free to take a time machine back to the pre Christian days and enjoy life as either a slave or the bitch of some tribe trying. Your utopia awaits.

Fortunatly some of us have evolved beyond the need to believe in imaginary friends. I understand though that since you are an intelectual infant you still feel the need to have one.
I have no problem with that, as long as you don't try to tell me how to live my life.

Your point makes no sense. Please ask your imaginary friend to help you rephrase it. Or better yet, just fvcking think for yourself.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Vic

As I pointed out earlier, there are 2 references to the Bible that condemn homosexuality. Taken in context, only one (the one in Romans) could be compared to our modern times. As I also pointed out, using the Bible to condemn homosexuals does not contain much merit.

Actually, the bible contains numerous references to homosexuality. Granted, some of them are indirect references, and others could be the result of 'inspired' translations. But for those looking to use the bible as a source of quotes to condemn homosexuality, it is replete with references.

Some are discussed here and here.

I read a parapharsed bible in its entirety not long ago, occasionally comparing the text with older translations when I ran across something that seemed incongruous.

I would say there is better support for condemnation of homosexuality than for the subservience of women, which, for the most part, was introduced by Paul after the death of Jesus.

Speaking of a night at the improv...watching you idiots fumble around with concepts well over your heads gave me a grin. Sorry to any who were offended.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Tell me, how valid do you find the passage in Romans, seeing as it's the words of Paul, written after the death of Christ?

Well... the Gospels of Christ were also written after His death. But generally, if the words of Paul contradict with the words of Jesus, then I take the words of Jesus as the authority. Quite honestly, not only is He is the Christ, but I prefer His style.
As for Romans 1 itself, I see it as quite valid insofar as it predicts the fall of a decadent society (i.e. Rome). IMO, modern America is very comparable to Ancient Rome, and I do believe that America has become very decadent.

Originally posted by: daveshel
Actually, the bible contains numerous references to homosexuality. Granted, some of them are indirect references, and others could be the result of 'inspired' translations. But for those looking to use the bible as a source of quotes to condemn homosexuality, it is replete with references.

You are correct. My apologies. I meant direct references condemning homosexuality. There are many indirect references, for example Lot and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.
In general though, there is IMO a strong emphasis on reproduction in the Old Testament. It seems to me that in those ancient times when the entire human population on earth numbered less than 100 million, the individual tribes were in a constant reproductive war with each other. Basically, whoever had the most babies could end up fielding the biggest army. So it could be easily argued that strict laws put in place for proper sexual and reproductive behaviors were there for the survival of the tribe because, quite literally, they often were. For example, in days before antibiotics or even the most basic medicine, even a small infection meant certain death, and so strict punishments for even the smallest indiscretion that could spread infection throughout the entire tribe (or at least to the sexually active young adults so important to reproduction).
Our modern times are much different, although IMO not entirely. There is certainly no need, however, to bind the world under strict ancient moral codes devised to safeguard a society in different times and different conditions.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Vic
As for Romans 1 itself, I see it as quite valid insofar as it predicts the fall of a decadent society (i.e. Rome).

I liked Romans 1 as well, but found Romans 2 to have a better plot.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom
Fortunatly some of us have evolved beyond the need to believe in imaginary friends. I understand though that since you are an intelectual infant you still feel the need to have one.
I have no problem with that, as long as you don't try to tell me how to live my life.

Your point makes no sense. Please ask your imaginary friend to help you rephrase it. Or better yet, just fvcking think for yourself.

An extremely flawed, prejudicial, ignorant, and bigoted argument when attacking relgious concepts or religious followers.
Faith in a Supreme Being of some sort does not make an individual an "intelectual infant" (nice spelling! ), nor does it preclude independent thought, nor do all persons who maintain such faith seek to tell others how to live their life. It is simply a natural and ancient human way of trying to make sense of an existence that, quite frankly, does not make sense.

And you atheist extremists need to recognize (before you being to arrogant or bigoted) that you are grossly outnumbered. Some 90% of the world proclaims a faith of some type to some sort of "Sky God". IMO, you have not "evolved" beyond some need, but have forsaken a part of your humanity. You are IMO free to do so, but a little less lip and and a little less bigotry on your part would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Cogman]

As far as Im conserned, If gays are allowed to marry, then I should be allowed to marry my dog. No matter how many times I have heard it, Being Gay is not right, And if the government alows gay marrage it is like they are saying it is right.

I am a firm believer in "God loves the sinners, not the sins" and I do believe that being gay is a sin. HOWEVER I do not hate gays. I dont, to my knowledge, have any friends that are gay like others do, but I acredit that to living in a small town. I dont hate gays, but I hate what they do. Just like I dont hate liberals, just some of the policies they support.