<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 17 2005, 02:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 17 2005, 02:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What I'm arguing against is the logic behind the "homosexual marriage = heterosexual marriage" statement. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not sure what you mean. I can agree that they are not exact equivilents, but if you are saying that they shouldn't have equal rights, that's where I would disagree. Please, elaborate.
@ reasa: I can indeed fill in the blanks, and I agree with you, some homosexual rights advocates can be pretty out there, so I can see where you're coming from.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However this is America, and if enough people want something in this country, we'll get it. But this also works in reverse, if enough people in this country don't want something, we won't have it. At this point and time I don't think America is ready for **** marriage, and the harder it's advocates push the harder America well fight back.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->After all, you can call a plane a car and it'll still be, for all intents and purposes, a plane. It's similar to a car - it runs on petroleum products, it bears passengers to a destination that would take far longer for them to get to by foot, in most cases requires a pilot or driver, and is expensive to maintain.
That does not, however, mean that a plane is a car.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You exagerate the difference considerably. In this case it would be more like comparing a car with a V4 and a car with a V6. Sure, they aren't exactly the same, but the difference is academic.
Now homosexual people have never bothered me in any way, and I can really see why they would want to live like any other couple. What exactly do couples do that can be disturbed by the fact that the two members are of the same sex? They don't do anything violent (at least not more than others), they do their civil duties, they work like others, etc. They're just regular people with a different perspective.
The only thing I'm slightly uneasy with is the adoption of children. I can understand their wish to have a child, and up to here I thought it was about the same thing than having one father and one mother. Though apart from the fact it goes against nature, the kid doesn't necessarily wants to have the pressure of having two homosexual parents. Think of school: how do you fill "Name of Father & Mother" How will you react when others laugh at you? Our society is not ready yet to accept so openly homosexual individuals when it already has so much discrimination. Another thing that disturbed me greatly was when I saw a picture of a lesbian mother who was using her (very young) daughter and gave her a shirt with "Let our mothers be united" or something. Now trying to gain acceptance is one thing. Using your child to highlight your sexual preference is another thing altogether, especially if it influences the child itself.
There's all the problem: Where do we draw the line with "differences" ? Strict, Lax, or moderate? Will the laws use clever rhetoric to circumvent both extremes and do it the way they want, like it was after the Jim Crow laws? How will it be viewed by everyone, including pro and con issues from each group, how will the homosexuals feel, and how will the affected feel (by that, I mean close relatives)?
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Jan 17 2005, 07:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jan 17 2005, 07:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What I do not want to see is **** couples going around and parading the fact that they are **** for everyone to see. We've all seen the "in-your-face" *** and frankly nothing makes me more angry then *** shoving the fact that their **** in your face and daring you to challenge them. And I'm fairly neutral on the issue, so you can imagine what it does to the people who are absolutely opposed to **** marriage. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Heaven forbid people expressing their love in public places!
It's not like you're standing in the street and suddenly a group of **** people jump out of an alley and start making out in front of you, just to show you how **** they are. It's just affection in public. That's it.
Infact, due to the fact there are more straight people than **** people in this world, you're 10x as likely to see straight people making out in public. Does that offend you to your very core? Is that a vulgar display of affection (No, not power)? No, it's just two straight people making out.
It should be said that a couple does not require a religious ceremony in a church to be married. You can still go to your local court house and obtain a marriage license and skip the whole ceremonial proceedure and you will still receive the same rights as a married couple.
Some of these rights tax benefits like filing for joint income tax with the IRS and being able to divide business income amoung family members. There are things that are more apparent like estate tax or the "death" tax and family inheritance.
These legal issues shouldn't be decided by god or the bible, but are civil issues that same-sex partners have to deal with.
Let the individual churches decide who recieves a marriage ceremony, but legal civil rights should be avalable to everyone.
<!--QuoteBegin-esuna+Jan 17 2005, 04:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (esuna @ Jan 17 2005, 04:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Heaven forbid people expressing their love in public places!
It's not like you're standing in the street and suddenly a group of **** people jump out of an alley and start making out in front of you, just to show you how **** they are. It's just affection in public. That's it.
Infact, due to the fact there are more straight people than **** people in this world, you're 10x as likely to see straight people making out in public. Does that offend you to your very core? Is that a vulgar display of affection (No, not power)? No, it's just two straight people making out. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That is not what I meant at all, I was referring to the whole "We're here we're queer" movement and all that **** pride/ parade day garbage.
If these people want to be accepted into society as normal and have all the equal rights of straight couples, why go around literally parading the fact that your different and other people <i>have</i> to accept this?
Furthermore, since you’re brought it up, if I were to come across two **** people kissing each other in public, I would most likely be disgusted or depending on my mood slightly angry. But then again I hate most people and I don't like going out in public at all...
I see no reason why homosexual couples should not be able to marry others of the same sex. It simply doesn't harm anyone. Not only do I find the idea of legislation banning marriage between partners of the same sex wrong, it's damn near unconstitutional. It's been established; it is not a choice to be homosexual. Bisexual, maybe, but not homosexual.
However, I do not think homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children. I think it's fairly easy to see that being adopted by homosexual "parents" as a heterosexual child would be very stressful, and not very good for the child... I'm not saying g4ys can't be good parents, but these days it would be much more difficult for them, to the point where they should not even be allowed to try.
On a side note, I too find "media g4ys" insanely annoying, with their parades and such. I wouldn't do anything against them and I'm for homosexual marriage, but I hate it. Guess I'm borderline discriminator.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
First, there is no Federal law banning homosexual marriage. Of course, there is also no Federal law that permits homosexual marriage. Why? Because marriage liscensing is handled by each individual State.
Now, the question should then be, "Should every State pass laws protecting the rights for homosexuals to marry other homosexuals?" Personally, I don't care. I have close ties to a number of homosexuals and some want the ability to gain a legal marriage and some believe that it's inappropriate. The one thing I do know is, The <a href='http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm' target='_blank'>Defense of Marriage Act</a> states that <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->no State shall be required to give effect to a law of any other State with respect to a same-sex "marriage."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So, even if 1 out of 50 States decides to allow it, the other 49 don't have to recognize it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 17 2005, 02:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 17 2005, 02:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Jan 17 2005, 01:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Jan 17 2005, 01:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> stuff <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> that was the point i was trying to make, that homosexual marriage is totally unrelated to marriage. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm looking at my post...then at yours...then back to mine....and I'm clueless how you got from my "stuff" to proof that homosexual marriage is totally unrelated to heterosexual marriage.
The thing you have to understand is I seriously, and I do mean honestly and completely, doubt ANY **** couple cares whether or not their marriage counts as a "marriage" in the eyes of the Church. They just want to be seen as married by the State, and get the benefits of being spouses, as opposed to the "life partners" they are right now. This is basically what MrRadicalEd said.
You are arguing under the assumption that we all are trying to prove homosexual marriage to be equal to heterosexual marriage in the eyes of the Church and God. We're not. That's why lots of people have said, "Maybe we should just call them "civil unions" instead of "marriages", just so the relgious people don't get all uppity." But to be honest, it'd just be another example of euphemisms run rampant in our country, like being forced to call black people "African-Americans" in public. It's just silly, really.
It's just a term. If it makes you feel any better, the people who wrote the Bible didn't use the word "marriage" either, because English hadn't been invented. It's not a holy word, reserved for Christian use only. Actually, if you're getting all ticked off about **** "marriage", do you also hate Jewish people who call themselves "married"? Muslims? Atheists and agnostics? I dare you to show me the difference between getting upset that **** people call themselves married, and atheists who do the same. Neither is in a marriage as defined in the Bible: neither "marriage" has been consecrated as a holy sacrament by a priest, so neither can be honored by God, right? Actually, in this case **** marriage might actually be closer to "marriage" in the Christian sense because
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->by the way, being loving towards other people doesn't mean i become a mindless yes-man to them and condone everything they do<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Condoning something and not getting in the way of something are completely different. You don't have to support (condone) **** marriage, but actively trying to suppress it whn it does no harm to anyone and much good to a group that is most of the time looked down upon....that's about as Christian as the Crusades. And before you even <u>think</u> of defending the Crusades, Crusades:Christianity::Jihad:Islam. Okay, <i>now</i> try to defend the Crusades.
wow. a morally relativistic person telling me what i should and shouldn't do. if you don't really want to debate this rationally, then i have no more to say here.
p.s. @"V4 and V6" - not quite. More like a diesel engine and a gasoline engine. They're not interchangeable. You must prove that a homosexual marriage is the interchangeable equivalent of a heterosexual marriage, otherwise why should the homosexuals be able to create a right for themselves?
Maybe this will give some of you an idea of why "domestic partnership" isn't good enough.
Bill Flanigan and his legal "life partner" found out just what the legal arm can do to them when Robert (his partner) was on his deathbed at the University of Maryland hospital. The doctors and staff would not allow him entry, would not tell him Robert's status, would not listen to what he said about Robert's wishes (he did not want life extension treatment) because he was not "legal family" - and in the end, when Robert died there, Bill could not be there for his last conscious hours and did not get to say goodbye. Robert died Oct. 19, 2000.
I've had friends with loved ones in the hospital that were also denied entry, because the blood family didn't want them there, because they knew they were in a homosexual relationship - and it was all perfectly legal, thanks to the legal differences in wording. Domestic partnership, civil union and marriage - they're not even separate but equal, they're separate and NOT equal.
edit: "create a right?" Did I hear this guy correctly? I wasn't aware homosexuals were trying to "create a right" so much as "gain constitutional rights afforded to others but denied to them." is this one of those "they're trying to create special rights for themselves!' arguments?
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 17 2005, 04:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 17 2005, 04:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And I'm not convinced that the rights they are pursuing are equivalent. We all have our emotional sob stories. That doesn't really mean anything. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Something tells me trying to debate with you is pointless - you toss out a specific situation in which a homosexual couple was denied basic rights as a "sob story," and you've gone from "het/homo marriages aren't the same" to "they don't want equal rights." What, do they want more? Less? I didn't realize asking for the same rights as heterosexual couples was somehow "unequal." Get off your "zomg homosexual agenda!!!11" horse.
Yeah, they have the right to marry, only... people they would never want to marry in the first place. Are you somehow completely missing the point of this debate?
There is no horse. I dismissed your stories as irrelevant. Just because police officers sometimes mistakenly shoot someone and cause emotional trauma, should we ban all police?
And again, homosexuals have the same right to marry as heterosexuals do.
*edit@your edit* It's not the state's responsibility to make sure people who want to marry can marry, nor that people who don't want to marry can't marry. They can only guarantee that the institution is there.
Why can people not marry animals? Why can people not marry multiple other people? Why, you ask? It's because marriage is and always was the institution between a man and a woman.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 17 2005, 07:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 17 2005, 07:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> p.s. @"V4 and V6" - not quite. More like a diesel engine and a gasoline engine. They're not interchangeable. You must prove that a homosexual marriage is the interchangeable equivalent of a heterosexual marriage, otherwise why should the homosexuals be able to create a right for themselves? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Interchangable in what sense? The only difference between the two is that one of them involves 2 people of the same sex instead of 2 people of the oposite sex. Every other possible factor is the same.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As I said previously, homosexuals already have the right to marry, and it's not just playing semantic games. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, it is. What we are discussiong here is wether or not homosexuals have the right to marry members of the same sex and recieve the same privilages as married heterosexual couples. I honestly have no idea why you keep playing the semantics game.
Marriage by any other name may still be marriage <u>in theory</u>, but in practice it is very different.
Why is are christians so against **** marriage when there very own bible tells them to be tolerant? "Man and woman" isn't set in stone. Just like everything else, it must change with the times. So people practiced homosexualality long ago but never wanted to be married, <u>well now they do</u>. And that is what matters. There is no valid, logical reason to deny them this same right that is afforded everyone else.
Why are the christians (and other religious followers) "getting their panties in a bunch"? This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with basic civil rights, ie government.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 17 2005, 07:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 17 2005, 07:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sorry skulkbait. I guess I'm the only person here who thinks there is a fundamental difference, besides anatomy, between the sexes. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't see how that make ANY FREAKING DIFFERENCE.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why are the christians (and other religious followers) "getting their panties in a bunch"? This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with basic civil rights, ie government. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Let me tell you something I've learned whilst arguing with christians: They honestly believe that they are being oppressed. No, seriously they do. Alot of them do anyways. They believe that even things like this, which have absolutely no effect on their lives, somehow threaten them.
<!--QuoteBegin-ReK+Jan 17 2005, 07:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ReK @ Jan 17 2005, 07:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Marriage by any other name may still be marriage <u>in theory</u>, but in practice it is very different.
Why is are christians so against **** marriage when there very own bible tells them to be tolerant? "Man and woman" isn't set in stone. Just like everything else, it must change with the times. So people practiced homosexualality long ago but never wanted to be married, <u>well now they do</u>. And that is what matters. There is no valid, logical reason to deny them this same right that is afforded everyone else.
Why are the christians (and other religious followers) "getting their panties in a bunch"? This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with basic civil rights, ie government. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This has nothing to do with me being a Christian. If I were atheist I would be arguing just as hard.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't see how that make ANY FREAKING DIFFERENCE.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Think about it, it makes all the difference in the world.
*edit* Actually, now that I think about it, this is situation is exactly like Isaac Asimov's "Positronic Man."
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 17 2005, 07:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 17 2005, 07:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-ReK+Jan 17 2005, 07:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ReK @ Jan 17 2005, 07:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Marriage by any other name may still be marriage <u>in theory</u>, but in practice it is very different.
Why is are christians so against **** marriage when there very own bible tells them to be tolerant? "Man and woman" isn't set in stone. Just like everything else, it must change with the times. So people practiced homosexualality long ago but never wanted to be married, <u>well now they do</u>. And that is what matters. There is no valid, logical reason to deny them this same right that is afforded everyone else.
Why are the christians (and other religious followers) "getting their panties in a bunch"? This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with basic civil rights, ie government. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This has nothing to do with me being a Christian. If I were atheist I would be arguing just as hard.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So you're in support of slavery then right? I mean, until very recently there have always been slaves, and it has always ben acceptable. So why not now? (besides which, it is biblically supported, IIRC)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't see how that make ANY FREAKING DIFFERENCE.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Think about it, it makes all the difference in the world.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How? Come on man you're not even trying. The only real difference is that the partners can't have children of their own. So what. There are many straight couples that can't have children of their own either.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Jan 17 2005, 07:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Jan 17 2005, 07:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 17 2005, 07:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 17 2005, 07:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-ReK+Jan 17 2005, 07:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ReK @ Jan 17 2005, 07:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Marriage by any other name may still be marriage <u>in theory</u>, but in practice it is very different.
Why is are christians so against **** marriage when there very own bible tells them to be tolerant? "Man and woman" isn't set in stone. Just like everything else, it must change with the times. So people practiced homosexualality long ago but never wanted to be married, <u>well now they do</u>. And that is what matters. There is no valid, logical reason to deny them this same right that is afforded everyone else.
Why are the christians (and other religious followers) "getting their panties in a bunch"? This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with basic civil rights, ie government. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This has nothing to do with me being a Christian. If I were atheist I would be arguing just as hard.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So you're in support of slavery then right? I mean, until very recently there have always been slaves, and it has always ben acceptable. So why not now?
[QUOTE] <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Laff. Your direct opinion is that I, as a Christian, am a slave to God.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 17 2005, 08:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 17 2005, 08:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> [QUOTE=SkulkBait,Jan 17 2005, 07:59 PM] [QUOTE=Wheeee,Jan 17 2005, 07:57 PM] [QUOTE=ReK,Jan 17 2005, 07:51 PM] Marriage by any other name may still be marriage <u>in theory</u>, but in practice it is very different.
Why is are christians so against **** marriage when there very own bible tells them to be tolerant? "Man and woman" isn't set in stone. Just like everything else, it must change with the times. So people practiced homosexualality long ago but never wanted to be married, <u>well now they do</u>. And that is what matters. There is no valid, logical reason to deny them this same right that is afforded everyone else.
Why are the christians (and other religious followers) "getting their panties in a bunch"? This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with basic civil rights, ie government. [/QUOTE] This has nothing to do with me being a Christian. If I were atheist I would be arguing just as hard.
[/QUOTE] So you're in support of slavery then right? I mean, until very recently there have always been slaves, and it has always ben acceptable. So why not now?
[QUOTE] [/QUOTE] Laff. Your direct opinion is that I, as a Christian, am a slave to God. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What does that have to do with anything?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This has nothing to do with me being a Christian. If I were atheist I would be arguing just as hard.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why? What are your opinions? What are your reasons for opposing **** marriage? What I've gleamed so far is: <ul><li>They're different</li><li>They're too different</li><li>Christians, being a majority, don't like it, so let's throw minority rights out the window</li></ul>
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 17 2005, 05:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 17 2005, 05:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-ReK+Jan 17 2005, 07:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ReK @ Jan 17 2005, 07:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Marriage by any other name may still be marriage <u>in theory</u>, but in practice it is very different.
Why is are christians so against **** marriage when there very own bible tells them to be tolerant? "Man and woman" isn't set in stone. Just like everything else, it must change with the times. So people practiced homosexualality long ago but never wanted to be married, <u>well now they do</u>. And that is what matters. There is no valid, logical reason to deny them this same right that is afforded everyone else.
Why are the christians (and other religious followers) "getting their panties in a bunch"? This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with basic civil rights, ie government. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This has nothing to do with me being a Christian. If I were atheist I would be arguing just as hard.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't see how that make ANY FREAKING DIFFERENCE.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Think about it, it makes all the difference in the world.
*edit* Actually, now that I think about it, this is situation is exactly like Isaac Asimov's "Positronic Man."
Read the book, and draw your own conclusions. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You mean this one?
And my question, if you misunderstood, was why would you be oppossed to **** marriage if you were an atheist?
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
Aside from the amusing banter going back and forth between Wheee and pretty much everyone else (i'm only finding it amusing because i can't follow either side's arguments at all) i really have to agree with Sky and side with the "Why the hell not" side of the argument.
Sorry Wheee - had a busy weekend - otherwise I might have shown up sooner.
Here is my completely non-religious, morally relativistic, wishy-washy "why homosexuals shouldn't marry each other" reason.
I believe that homosexuality weakens society.
Throughout history, when you look at the rise and fall of various civilizations, they are always preceeded by a rampant bout of homosexuality. Call it coincidence, call me a biggot - whatever. Homosexuality weakens the fiber of society - not only the moral fiber, but the social fiber as well.
Now, it isn't "only" homosexuality that is to play a part here - it is promiscuity as a whole. Teacher having sex with students, everyone looses virginity by age 16 at the latest, multiple sex partners, STD's - the whole gammet.
So there you have it - giving legal recognition to a societal flaw is not a good idea in my book.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
Or it could be that the degeneration/fall of societies standards have just broken down the rules of taboo surrounding homosexuality and allowed people to explore their homosexual sides more freely than when the "rules" and "tabboos" were firmly in place and so the "rampant homosexuality" and various other sexual practices were a result of the society going downhill, not the cause but.... whatever.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Jan 17 2005, 09:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Jan 17 2005, 09:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sorry Wheee - had a busy weekend - otherwise I might have shown up sooner.
Here is my completely non-religious, morally relativistic, wishy-washy "why homosexuals shouldn't marry each other" reason.
I believe that homosexuality weakens society.
Throughout history, when you look at the rise and fall of various civilizations, they are always preceeded by a rampant bout of homosexuality. Call it coincidence, call me a biggot - whatever. Homosexuality weakens the fiber of society - not only the moral fiber, but the social fiber as well.
Now, it isn't "only" homosexuality that is to play a part here - it is promiscuity as a whole. Teacher having sex with students, everyone looses virginity by age 16 at the latest, multiple sex partners, STD's - the whole gammet. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If there are so many factors, then why single out homosexuality? Maybe its just th promiscuity that does them in and homosexuality has nothing to do with it? Eitherway, your logic is still flawed because you can't isolate it as the cause. You can't give any reasons why homosexuality would corrupt the fiber of society so there is no way to say that what happened to the civilizations of the past will happen to ours.
Also, I find it entirely reprehensible that the christians here seem to be going so far out of their way to find such rediculous reasons as to why homosexual marriage can't be allowed, simply because their religious reasons are unnacceptable as arguments.
Face it: aside from your religious "morality" there isn't really a reason homosexuals can't get married. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So there you have it - giving legal recognition to a societal flaw is not a good idea in my book.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Our whole society is based on giving legal recognition to the few.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 17 2005, 07:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 17 2005, 07:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> wow. a morally relativistic person telling me what i should and shouldn't do. if you don't really want to debate this rationally, then i have no more to say here. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think the fact that you STILL haven't answered the question I posed in my first post, "Why do you care?" constitutes a more irrational action than anything I've done. Actually, I've been quite rational in my posts. Please do point out where I have been irrational, I'd love to see it. And by "see it", I mean "correct you". If you can't answer my arguments, fine; maybe you just don't read into my posts enough to find my arguments, in which case it's rather hard to carry on this rational discussion you supposedly want so badly. Let's not forget that your best argument so far has been, "It's been this way for so long, no one has ever questioned it before, so why change it?" Yes, that's the most rational thing I've ever heard.
I will repeat this again, in a separate paragraph even so you can't miss is, "Why do you care about homosexuals getting married?"
*edit* <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why are the christians (and other religious followers) "getting their panties in a bunch"? This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with basic civil rights, ie government.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Let me tell you something I've learned whilst arguing with christians: They honestly believe that they are being oppressed. No, seriously they do. Alot of them do anyways. They believe that even things like this, which have absolutely no effect on their lives, somehow threaten them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> /me raises hand I'm Catholic, in case you missed that somewhere in the banter.
Oh, and finally, a true argument, thank you pepe: <!--QuoteBegin-pepe+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (pepe)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Here is my completely non-religious, morally relativistic, wishy-washy "why homosexuals shouldn't marry each other" reason.
I believe that homosexuality weakens society.
Throughout history, when you look at the rise and fall of various civilizations, they are always preceeded by a rampant bout of homosexuality. Call it coincidence, call me a biggot - whatever. Homosexuality weakens the fiber of society - not only the moral fiber, but the social fiber as well.
Now, it isn't "only" homosexuality that is to play a part here - it is promiscuity as a whole. Teacher having sex with students, everyone looses virginity by age 16 at the latest, multiple sex partners, STD's - the whole gammet.
So there you have it - giving legal recognition to a societal flaw is not a good idea in my book. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm sorry, I have honestly never heard of this before, this spread of homosexuality before the fall of civilizations. It sure isn't in any of the textbooks. If you remember where you heard this, could you post the source? I'm going to believe you, because I doubt anyone could just make that up out of thin air, but I actually want to read about examples of this.
As for whether or not banning homosexuality is necessary to strengthen the Union: 1) The constant arguing about homosexuality, abortion, and the like is weakening the fiber of our society more than the acts themselves. Think about it: Kerry might have won the last election if Bush didn't have the ardent support of pro-lifers and anti-****-marriage groups. I don't want this country to go off track because of stupid things like arguing about sexual preference and marriage. If we just legalized **** marriage, people would stop thinking about it, and voila: no more internal strife.
2) If it's a case of genetics, and the weakening of our gene pool (I don't know your sources arguments or how homosexuality caused the downfall of civilizations, so I'm just guessing here), we have many advantages over civilizations of yesteryear. We have advanced medicine, and we have a tight global community, both of which should prevent any adverse effects of effectively losing the percentage of the population that is ****.
3)Like Skulkbait said, there are things far more wrong when it comes to the moral and social fibers of our country than homosexuality, and <u>those</u> things can be rectified without hurting anyone, indeed curing those ills will help the nation. I see a large difference between stopping sexual promiscuity before the age of 20 and granting certain rights formerly denied to a group of people.
Comments
I'm not sure what you mean. I can agree that they are not exact equivilents, but if you are saying that they shouldn't have equal rights, that's where I would disagree. Please, elaborate.
@ reasa: I can indeed fill in the blanks, and I agree with you, some homosexual rights advocates can be pretty out there, so I can see where you're coming from.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However this is America, and if enough people want something in this country, we'll get it. But this also works in reverse, if enough people in this country don't want something, we won't have it. At this point and time I don't think America is ready for **** marriage, and the harder it's advocates push the harder America well fight back.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's true, even if it really is tragic.
That does not, however, mean that a plane is a car.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You exagerate the difference considerably. In this case it would be more like comparing a car with a V4 and a car with a V6. Sure, they aren't exactly the same, but the difference is academic.
The only thing I'm slightly uneasy with is the adoption of children. I can understand their wish to have a child, and up to here I thought it was about the same thing than having one father and one mother. Though apart from the fact it goes against nature, the kid doesn't necessarily wants to have the pressure of having two homosexual parents. Think of school: how do you fill "Name of Father & Mother" How will you react when others laugh at you? Our society is not ready yet to accept so openly homosexual individuals when it already has so much discrimination.
Another thing that disturbed me greatly was when I saw a picture of a lesbian mother who was using her (very young) daughter and gave her a shirt with "Let our mothers be united" or something. Now trying to gain acceptance is one thing. Using your child to highlight your sexual preference is another thing altogether, especially if it influences the child itself.
There's all the problem: Where do we draw the line with "differences" ? Strict, Lax, or moderate? Will the laws use clever rhetoric to circumvent both extremes and do it the way they want, like it was after the Jim Crow laws? How will it be viewed by everyone, including pro and con issues from each group, how will the homosexuals feel, and how will the affected feel (by that, I mean close relatives)?
We've all seen the "in-your-face" *** and frankly nothing makes me more angry then *** shoving the fact that their **** in your face and daring you to challenge them. And I'm fairly neutral on the issue, so you can imagine what it does to the people who are absolutely opposed to **** marriage. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Heaven forbid people expressing their love in public places!
It's not like you're standing in the street and suddenly a group of **** people jump out of an alley and start making out in front of you, just to show you how **** they are. It's just affection in public. That's it.
Infact, due to the fact there are more straight people than **** people in this world, you're 10x as likely to see straight people making out in public. Does that offend you to your very core? Is that a vulgar display of affection (No, not power)? No, it's just two straight people making out.
Some of these rights tax benefits like filing for joint income tax with the IRS and being able to divide business income amoung family members. There are things that are more apparent like estate tax or the "death" tax and family inheritance.
These legal issues shouldn't be decided by god or the bible, but are civil issues that same-sex partners have to deal with.
Let the individual churches decide who recieves a marriage ceremony, but legal civil rights should be avalable to everyone.
It's not like you're standing in the street and suddenly a group of **** people jump out of an alley and start making out in front of you, just to show you how **** they are. It's just affection in public. That's it.
Infact, due to the fact there are more straight people than **** people in this world, you're 10x as likely to see straight people making out in public. Does that offend you to your very core? Is that a vulgar display of affection (No, not power)? No, it's just two straight people making out. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is not what I meant at all, I was referring to the whole "We're here we're queer" movement and all that **** pride/ parade day garbage.
If these people want to be accepted into society as normal and have all the equal rights of straight couples, why go around literally parading the fact that your different and other people <i>have</i> to accept this?
Furthermore, since you’re brought it up, if I were to come across two **** people kissing each other in public, I would most likely be disgusted or depending on my mood slightly angry. But then again I hate most people and I don't like going out in public at all...
However, I do not think homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children. I think it's fairly easy to see that being adopted by homosexual "parents" as a heterosexual child would be very stressful, and not very good for the child... I'm not saying g4ys can't be good parents, but these days it would be much more difficult for them, to the point where they should not even be allowed to try.
On a side note, I too find "media g4ys" insanely annoying, with their parades and such. I wouldn't do anything against them and I'm for homosexual marriage, but I hate it. Guess I'm borderline discriminator.
Now, the question should then be, "Should every State pass laws protecting the rights for homosexuals to marry other homosexuals?"
Personally, I don't care. I have close ties to a number of homosexuals and some want the ability to gain a legal marriage and some believe that it's inappropriate.
The one thing I do know is, The <a href='http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm' target='_blank'>Defense of Marriage Act</a> states that <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->no State shall be required to give effect to a law of any other
State with respect to a same-sex "marriage."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, even if 1 out of 50 States decides to allow it, the other 49 don't have to recognize it.
Fair enough for me.
that was the point i was trying to make, that homosexual marriage is totally unrelated to marriage. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm looking at my post...then at yours...then back to mine....and I'm clueless how you got from my "stuff" to proof that homosexual marriage is totally unrelated to heterosexual marriage.
The thing you have to understand is I seriously, and I do mean honestly and completely, doubt ANY **** couple cares whether or not their marriage counts as a "marriage" in the eyes of the Church. They just want to be seen as married by the State, and get the benefits of being spouses, as opposed to the "life partners" they are right now. This is basically what MrRadicalEd said.
You are arguing under the assumption that we all are trying to prove homosexual marriage to be equal to heterosexual marriage in the eyes of the Church and God. We're not. That's why lots of people have said, "Maybe we should just call them "civil unions" instead of "marriages", just so the relgious people don't get all uppity." But to be honest, it'd just be another example of euphemisms run rampant in our country, like being forced to call black people "African-Americans" in public. It's just silly, really.
It's just a term. If it makes you feel any better, the people who wrote the Bible didn't use the word "marriage" either, because English hadn't been invented. It's not a holy word, reserved for Christian use only. Actually, if you're getting all ticked off about **** "marriage", do you also hate Jewish people who call themselves "married"? Muslims? Atheists and agnostics? I dare you to show me the difference between getting upset that **** people call themselves married, and atheists who do the same. Neither is in a marriage as defined in the Bible: neither "marriage" has been consecrated as a holy sacrament by a priest, so neither can be honored by God, right? Actually, in this case **** marriage might actually be closer to "marriage" in the Christian sense because
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->by the way, being loving towards other people doesn't mean i become a mindless yes-man to them and condone everything they do<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Condoning something and not getting in the way of something are completely different. You don't have to support (condone) **** marriage, but actively trying to suppress it whn it does no harm to anyone and much good to a group that is most of the time looked down upon....that's about as Christian as the Crusades.
And before you even <u>think</u> of defending the Crusades, Crusades:Christianity::Jihad:Islam. Okay, <i>now</i> try to defend the Crusades.
p.s. @"V4 and V6" - not quite. More like a diesel engine and a gasoline engine. They're not interchangeable. You must prove that a homosexual marriage is the interchangeable equivalent of a heterosexual marriage, otherwise why should the homosexuals be able to create a right for themselves?
Bill Flanigan and his legal "life partner" found out just what the legal arm can do to them when Robert (his partner) was on his deathbed at the University of Maryland hospital. The doctors and staff would not allow him entry, would not tell him Robert's status, would not listen to what he said about Robert's wishes (he did not want life extension treatment) because he was not "legal family" - and in the end, when Robert died there, Bill could not be there for his last conscious hours and did not get to say goodbye. Robert died Oct. 19, 2000.
I've had friends with loved ones in the hospital that were also denied entry, because the blood family didn't want them there, because they knew they were in a homosexual relationship - and it was all perfectly legal, thanks to the legal differences in wording. Domestic partnership, civil union and marriage - they're not even separate but equal, they're separate and NOT equal.
edit: "create a right?" Did I hear this guy correctly? I wasn't aware homosexuals were trying to "create a right" so much as "gain constitutional rights afforded to others but denied to them." is this one of those "they're trying to create special rights for themselves!' arguments?
As I said previously, homosexuals already have the right to marry, and it's not just playing semantic games.
Something tells me trying to debate with you is pointless - you toss out a specific situation in which a homosexual couple was denied basic rights as a "sob story," and you've gone from "het/homo marriages aren't the same" to "they don't want equal rights." What, do they want more? Less? I didn't realize asking for the same rights as heterosexual couples was somehow "unequal." Get off your "zomg homosexual agenda!!!11" horse.
Yeah, they have the right to marry, only... people they would never want to marry in the first place. Are you somehow completely missing the point of this debate?
And again, homosexuals have the same right to marry as heterosexuals do.
*edit@your edit* It's not the state's responsibility to make sure people who want to marry can marry, nor that people who don't want to marry can't marry. They can only guarantee that the institution is there.
Why can people not marry animals? Why can people not marry multiple other people? Why, you ask? It's because marriage is and always was the institution between a man and a woman.
Interchangable in what sense? The only difference between the two is that one of them involves 2 people of the same sex instead of 2 people of the oposite sex. Every other possible factor is the same.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As I said previously, homosexuals already have the right to marry, and it's not just playing semantic games. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, it is. What we are discussiong here is wether or not homosexuals have the right to marry members of the same sex and recieve the same privilages as married heterosexual couples. I honestly have no idea why you keep playing the semantics game.
Why is are christians so against **** marriage when there very own bible tells them to be tolerant? "Man and woman" isn't set in stone. Just like everything else, it must change with the times. So people practiced homosexualality long ago but never wanted to be married, <u>well now they do</u>. And that is what matters. There is no valid, logical reason to deny them this same right that is afforded everyone else.
Why are the christians (and other religious followers) "getting their panties in a bunch"? This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with basic civil rights, ie government.
I don't see how that make ANY FREAKING DIFFERENCE.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Why are the christians (and other religious followers) "getting their panties in a bunch"? This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with basic civil rights, ie government.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me tell you something I've learned whilst arguing with christians: They honestly believe that they are being oppressed. No, seriously they do. Alot of them do anyways. They believe that even things like this, which have absolutely no effect on their lives, somehow threaten them.
Why is are christians so against **** marriage when there very own bible tells them to be tolerant? "Man and woman" isn't set in stone. Just like everything else, it must change with the times. So people practiced homosexualality long ago but never wanted to be married, <u>well now they do</u>. And that is what matters. There is no valid, logical reason to deny them this same right that is afforded everyone else.
Why are the christians (and other religious followers) "getting their panties in a bunch"? This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with basic civil rights, ie government. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This has nothing to do with me being a Christian. If I were atheist I would be arguing just as hard.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't see how that make ANY FREAKING DIFFERENCE.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Think about it, it makes all the difference in the world.
*edit* Actually, now that I think about it, this is situation is exactly like Isaac Asimov's "Positronic Man."
Read the book, and draw your own conclusions.
Why is are christians so against **** marriage when there very own bible tells them to be tolerant? "Man and woman" isn't set in stone. Just like everything else, it must change with the times. So people practiced homosexualality long ago but never wanted to be married, <u>well now they do</u>. And that is what matters. There is no valid, logical reason to deny them this same right that is afforded everyone else.
Why are the christians (and other religious followers) "getting their panties in a bunch"? This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with basic civil rights, ie government. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This has nothing to do with me being a Christian. If I were atheist I would be arguing just as hard.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you're in support of slavery then right? I mean, until very recently there have always been slaves, and it has always ben acceptable. So why not now? (besides which, it is biblically supported, IIRC)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't see how that make ANY FREAKING DIFFERENCE.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Think about it, it makes all the difference in the world.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How? Come on man you're not even trying. The only real difference is that the partners can't have children of their own. So what. There are many straight couples that can't have children of their own either.
Why is are christians so against **** marriage when there very own bible tells them to be tolerant? "Man and woman" isn't set in stone. Just like everything else, it must change with the times. So people practiced homosexualality long ago but never wanted to be married, <u>well now they do</u>. And that is what matters. There is no valid, logical reason to deny them this same right that is afforded everyone else.
Why are the christians (and other religious followers) "getting their panties in a bunch"? This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with basic civil rights, ie government. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This has nothing to do with me being a Christian. If I were atheist I would be arguing just as hard.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you're in support of slavery then right? I mean, until very recently there have always been slaves, and it has always ben acceptable. So why not now?
[QUOTE] <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Laff. Your direct opinion is that I, as a Christian, am a slave to God.
Why is are christians so against **** marriage when there very own bible tells them to be tolerant? "Man and woman" isn't set in stone. Just like everything else, it must change with the times. So people practiced homosexualality long ago but never wanted to be married, <u>well now they do</u>. And that is what matters. There is no valid, logical reason to deny them this same right that is afforded everyone else.
Why are the christians (and other religious followers) "getting their panties in a bunch"? This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with basic civil rights, ie government. [/QUOTE]
This has nothing to do with me being a Christian. If I were atheist I would be arguing just as hard.
[/QUOTE]
So you're in support of slavery then right? I mean, until very recently there have always been slaves, and it has always ben acceptable. So why not now?
[QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
Laff. Your direct opinion is that I, as a Christian, am a slave to God. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What does that have to do with anything?
Why? What are your opinions? What are your reasons for opposing **** marriage? What I've gleamed so far is:
<ul><li>They're different</li><li>They're too different</li><li>Christians, being a majority, don't like it, so let's throw minority rights out the window</li></ul>
Why is are christians so against **** marriage when there very own bible tells them to be tolerant? "Man and woman" isn't set in stone. Just like everything else, it must change with the times. So people practiced homosexualality long ago but never wanted to be married, <u>well now they do</u>. And that is what matters. There is no valid, logical reason to deny them this same right that is afforded everyone else.
Why are the christians (and other religious followers) "getting their panties in a bunch"? This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with basic civil rights, ie government. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This has nothing to do with me being a Christian. If I were atheist I would be arguing just as hard.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't see how that make ANY FREAKING DIFFERENCE.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Think about it, it makes all the difference in the world.
*edit* Actually, now that I think about it, this is situation is exactly like Isaac Asimov's "Positronic Man."
Read the book, and draw your own conclusions. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You mean this one?
And my question, if you misunderstood, was why would you be oppossed to **** marriage if you were an atheist?
Here is my completely non-religious, morally relativistic, wishy-washy "why homosexuals shouldn't marry each other" reason.
I believe that homosexuality weakens society.
Throughout history, when you look at the rise and fall of various civilizations, they are always preceeded by a rampant bout of homosexuality. Call it coincidence, call me a biggot - whatever. Homosexuality weakens the fiber of society - not only the moral fiber, but the social fiber as well.
Now, it isn't "only" homosexuality that is to play a part here - it is promiscuity as a whole. Teacher having sex with students, everyone looses virginity by age 16 at the latest, multiple sex partners, STD's - the whole gammet.
So there you have it - giving legal recognition to a societal flaw is not a good idea in my book.
Here is my completely non-religious, morally relativistic, wishy-washy "why homosexuals shouldn't marry each other" reason.
I believe that homosexuality weakens society.
Throughout history, when you look at the rise and fall of various civilizations, they are always preceeded by a rampant bout of homosexuality. Call it coincidence, call me a biggot - whatever. Homosexuality weakens the fiber of society - not only the moral fiber, but the social fiber as well.
Now, it isn't "only" homosexuality that is to play a part here - it is promiscuity as a whole. Teacher having sex with students, everyone looses virginity by age 16 at the latest, multiple sex partners, STD's - the whole gammet.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If there are so many factors, then why single out homosexuality? Maybe its just th promiscuity that does them in and homosexuality has nothing to do with it? Eitherway, your logic is still flawed because you can't isolate it as the cause. You can't give any reasons why homosexuality would corrupt the fiber of society so there is no way to say that what happened to the civilizations of the past will happen to ours.
Also, I find it entirely reprehensible that the christians here seem to be going so far out of their way to find such rediculous reasons as to why homosexual marriage can't be allowed, simply because their religious reasons are unnacceptable as arguments.
Face it: aside from your religious "morality" there isn't really a reason homosexuals can't get married.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
So there you have it - giving legal recognition to a societal flaw is not a good idea in my book.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Our whole society is based on giving legal recognition to the few.
I think the fact that you STILL haven't answered the question I posed in my first post, "Why do you care?" constitutes a more irrational action than anything I've done. Actually, I've been quite rational in my posts. Please do point out where I have been irrational, I'd love to see it. And by "see it", I mean "correct you". If you can't answer my arguments, fine; maybe you just don't read into my posts enough to find my arguments, in which case it's rather hard to carry on this rational discussion you supposedly want so badly. Let's not forget that your best argument so far has been, "It's been this way for so long, no one has ever questioned it before, so why change it?" Yes, that's the most rational thing I've ever heard.
I will repeat this again, in a separate paragraph even so you can't miss is, "Why do you care about homosexuals getting married?"
*edit*
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why are the christians (and other religious followers) "getting their panties in a bunch"? This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with basic civil rights, ie government.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me tell you something I've learned whilst arguing with christians: They honestly believe that they are being oppressed. No, seriously they do. Alot of them do anyways. They believe that even things like this, which have absolutely no effect on their lives, somehow threaten them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
/me raises hand
I'm Catholic, in case you missed that somewhere in the banter.
Oh, and finally, a true argument, thank you pepe:
<!--QuoteBegin-pepe+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (pepe)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Here is my completely non-religious, morally relativistic, wishy-washy "why homosexuals shouldn't marry each other" reason.
I believe that homosexuality weakens society.
Throughout history, when you look at the rise and fall of various civilizations, they are always preceeded by a rampant bout of homosexuality. Call it coincidence, call me a biggot - whatever. Homosexuality weakens the fiber of society - not only the moral fiber, but the social fiber as well.
Now, it isn't "only" homosexuality that is to play a part here - it is promiscuity as a whole. Teacher having sex with students, everyone looses virginity by age 16 at the latest, multiple sex partners, STD's - the whole gammet.
So there you have it - giving legal recognition to a societal flaw is not a good idea in my book. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry, I have honestly never heard of this before, this spread of homosexuality before the fall of civilizations. It sure isn't in any of the textbooks. If you remember where you heard this, could you post the source? I'm going to believe you, because I doubt anyone could just make that up out of thin air, but I actually want to read about examples of this.
As for whether or not banning homosexuality is necessary to strengthen the Union:
1) The constant arguing about homosexuality, abortion, and the like is weakening the fiber of our society more than the acts themselves. Think about it: Kerry might have won the last election if Bush didn't have the ardent support of pro-lifers and anti-****-marriage groups. I don't want this country to go off track because of stupid things like arguing about sexual preference and marriage. If we just legalized **** marriage, people would stop thinking about it, and voila: no more internal strife.
2) If it's a case of genetics, and the weakening of our gene pool (I don't know your sources arguments or how homosexuality caused the downfall of civilizations, so I'm just guessing here), we have many advantages over civilizations of yesteryear. We have advanced medicine, and we have a tight global community, both of which should prevent any adverse effects of effectively losing the percentage of the population that is ****.
3)Like Skulkbait said, there are things far more wrong when it comes to the moral and social fibers of our country than homosexuality, and <u>those</u> things can be rectified without hurting anyone, indeed curing those ills will help the nation. I see a large difference between stopping sexual promiscuity before the age of 20 and granting certain rights formerly denied to a group of people.