PDA

View Full Version : Gay marriage: connection between stand and general opinion of gays?


Leaper
01-09-2004, 02:14 AM
Here's something I've been wondering about this issue for a while. I know it's possible to be opposed to gay marriage, yet not actually think of gay people as subhuman or deviants. What I want to know is, given a person's stance on this issue, how does that translate to one's general attitude towards gays?

Basically, I'm asking this because I've been pondering the polls that both reflect a general opposition to gay marriage in this country AND an increasing acceptance of gay people. How do we reconcile this? What does America, and the conservative politican on the Hill, think about gay people?

Aankh
01-09-2004, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by Leaper
I know it's possible to be opposed to gay marriage, yet not actually think of gay people as subhuman or deviants.

Could you expand on this? I don't see how one can be amenable to witholding a commonly granted civic right from an entire subset of people based solely on their sexuality, and still consider them on par with the rest of the populace.

Leaper
01-09-2004, 02:55 AM
I guess I was unclear. I should have said, "I know it's possible to be opposed to laws specifically legalizing gay marriage..." At least, that's the impression I get from the (generally conservative) legal experts who opposed the recent Supreme Court decision on grounds that sounded purely legal.

Darph
01-09-2004, 08:04 AM
Most religions consider homosexuality to be a sin(with good reason,if you look at "sin" in general,it seems to be a list of common sense rules,that kept man from destroying his own kind over the last 5000 years - widespread homosexuality could have easily destroyed man kind when the population was lower.),and the members of those religions feel that turning sinful sodomy into holy matrimony is not only a blasphemy to God,but also to marriage as a holy union period.


I personally feel that marriage is the combining of two separates into one union,and I donít feel that its possible to combine two positives.

Quint Essence
01-09-2004, 09:05 AM
I have less trouble with the idea of recognizing non-married partnerships regardless of sexuality, than with the idea of calling something that is really the anti-thesis of marriage by the same name or otherwise presume some kind of equal footing.
A marriage and a gay partnership are very much NOT the same.

Kinthalis
01-09-2004, 09:08 AM
I think Darph illustrates an important factor in why I think it is incredibly backwards for the US to hold this policy.

It is NOTHING but RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE. That's all it is.

Their religion says it's bad, and so, not content with living by their own convictions, they try their best to force their own religious dogma on the rest of the populace.

There is NO social, legal, or moral reason why gay marriage should be illegal. The ONLY reason is that on some book of mythology it says it's a bad thing.

I'm with Aankh I don't see how opposing gay marraige can be reconciled with treating these people as second-class citizens.

Darph
01-09-2004, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by Kinthalis
I think Darph illustrates an important factor in why I think it is incredibly backwards for the US to hold this policy.

It is NOTHING but RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE. That's all it is.



Marriage is itself a religious doctrine, Without religion the roots of marriage would not exist, and would not be a part of our society, so if you want to abolish religious "holy" martrimony,why not abolish marriage period eh - it would certainly put an end to a lot of legal headaches. :cool:

Skammer
01-09-2004, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by aankh
Could you expand on this? I don't see how one can be amenable to witholding a commonly granted civic right from an entire subset of people based solely on their sexuality, and still consider them on par with the rest of the populace.
:rolleyes: As I've pointed out before, gay people have the exact same civic rights as heterosexuals. There are no laws in any state that say you can't get married if you're gay. Now, they don't have the right to marry someone of the same sex -- but neither do heterosexuals. I know it sounds like semantics, but it's important -- we're not talking about people being excluded because of their sexuality, but because of the way marriage is currently defined as the union of a man and a woman.

I have friends and coworkers who I have great respect for who happen to be gay. And on this board there are posters -- like Homebrew and gobear -- who often impress me. I certainly don't think of them as subhuman in any way, and I wouldn't dream of telling them how to live their life, sexually or otherwise.

However, I have a strong conviction -- and I freely admit it is based on my perspective as a Christian -- that sex belongs between a married man and woman. And so while the sex lives of my gay colleagues are none of my business, when it comes to my opinions on public policy, I will stand by my convictions of what marriage should be.

Kinthalis
01-09-2004, 09:18 AM
Are you saying that before christianity there was no such thing as marriage?

I'm actually asking (you or a historican whom might know), as far as I know, the word might not have been the same, but the relationship was.

Besides marriage has become a secular matter. It is a legal contract between two people who care about one another.

In that context there is NO reason why it should be illegal for ANY two people to enter into this agreement. EXCEPT the objections of the religious majority, based on on a few passages of a religious book.

No one is saying "hey, christians, you now have to marry gay people. Not only that, but youhave to marry them in your churches!"

Nope. But the legal rights for gay couples should be respected.

It's so ludricous to me. I can't even wrap my mind around the concept.

It's like having an Amish majority in the politicla process passing laws that do not allow the rest of the people to use modern conviniences simply because they 'believe' it's wrong.

Show me the difference.

Darph
01-09-2004, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by Kinthalis
Are you saying that before christianity there was no such thing as marriage?


Ahh, You inserted the world Christian in place of Religion, Interesting prejudice you have there.

The problem is this: If homosexuals can enter "Holy matrimony", then it becomes unholy,and the whole purpose of marriage is lost,to sodomy.

Many Christians,Jews,and Muslims can not accept this.

If you feel marriage is a secular contract,not a religious and holy union, i feel sorry for anyone who marries you! :D

robertliguori
01-09-2004, 09:35 AM
Now, they don't have the right to marry someone of the same sex -- but neither do heterosexuals. I know it sounds like semantics, but it's important -- we're not talking about people being excluded because of their sexuality, but because of the way marriage is currently defined as the union of a man and a woman.

IANAL, but weren't there miscegnation laws that had similar justification, and were struck down? Also, can't one turn this into a gender-discrimination issue by phrasing it as women being allowed to marry a certain type of people, but men not allowed to, and vice versa?

Kinthalis
01-09-2004, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by Darph
Ahh, You inserted the world Christian in place of Religion, Interesting prejudice you have there.


What prejudice? It IS the christian right who opposes the legalization of gay marriage, is it not? I'll be more specific: judeo-christian religion. Better?


The problem is this: If homosexuals can enter "Holy matrimony", then it becomes unholy,and the whole purpose of marriage is lost,to sodomy.


So you have a problem with the word 'holy'. So how about legalizing just 'marriage'. Cut out the holy part all together if you want.


Many Christians,Jews,and Muslims can not accept this.


THAT'S preciesly my point. It is a religious belief that this is wrong. There is NO other reason why gay marriage cannot be legal.

So back to my amish example, what is the difference if they were the majority and decreed, based solely on their religious beliefs, that technology is the 'devil's work' and is hereby outlawed? How is that ANY different than jude-christians and muslims decreeing the same of gay marriage based simply on religious dogma?

And I'm not bashing the amish her,e I don't know much about their culture, but I hjave tremendous respect for them simply BECAUSE to me they appear to be completely different from the religious right in this country.

They have outdated (to me) ideals and religious rules that they DO NOT try and force on the rest of us, but instead CHOOSE themselves to live by.

Why can;t you do the same thing? What do you think allowing gay marriage to be legal will do to christians? Do yout hink you'll be forced to marry a gay person or something?


If you feel marriage is a secular contract,not a religious and holy union, i feel sorry for anyone who marries you! :D

Wow, I think the one in need of pity is you. Marriage is nothing 'holy' in my eyes. It is a special commitment between myself and the person I love. God doesn;t enter into it.

Are you saying that unless you believe in the 'holyness' of marriage (and you are therefore implying that only judeo-christian and muslim religious people need apply) it would mean nothing?

Who's the one prejudiced now?

Aankh
01-09-2004, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by Darph
If you feel marriage is a secular contract,not a religious and holy union, i feel sorry for anyone who marries you! :D

So you're saying that, in this day and age, marriage cannot be recognised as a secular contract affirming love and commitment between two people?! Well, all those atheists out there will be shocked to know that their marriages are shams!

Marriage does have a religious history. That doesn't mean it has to have the same connotations today. Social traditions and customs evolve. Change happens.

Aankh
01-09-2004, 09:59 AM
Or what kinthalis said.

Skammer
01-09-2004, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by robertliguori
IANAL, but weren't there miscegnation laws that had similar justification, and were struck down? Also, can't one turn this into a gender-discrimination issue by phrasing it as women being allowed to marry a certain type of people, but men not allowed to, and vice versa? I don't know about the reasoning behind the miscegnation laws. That's a good question - I'm going to look into it.

JRDelirious
01-09-2004, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by Darph
If you feel marriage is a secular contract,not a religious and holy union, i feel sorry for anyone who marries you! :D

Kinthalis already provided the proper reply to that later, unnecessarily insulting part. In any case, smiling broadly while being dismissive of others does not make it OK.

However, what you miss is that in this debate there's a common conflation of TWO things: sacramental matrimony and civil marriage. Civil Marriage is NOT a recent invention, it has existed since ancient times. It IS a contract establishing legal rights and obligations and creating bonds between families. On top of that, it's advantageous if the people involved should be entering a loving bond of shared lives, committing to something greater than themselves. Thus in Western Culture, we have made it customary to recognize that sacramental matrimony includes civil marriage.

Or do you among those who believe that couples who enter a civil marriage before the county clerk are "not really married"?

As to how the heck two guys (or two gals) getting together to share their lives and having that recognized and honored by society can in any way shape or form "destroy" me or my family, I await to this day an explanation of how that is. Specially considering how that only affects a very small fraction of the population-at-large.

Patty O'Furniture
01-09-2004, 10:11 AM
Marriage is itself a religious doctrine, Without religion the roots of marriage would not exist...

And without certain soil conditions, the roots of a venus flytrap would not exist. But surely something else would have grown in its place. "The roots of marriage" are a basic need for people to cohabitate and symbiotically grow. Certainly that would still happen even if religion & mythology had never come along. Do you suggest otherwise? Without religion not only would there be no marriage, but there wouldn't even be the roots of it. Is that what you're saying?

spectrum
01-09-2004, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by Quint Essence
A marriage and a gay partnership are very much NOT the same.

How so? Marriages are, from a civil perspective (ie, the only perspective that matters), a contract between two people pledging fidelity to each other in perpetuity. It is emotionally and socially a statement of love and commitment.

Are you saying that gays are incapable of love, commitment and fidelity? If not, then how do you justify your statement?

Skammer
01-09-2004, 10:17 AM
I know people feel passionate on both sides of the issue... but is there a way we can drop the gay marriage debate (which has been done here many times) and go back to addressing the OP -- how people can oppose gay marriage without considering gays to be "subhuman and deviant"?

spectrum
01-09-2004, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by Skammer
However, I have a strong conviction -- and I freely admit it is based on my perspective as a Christian -- that sex belongs between a married man and woman. And so while the sex lives of my gay colleagues are none of my business, when it comes to my opinions on public policy, I will stand by my convictions of what marriage should be.

And we should all be forced to suffer under your morals? I should be marginalized by my own government because of your religious convictions?

Freedom of religion is not there for you to use your faith as a club to make everyone live the way you think they should.

Darph
01-09-2004, 10:22 AM
I beleive that God is Love, and when two people love each other enough to enter into marriage,then they experiance a touch of God in their life,even if they are Atheists,if love is there, then so is God.


As far as "Change happens", has it?

Did i fall asleep for the last 100 years and wake up suddendly,in some new world where no one uses any religious references in their marriage cerimonies? Or beleives what i beleive?

Oh wait! That hasnt happened, youre living in Atheist imagination land!

This is america,the majority of americans are religious,and don't want their marriages defiled and lowered from a religious and holy union to a "legal contract".

Ramanujan
01-09-2004, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by Skammer
:rolleyes: As I've pointed out before, gay people have the exact same civic rights as heterosexuals. There are no laws in any state that say you can't get married if you're gay. Now, they don't have the right to marry someone of the same sex -- but neither do heterosexuals. I know it sounds like semantics, but it's important -- we're not talking about people being excluded because of their sexuality, but because of the way marriage is currently defined as the union of a man and a woman.the right to marry the person of one's choosing has been legally established. heterosexual people have this right, gay people do not. so tell me again how gay people have the exact same civic rights as heterosexual people?

...and I wouldn't dream of telling them how to live their life, sexually or otherwise.no, but you're happy to let the government do it for you.

However, I have a strong conviction -- and I freely admit it is based on my perspective as a Christian -- that sex belongs between a married man and woman. And so while the sex lives of my gay colleagues are none of my business, when it comes to my opinions on public policy, I will stand by my convictions of what marriage should be.your convictions are religious, and it satisfies you that those same religious convictions are what drive public policy? i don't understand why people are so happy to let religion motivate government. what happens if and when the government is not run by christian conservatives? will you change your views then?

spectrum
01-09-2004, 10:27 AM
Skammer, you can't. By definition, anyone who thinks gays deserve less freedom and liberty than straights considers gays to be subhuman. Ridiculing and marginalizing our relationships is no different than categorizing them (and us) as deviant.

This issue is one of the few that is 100% black and white. There is no gray.

Darph
01-09-2004, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by Attrayant
And without certain soil conditions, the roots of a venus flytrap would not exist. But surely something else would have grown in its place. "The roots of marriage" are a basic need for people to cohabitate and symbiotically grow. Certainly that would still happen even if religion & mythology had never come along. Do you suggest otherwise? Without religion not only would there be no marriage, but there wouldn't even be the roots of it. Is that what you're saying?

But without the roots the plant would indeed perish.
Without Gods love being part of marriage, marriage would be nothing. Without the original idea of God creating man and woman for each other,there would be no marriage.

Heres a question:
Why try to de-religionize a religious ideal,just because atheist conform to part of our ideas, and not another you think you have the right to defile our religious beleifs,and change the meaning of our religions own ideas?

Ramanujan
01-09-2004, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by Quint Essence
I have less trouble with the idea of recognizing non-married partnerships regardless of sexuality, than with the idea of calling something that is really the anti-thesis of marriage by the same name or otherwise presume some kind of equal footing.
A marriage and a gay partnership are very much NOT the same.what exactly is it about two people professing their love and fidelity for each other in a legal way that is antithetical to marriage?

jeevmon
01-09-2004, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by Skammer
:rolleyes: As I've pointed out before, gay people have the exact same civic rights as heterosexuals. There are no laws in any state that say you can't get married if you're gay. Now, they don't have the right to marry someone of the same sex -- but neither do heterosexuals. I know it sounds like semantics, but it's important -- we're not talking about people being excluded because of their sexuality, but because of the way marriage is currently defined as the union of a man and a woman.

This is incredibly nonsensical. Someone's sexuality is defined by their choice of partners. So if you're saying that gay men and women can't get married, you are discriminating against them based on their sexuality.



I have friends and coworkers who I have great respect for who happen to be gay. And on this board there are posters -- like Homebrew and gobear -- who often impress me. I certainly don't think of them as subhuman in any way, and I wouldn't dream of telling them how to live their life, sexually or otherwise.


Hey, it's the old "some of my best friends . . . " defense. Guess what? That never works to innoculate anyone against allegations of bigotry.


However, I have a strong conviction -- and I freely admit it is based on my perspective as a Christian -- that sex belongs between a married man and woman. And so while the sex lives of my gay colleagues are none of my business, when it comes to my opinions on public policy, I will stand by my convictions of what marriage should be.

OK, here (http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm) is a list of just some of the legal benefits of marriage. Explain to me what public policy is served by requiring gay couples to spend legal fees and enter into complicated contracts to exercise these rights, or denying those rights to gay couples outright.

Let's even take a more recent and concrete example. If Britney Spears and Jason Allen Alexander had crashed their car on the Vegas strip coming out of their drive-through wedding, she would have had the unquestioned right to make medical decisions on his behalf (and vice versa). But if the same thing happened to a gay couple, who had been together for many years, they would have had to have a medical power of attorney in order to exercise the same rights. It simply makes no sense that gay couples should have to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees just to get a fraction of the rights that heterosexual couples can get just by saying a few words and signing one piece of paper.

Ramanujan
01-09-2004, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by Darph
Heres a question:
Why try to de-religionize a religious ideal,just because atheist conform to part of our ideas, and not another you think you have the right to defile our religious beleifs,and change the meaning of our religions own ideas?so if your religion believes that men are the superior species of the planet, atheists aren't allowed to believe that too? are you saying that non-religious people have no right believing some of the things that religious people do?

this whole portion of the debate is pointless, because this statement:
Marriage is itself a religious doctrine, Without religion the roots of marriage would not existis simply false. marriage has been around for far longer and in far more places than judeo-christianity. "holy matrimony", as such, is your religious version of marriage. no one is asking you to marry gay people in your church.

Darph
01-09-2004, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by spectrum
Skammer, you can't. By definition, anyone who thinks gays deserve less freedom and liberty than straights considers gays to be subhuman. Ridiculing and marginalizing our relationships is no different than categorizing them (and us) as deviant.

This issue is one of the few that is 100% black and white. There is no gray.

Ok ,let me change the pace up some here:
I magically become: Darph the Evolutionist (its all mental exercise anyways,per voltaire)

Being gay is somthing that you chose to do instead of do whats natural, in fact by choosing to be gay, you designate yourself to be removed from the gene pool.

Marriage is the natural evolution of a relationship: Its the state you enter when you want to reproduce and expand your genetic heritage. Homosexuals can not enter into this stage of reproduction with homosex person.Simply impossible!

Huzzuh.

Kinthalis
01-09-2004, 10:45 AM
Darph Not that I agree with you on that last post 100%, but please, enlighten us with so far, what has been your faultless logic...


What on earth does that have to do with the legality of marraige?

Malthus
01-09-2004, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by Leaper
Here's something I've been wondering about this issue for a while. I know it's possible to be opposed to gay marriage, yet not actually think of gay people as subhuman or deviants. What I want to know is, given a person's stance on this issue, how does that translate to one's general attitude towards gays?


The only example I can think of is this: when I was in law school, one of my study-buddies was a lesbian. We were reading up on family law, when she announced that she had changed her mind on the subject of gay marriage - it ought not to be allowed.

Why? Because she had receintly inherited a rather large amount of property, and realized that if gay marriage became a reality, any future serious partner of hers could well press her into getting married - and have a claim over any future property acquisitions.

Not having gay marriage is great from the POV of high-earning gays - asuming that they are, well, selfish.

Darph
01-09-2004, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by Ramanujan
so if your religion believes that men are the superior species of the planet, atheists aren't allowed to believe that too? are you saying that non-religious people have no right believing some of the things that religious people do?

this whole portion of the debate is pointless, because this statement:
is simply false. marriage has been around for far longer and in far more places than judeo-christianity. "holy matrimony", as such, is your religious version of marriage. no one is asking you to marry gay people in your church.

Please show me evidence that predates the historical recordings in the old testament that talk about marraige.

You can't - thanks.

And of course you can beleive what we do, just don't try to drag them down from what they are - religious beleifs. Its like trying to justify circumcision without religion. :-/

Sure you can say there are health reasons for it,but can you honestly,being an intellegent and educated human, say to yourself straight faced, that you would be circumsized had not religion brought it upon you? Its the same with marriage and christmas...denying it is absurdly prejudice,in the same way a nazi would deny jesus is a Jew,just because his beleifs prevent him from freeing his mind and accepting it.

Free your mind and be ye free!

Kinthalis
01-09-2004, 10:47 AM
There are always other contracts pre-naps etc, to help alleviate the pressures of being selfish ;)

Darph
01-09-2004, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by Kinthalis
Darph Not that I agree with you on that last post 100%, but please, enlighten us with so far, what has been your faultless logic...


What on earth does that have to do with the legality of marraige?


Because as i voted as i feel,that homosexuals can not enter into marriage,and against changing the nature of the definition of the state of marriage Yay my opinion.

Malthus
01-09-2004, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by Kinthalis
There are always other contracts pre-naps etc, to help alleviate the pressures of being selfish ;)

Yes, but if marriage doesn't even exist, your partner cannot guilt you into it. ;)

Insisting on a pre-Nup kinda *exposes* your selfishness (plus, they are quite often not a secure device for protection anyway, at least in some jurisdictions). The point is to *be* selfish, but not actually have the other person find out ...

"Honey, it is plum too bad gay marriage doesn't exist, but you don't have to worry, I'll *always* take care of you ... ".

Ramanujan
01-09-2004, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by Darph
Being gay is somthing that you chose to do instead of do whats natural, in fact by choosing to be gay, you designate yourself to be removed from the gene pool.do you have any evidence for this claim?

Ramanujan
01-09-2004, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Darph
Please show me evidence that predates the historical recordings in the old testament that talk about marraige.

You can't - thanks.please show me evidence that the old testament is a valid historical document.

and also, be prepared to claim that in areas of the world that were completely uninfluenced by judeo-christianity, no such thing as marriage existed.

And of course you can beleive what we do, just don't try to drag them down from what they are - religious beleifs.so belief that two people who love each other should be able to legally profess their fidelity legally is a religious belief? oh, dear.

Lucki Chaarms
01-09-2004, 11:02 AM
Darph - I'll give you that acting on homosexual desires is obviously something one chooses to do or not to do, but I'm usually pretty amazed to hear straight men proclaim that homosexuality is entirely a choice. Could you change sides if you wanted to? Just by making the choice, could you suddenly find men sexually attractive to the point that you would enjoy intercourse with them? I really doubt it. The same goes the other way. In this way, homosexuality is no more a "choice" than heterosexuality, simply less common and therefore more widely misunderstood.

LC

scule
01-09-2004, 11:04 AM
You know it's so hard to not be prejudiced against Christians when people like Darph make it so easy (and I was raised Catholic).

I would submit that arguing the issue with him/her and any others in that vein is pointless because you will never, ever change their minds. So back to the original OP, I don't think you can legitimately say that you are for gay rights and then against gay marriage without admitting (even if indirectly) that you are still uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality to some degree.

This is, I believe, just a result of the relatively short passage of time from the general acceptance of homosexuality in our societies. I don't think some people are truly ready to accept everything about gays yet, even though they know deep down inside that they are wrong to deny gays all rights (including marriage). In time this will change, and it will require the work of pioneers in legislation to bring it about, but I think that is what you are seeing with this apparent contradiction in logic.

I am of course speaking of people who don't rely on the Bible, Koran or Talmud for their thoughts. Anyone who espouses a disregard for logic based on religious grounds is generally beyond hope, but unfortunately in the US in particular they are a very powerful lobby group.

Darph
01-09-2004, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by Ramanujan
do you have any evidence for this claim?

Yes i do, homosexuals who do not have sex with women do not reproduce by any natural means. If you wish to observe this amazing phenomina,please feel free to visit your local "The village" or "Purple turtle" or whatever :-)D

photopat
01-09-2004, 11:17 AM
One of the arguments I keep hearing is that gay marriages would somehow "invalidate" straight marriages. I really don't understand that argument. I suppose from a strictly religious perspective as Darph has espoused, there may be something to it, but I don't view marriage from a strictly religious perspective. I'm not the only one, obviously and that attitude isn't new.

This (marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm) link provides a basic history and among other things it points out that:

The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32).

That puts a bit of a late-date spin on the concept, wouldn't you say?

Marriage is an arrangement. Whether based on love, economics or social traditions, there is no reason to reserve it for one group and not permit another to enjoy the same legal status.

Ramanujan
01-09-2004, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by Darph
Yes i do, homosexuals who do not have sex with women do not reproduce by any natural means. If you wish to observe this amazing phenomina,please feel free to visit your local "The village" or "Purple turtle" or whatever :-)Ddid you not realize i was talking about the claim that homosexuality is a choice?

Darph
01-09-2004, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Lucki Chaarms
Darph - I'll give you that acting on homosexual desires is obviously something one chooses to do or not to do, but I'm usually pretty amazed to hear straight men proclaim that homosexuality is entirely a choice. Could you change sides if you wanted to? Just by making the choice, could you suddenly find men sexually attractive to the point that you would enjoy intercourse with them? I really doubt it. The same goes the other way. In this way, homosexuality is no more a "choice" than heterosexuality, simply less common and therefore more widely misunderstood.

LC

A homosexual is someone who acts on those feelings. Not someone has possesses them, thats where youre argument is flawed. ;)

Patty O'Furniture
01-09-2004, 11:22 AM
But without the roots the plant would indeed perish.

No, no no. I didn't say there wouldn't be any roots at all, I said roots of some kind are inevitable, and it would grow into a plant that might not be called "marriage" but it would be functionally the same thing.

This is america, the majority of americans are religious, and don't want their marriages defiled and lowered from a religious and holy union to a "legal contract".

This is the "it harms me" argument, but it's paper-thin and has no substance. How does my marrying a same-sex partner cause your holy union to become defiled and lowered into a legal contract?

Some religons allow for polygamy. Does that defile your holy union too? Explain how.

Did i fall asleep for the last 100 years and wake up suddendly,in some new world where no one uses any religious references in their marriage cerimonies? Or beleives what i beleive?

That's what it looks like to me. There are quite a large number of people in this word who opt for non-religious ceremonies (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/features/rites/weddings.shtml).

Bottom line: Get your god out of my business.

Darph
01-09-2004, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by photopat
One of the arguments I keep hearing is that gay marriage
Marriage is an arrangement. Whether based on love, economics or social traditions, there is no reason to reserve it for one group and not permit another to enjoy the same legal status.


See,thats the root of the problem - some people believe marriage is a Religious union, you beleive its nothing more than a contract of legal status.

Thats why we will *NEVER EVER* agree,under any circumstance,that gays can legally be married.

Polycarp
01-09-2004, 11:35 AM
"Marriage" is actually three things:
1. A commitment between two people (or more, taking polygamous marriages into account) to establish a household and family, usually but not always delimiting sexual relations to between the partners in the marriage.
2. The lifestyle licensed by the state which gives legal recognition and usually benefits to the commitment described in (1).
3. The relationship commenced by a religious ceremony vowing such a commitment, usually considered as ordained by the deity/-ies of that religion and restricted as they command (e.g., "Thou shalt not marry outside thy faith/ethnic group"), which may or may not fulfill the requirements for creating (2) (in America it does; in France it does not) but which places socio-religious approbation on (1).

It's vitally important to keep those distinctions in mind in discussing "what a marriage is" or we get into Clintonesque discussions of what constitutes a "real" marriage in which people are basing their arguments on differing definitions without realizing that their premises vary.

Skammer is 100% correct in what he says -- by his standards based on (3). It's his holding -- though I'm fairly sure he is not being intentional in this -- that his views of what constitute a valid marriage derived from (3) should become the conditions mandated for (2).

Most advocates for gay marriages -- I being a rare exception -- based their position on arguments as to what should constitute valid public policy based on a rights argument with the presumption that we are debating (2).

I think that it would be entirely within the bounds of reason for a religious person to hold that a "real marriage" -- using the (3) definition on what is "real" -- is delimited to the traditional definition of unrelated adults of opposite sex, while accepting that the rights and perquisites of a state-sanctioned relationship as in (2) are appropriately rendered to gay couples wishing to make such a commitment -- but that this is not a "real marriage" in the sense such a person uses the term. This was Joe Cool's stance back when, and when not losing his temper he argued it coherently; it also appears to be Gov. Dean's view.

There is an underlying presumption in some discussions that the prime purpose of marriage is for the procreation and rearing of progeny. Like it or not, this appears to be a major biological and sociobological function of the estate. And it becomes, as Darph pointed out, an argument against gay marriage.

But it is by no means the exclusive purpose of marriage, even sociobiologically. As half of a highly meaningful and socially productive marriage that is sterile in the biological progeny sense, I am adamant that this delimitation not be used -- to the point of being quite willing to Pit anyone who insists on it as a necessary criterion for marriage. Further, I can show that it leads to some conclusions that are socially undesirable by most people's standards -- and do so in one word: menopause. If marriage is exclusively for progeny, a menopausal woman has no right to be married -- not merely to commence a marriage if presently unmarried, but no right to remain in a marriage relationship.

Skammer's argument that gays and straights have equal rights to marry is one of those technically true but socially perverse efforts of logic, very much like "separate but equal" of our late and unlamented past. The best riposte is a quote that matt_mcl has brought out several times, to the effect that "The law in its majestic equality grants to millionaires and the destitute the same right to sleep under bridges and beg their food in the streets."

spectrum
01-09-2004, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by Darph
Being gay is somthing that you chose to do instead of do whats natural, in fact by choosing to be gay

Now you're just spreading anti-gay hateful nonsense. Being gay is not a choice. No one with any whit of intelligence or decency would even hint that that is the case.

Darph
01-09-2004, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by Attrayant
No, no no. I didn't say there wouldn't be any roots at all, I said roots of some kind are inevitable, and it would grow into a plant that might not be called "marriage" but it would be functionally the same thing.



This is the "it harms me" argument, but it's paper-thin and has no substance. How does my marrying a same-sex partner cause your holy union to become defiled and lowered into a legal contract?

Some religons allow for polygamy. Does that defile your holy union too? Explain how.



That's what it looks like to me. There are quite a large number of people in this word who opt for non-religious ceremonies (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/features/rites/weddings.shtml).

Bottom line: Get your god out of my business.




This argument is pointless almost,because I don't think its right, and i've listed the reasons, you can tell me get my God out of your business, and then i can tell you "No,majority rule,welcome to democracy."

I never said that atheists don't get married and try to leave God out of it as much as possible for a religious establishment, because it does happen,it just doesnt happen on the scale you want it to ,because its a religious union - the majority of the world get married by religious establishment and you'll never change that,no matter how fanatically anti religious you are.

And yes, polygomy is an abomination, and the church of laterday saints have abolished the practice, AND so has the USA,Why? Because we have a christian majority here.

How do you feel about polygomy? Does that alter your point of view on what marriage is? Does it challenge your legalist point of view? People are born polygomists,why cant you accept their polygomy? Why can't like 1000 men and 1000 women all be married to each other?

Why are you so prejudice against polygomists? peace love and happiness man!

spectrum
01-09-2004, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by Darph
Sure you can say there are health reasons for it,but can you honestly,being an intellegent and educated human, say to yourself straight faced, that you would be circumsized had not religion brought it upon you?

Well, there is the issue of aesthetics.

Free your mind and be ye free!

Quite the statement from one of the most indoctrinated folks to cross this board in a long time. You are a disservice to Christians everywhere.

Darph
01-09-2004, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by spectrum
Now you're just spreading anti-gay hateful nonsense. Being gay is not a choice. No one with any whit of intelligence or decency would even hint that that is the case.

If its not a choice,then why do people stop being gay and get married and lead reproductive lives?

I know many gay converts who are now born again christians,some are even missionaries. :-)

How do YOU explain that?

spectrum
01-09-2004, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by Darph
Without Gods love being part of marriage, marriage would be nothing.

Holy f-ing Jesus on a stick, so now you're claiming that all non-religious marriages are "nothing"? You are a real arrogant SOB.

Without the original idea of God creating man and woman for each other,there would be no marriage.

Since marriage is present in cultures that long pre-date that nonsense you're spewing from the Jewish scriptures (Zoroastrians, Hindus, Aborigines), I think you need to provide a cite to prove your contention.

Darph
01-09-2004, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by spectrum


Holy f-ing Jesus on a stick, so now you're claiming that all non-religious marriages are "nothing"? You are a real arrogant SOB.



Since marriage is present in cultures that long pre-date that nonsense you're spewing from the Jewish scriptures (Zoroastrians, Hindus, Aborigines), I think you need to provide a cite to prove your contention. [/B]


Ok so you just listed Hindus - A RELIGION that FORCES people into marriage, and Aboriginies - the term for a native person depending on where you live? (American Aboriginies are Native americans..ect.)


Nope in fact i beleive i said earlier,that if two athiests love each other enough to get married, then they are experiancing Gods love that was given to them,and tasting a little bit of God himself,

Its not a sin for a man and woman to get married - Even if they are God hating Militiant anti christians like yourself.

Marriage is a beautiful thing,between anyone. (marriage defined as the union of a man and a woman mind you.)

To be in love is to experiance God, Hows that for getting God out of your business? :-)

So obviously either you can't understand whats being said here,perhaps you should sit this one out. :-(

Jon the Geek
01-09-2004, 11:56 AM
I simply cannot understand the anti-gay-marriage arguments.

Can Buddhists get married? Can people who have no intention of having children get married?

I'm sure someone has a reason that these groups don't defile marriage (which was obviously intended only for a loving man and woman to join with God and go forth and multiply :rolleyes: ). You contort to make your definition of marriage fit everyone except homosexuals, but claim that you're not anti-gay.

In answer to the OP, no, I don't think it's possible to be opposed to gay marriage and think of homosexuals as fully human.

It looks like SEVERAL people posted while I was writing this, so I hope I didn't repeat too much or contradict anyone unintendedly :)

spectrum
01-09-2004, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by Darph
A homosexual is someone who acts on those feelings. Not someone has possesses them, thats where youre argument is flawed. ;)

Homosexuality is a state of being, not an action. I was gay the day I was born, was gay before I ever had sex, was gay even when I once had sex with a female, will be gay the day I die. I never chose to be gay, I just chose to accept myself.

If that's a sin to your God, then I spit in his face and reject him as the monster he truly is.

Kinthalis
01-09-2004, 11:57 AM
I think Darph is about ripe for a pitting. Any takers? ;)

spectrum
01-09-2004, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Darph
See,thats the root of the problem - some people believe marriage is a Religious union, you beleive its nothing more than a contract of legal status.

Thats why we will *NEVER EVER* agree,under any circumstance,that gays can legally be married.

So my must I be oppressed and forced to live under the thumb of your hateful worldview? What harm does it do your marriage if I marry my boyfriend, because we love each other just as much and just as validly as you love your spouse.

What can be bad about helping people to love each other?

Nothing, in the eyes of any good person.

spectrum
01-09-2004, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by Darph
[B]If its not a choice,then why do people stop being gay and get married and lead reproductive lives?['/b]

They don't stop being gay. They climb back into the closet, the self hate, the religious trap. They get married and lead lives which are nothing but lies. Many of them give up and go back to being their true selves (or get caught doing that when they still swear they changed).

Sure, a gay person can have sex with a member of the opposite sex. I have. It sucked. It was a lie. But I tried to be straight because I bought into this same line of religious bullshit you're hollow mind is peddling here. I grew up, came to accept myself for who I am, and became honest with the world.

If there is a God, he's proud of me. And he's very sad for all the poor souls your hate cult has forced back into a life of lies.

stpauler
01-09-2004, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Darph
See,thats the root of the problem - some people believe marriage is a Religious union, you beleive its nothing more than a contract of legal status.

Thats why we will *NEVER EVER* agree,under any circumstance,that gays can legally be married.

You mean we can't agree that gays can legally be married in the Netherlands? (http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2003/10/04/in_netherlands_gay_marriage_becomes_routine/) . I guess I disagree on agreeing to disagree.

spectrum
01-09-2004, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by Darph
Ok so you just listed Hindus - A RELIGION that FORCES people into marriage, and Aboriginies - the term for a native person depending on where you live? (American Aboriginies are Native americans..ect.)

The Hindu religion no more forces people into marriages than the Islamic religion forces women to wear burkas. Those are cultural mores that are separate from their established religions.

I notice you don't know who the Zoroastrians are. Nor did you dispute my point.

And since I'm much smarter than you, I would thank you not to try to lecture me on the term Aborigine. I know what the term means. You still didn't parry the point.

Nope in fact i beleive i said earlier,that if two athiests love each other enough to get married, then they are experiancing Gods love that was given to them,and tasting a little bit of God himself.

God tastes like wine and bread.

And they're only tasting God's love in your opinion. Religion is just your opinion. It's not a provable fact. It's opinion. I prefer the world of verifiable fact.

Its not a sin for a man and woman to get married - Even if they are God hating Militiant anti christians like yourself.

I am not anti-Christian, nor God-hating. I attend, rather sporadically, a liberal Episcopalian church on occasion. However, given how scarring my encounters with the hateful beast God of fundamentalism have been, I can't say I have much faith left. When a "God of love" inspires nothing but hate in most of his followers, you begin to doubt the message. You, for instance, are a great example of Christian Hate.

Marriage is a beautiful thing,between anyone. (marriage defined as the union of a man and a woman mind you.)

Oh, because love is only real between men and women? Somehow my love for my boyfriend is not real, not beautiful? F-ck you.

To be in love is to experiance God, Hows that for getting God out of your business?

Your opinion, nothing more.

So obviously either you can't understand whats being said here,perhaps you should sit this one out. :-( [/B]

Now you're saying I'm incapable of love? God you're an arrogant piece of crap. People like you are why my parents hardly speak to me anymore.

I hope and "pray" that all your children are gay.

spectrum
01-09-2004, 12:25 PM
I'm sorry, everyone, for getting upset. But this sort of thing rightfully, I think, enrages me. I don't particularly care for having my equality and humanity sublimated to the will of an impish, hateful notion of a God who probably doesn't exist in the first place.

So, unless your name is Darph, if I've offended anyone, I'm sorry.

Ramanujan
01-09-2004, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Darph
If its not a choice,then why do people stop being gay and get married and lead reproductive lives?

I know many gay converts who are now born again christians,some are even missionaries. :-)

How do YOU explain that?it's called repression, and it is a terribly awful thing. and people like you are the reason it happens.

what does that repression lead to? just ask the catholic church about what happens when people who have "deviant" sexual desires join the church in an attempt to cure those desires. or ask alan turing, or tchaikovsky, or any other great person who ended up committing suicide because they couldn't deal with the world telling them gay is wrong.

please stop peddling your offal.

I beleive that God is Lovenot your god.

spectrum
01-09-2004, 12:32 PM
I'm sorry, everyone, for getting upset. But this sort of thing rightfully, I think, enrages me. I don't particularly care for having my equality and humanity sublimated to the will of an impish, hateful notion of a God who probably doesn't exist in the first place.

So, unless your name is Darph, if I've offended anyone, I'm sorry.

Skammer
01-09-2004, 01:16 PM
Ramanujan said:the right to marry the person of one's choosing has been legally established. heterosexual people have this right, gay people do not. That's absurd. Both gays and straights are prohibited from marrying all kinds of people, including
-- minors below the age of consent
-- close relatives
-- multiple partners
-- people of the same sex
These laws apply to everyone equally.
so tell me again how gay people have the exact same civic rights as heterosexual people?I just did.
your convictions are religious, and it satisfies you that those same religious convictions are what drive public policy? i don't understand why people are so happy to let religion motivate government. what happens if and when the government is not run by christian conservatives? will you change your views then?Although there are self-proclaimed Christian conservatives in office now, that hasn't always been the case. Whoever runs the government has no bearing on my opinion on this issue. Why would I change my views if the government changed its?

Spectrum said:Skammer, you can't. By definition, anyone who thinks gays deserve less freedom and liberty than straights considers gays to be subhuman. Ridiculing and marginalizing our relationships is no different than categorizing them (and us) as deviant. I absolutely don't think gays deserve less freedom and liberty. And you've never heard me ridicule your relationships, either (please don't get me confused with Darph). I've taken other Christians to task for not treating gays like fellow humans with dignity who deserve resepect, love and understanding.

jeevmon said:Hey, it's the old "some of my best friends . . . " defense. Guess what? That never works to innoculate anyone against allegations of bigotry.I wasn't really trying to avoid accusations of bigotry; I'm just trying to respond to the OP. I don't think gays or lesbians are any worse than anyone else. I have more compassion and respect for gay couples then I do for heterosexual couples who have sex outside of marriage. Yet nobody asks "how can you be opposed to premarital sex and not consider people who live together to be subhuman deviants?"

photopat
01-09-2004, 01:20 PM
No need to apologize spectrum.

Darph, on the other hand should be ashamed of statements like Even if they are God hating Militiant anti christians like yourself.

Skammer
01-09-2004, 01:22 PM
Ramanujan said:the right to marry the person of one's choosing has been legally established. heterosexual people have this right, gay people do not. That's absurd. Both gays and straights are prohibited from marrying all kinds of people, including
-- minors below the age of consent
-- close relatives
-- multiple partners
-- people of the same sex
These laws apply to everyone equally.
so tell me again how gay people have the exact same civic rights as heterosexual people?I just did.
your convictions are religious, and it satisfies you that those same religious convictions are what drive public policy? i don't understand why people are so happy to let religion motivate government. what happens if and when the government is not run by christian conservatives? will you change your views then?Although there are self-proclaimed Christian conservatives in office now, that hasn't always been the case. Whoever runs the government has no bearing on my opinion on this issue. Why would I change my views if the government changed its?

Spectrum said:Skammer, you can't. By definition, anyone who thinks gays deserve less freedom and liberty than straights considers gays to be subhuman. Ridiculing and marginalizing our relationships is no different than categorizing them (and us) as deviant. I absolutely don't think gays deserve less freedom and liberty. And you've never heard me ridicule your relationships, either (please don't get me confused with Darph). I've taken other Christians to task for not treating gays like fellow humans with dignity who deserve resepect, love and understanding.

jeevmon said:Hey, it's the old "some of my best friends . . . " defense. Guess what? That never works to innoculate anyone against allegations of bigotry.I wasn't really trying to avoid accusations of bigotry; I'm just trying to respond to the OP. I don't think gays or lesbians are any worse than anyone else. I have more compassion and respect for gay couples then I do for heterosexual couples who have sex outside of marriage. Yet nobody asks "how can you be opposed to premarital sex and not consider people who live together to be subhuman deviants?"

Skammer
01-09-2004, 01:24 PM
Oops, sorry for the double-post.

Spectrum, I don't see where you need to apologize.

jeevmon
01-09-2004, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by Kinthalis
I think Darph is about ripe for a pitting. Any takers? ;)

Done (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=234127), at least on one comment that really pissed me off. Others can have a whirl at it too.

MrVisible
01-09-2004, 01:26 PM
I met my boyfriend over two years ago. I love him more than I've ever loved anyone, more than I thought it was possible to love anyone. I want nothing more than for us to spend the rest of our lives together; I want to make him happy forever.

Earlier this year, we gave up on plans to buy a house together. Since we can't file jointly, the deductible for the interest on the mortgage wouldn't have been enough to justify buying the house. We'll have to wait.

I bring this up because in the debate about gay marriage, and religion, and all the emotional flailing about that accompanies it, it's easy to forget that what's being discussed are real, actual people. It's our lives, our futures that you're debating. What we're asking for isn't much. We just want to have the legal protections and benefits that would be afforded to any other type of couple in our situation.

I noticed that the idea that we can't reproduce is being bandied about as some sort of justification for discriminating against us again. I'd like to bring up one point, which was thrown into sharp relief by recent events in my life. Gay couples who commit to each other for life are extremely unlikely to do so for any other reason than a deep, abiding love for each other. We can't get each other pregnant accidentally. Our parents are probably never going to pressure us into marrying a same-sex lover. We don't get prestige out of marriage; we have a hard time inheriting, so money's rarely the point.

When I help my boyfriend through the tough times in his life, when I care for him when he's sick, when I make him laugh, when I clean the house or walk the dogs because I know he doesn't feel like it, I do it for love. No other reason.

photopat
01-09-2004, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by Skammer
That's absurd. Both gays and straights are prohibited from marrying all kinds of people, including
-- minors below the age of consent
-- close relatives
-- multiple partners
-- people of the same sex
These laws apply to everyone equally.

(Bolding mine)

That's precisely why it's not equal. Straights don't want to marry people of the same sex, so that particular restriction doesn't apply to them. It only applies to gays who don't want to marry people of the opposite sex.

And let's not start equating gay marriage with polygamy, incest or pedophilia okay? Those are different topics, that have nothing to do with homosexuality.

photopat
01-09-2004, 01:33 PM
Damn. The bolding didn't work right.

photopat
01-09-2004, 01:37 PM
No need to apologize spectrum.

Darph, on the other hand should be ashamed of statements like Even if they are God hating Militiant anti christians like yourself.

Skammer
01-09-2004, 01:47 PM
It was asserted that the right to marry a person of one's choosing had been "legally established." I was bringing up legal precedence for not permitting marriages between certain people. There are people who want to practice polygamy -- does the law treat them unequally because they can't?

MrVisible, thank you for sharing your experience.I bring this up because in the debate about gay marriage, and religion, and all the emotional flailing about that accompanies it, it's easy to forget that what's being discussed are real, actual people. It's our lives, our futures that you're debating. You're right, and I apologize that I sometimes get caught up in the debate and forget how personal the issue is for many people. I appreciate your devotion to your boyfriend.

Darph
01-09-2004, 01:50 PM
He called my mom a b***h just because i disagree with him!

As far as you and your boyfriend - God is love, Homosexuality is sin, God is not sin, You are not experiancing love, you are experiancing Sin, sorry!

This statement rules :

------
That's absurd. Both gays and straights are prohibited from marrying all kinds of people, including
-- minors below the age of consent
-- close relatives
-- multiple partners
-- people of the same sex
These laws apply to everyone equally. :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: Its the truth!!

stpauler
01-09-2004, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Darph
He called my mom a b***h just because i disagree with him!

As far as you and your boyfriend - God is love, Homosexuality is sin, God is not sin, You are not experiancing love, you are experiancing Sin, sorry!


Do you have proof that God is not sin? Does it say that anywhere in your bible that God is not sin?

And please , it's experience not experiance.

Skammer
01-09-2004, 02:02 PM
Um, Darph -- first, welcome to the boards.

Second -- I understand where your coming from, but let's try to show a little more compassion and understanding. As far as you and your boyfriend - God is love, Homosexuality is sin, God is not sin, You are not experiancing love, you are experiancing Sin, sorry! See, this does not exactly lend itself to thoughtful discussion -- instead, it invites people to either tune you out or drag you to the Pit.

Since you're new, you might want to go back and read some of the many threads that have already been posted on this topic. "You're wrong, God says so, so there!" is not an effective debating technique on these boards.

I'm always glad to see new Dopers who are Christian, but the rest of the folks on this board deserve a little more respect and a little less flippancy when discussing such an emotional issue.

Darph
01-09-2004, 02:08 PM
By pointing out the spelling errors of a post,may i assume you agree with the content? :-)

Well a Sin is an act of man in definance of God wisdom given to man. So.... there you have it..common sense. :-)

OK,this one will stick with you:

PEDOPHILES.

If someone is attracted to well developed 16 year olds DOES THAT MAKE YOU A PEDOPHILE? NO! Because you don't ACT on it. Are People BORN pedophiles? How is this different than homosexuality? Because its a crime in the USA? ..so was homosexuality for a LOOONG Time. Polygomy, hell i'm attracted to more than one chick...does that make me a polygomist? Nope..because i didn't engage in the act of polygomy.. eep..there goes your argument.

Darph
01-09-2004, 02:09 PM
By the way i've been reading these forums for 2 years - I've finally registered because i think these forums are a little too ignorant(ignorance meaning you arent exposed to another point of view). And figured i should throw in my 2 cents even if it gets me banned/flamed whatever. Its good for thought.

Lucki Chaarms
01-09-2004, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by Darph
A homosexual is someone who acts on those feelings. Not someone has possesses them, thats where youre argument is flawed. ;)

Well, allow me to define my terms. For the sake of this post, a homosexual is one who is sexually attracted only to members of their own gender. A heterosexual is one who is sexually attracted only to members of the opposite gender.

It is, of course, a choice to act on one's desires, but no more so for homosexuals than for heterosexuals. I'd like to hope that gives you a slightly different perspective to consider things from, even if it doesn't change your mind. Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality, even following your rules.

Also, I do respect the argument that Christianity holds their version of marriage to be a holy sacrament and an integral part of their religion, and they don't believe that this sacrament extends to homosexual marriages. Makes perfect sense to me. Don't you feel, however, that it demeans this holy sacrament that it is under control, and is therefore subject to the opinions of the majority or the judicial branch of our government? If what you call marriage is a sacred institution, should it not be a matter to be presided over by the Christian church with the guidance of their God, rather than politicians and a populace that may or may not hold beliefs consistent with those of Christianity? Would it not be better to get the government out of the business of "marriage", leaving the sacramental practice to the church, and instead have the government allow couples of any kind to enter in to a legal contract with one another? I can easily see why a Christian church would not want to declare a gay couple to be "married", entering in to a union that is sanctified by the Christian God. I don't understand why they care if gay couples have basic legal rights.

In short, I agree that gays cannot be married in the sense that Paul wrote about. I also don't believe that a government can grant a marriage in the sense that Paul wrote about. Therefore, I don't see an inherent conflict in allowing the government to extend what they CAN give to a gay couple.

Yippee.

LC

stpauler
01-09-2004, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by Darph
By pointing out the spelling errors of a post,may i assume you agree with the content? :-)

Well a Sin is an act of man in definance of God wisdom given to man. So.... there you have it..common sense. :-)


No, I don't see us agreeing on anything. The note was a sidebar to the original discussion. The main part of the post asked you to provide some proof whence you get the info that god is not sin from your bible. Common sense and religion don't go hand in hand so you'll need to provide chapter and verse where your bible says that god is not sin or retract your statement, easy cheesy.

MrVisible
01-09-2004, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Darph
As far as you and your boyfriend - God is love, Homosexuality is sin, God is not sin, You are not experiancing love, you are experiancing Sin, sorry!
I wonder... who gave you the power to judge our love? Didn't Christ himself have something to say on the subject of judgement?

If it's sin to devote myself to the happiness of another, if it's sin to make my life revolve around his, if it's sin to care about him, and for him, to make his burdens easier and his joys greater, then that is a matter for myself and my Creator to sit down and debate.

Meanwhile, here on Earth, your religion of love is putting massive obstacles in the way of people who want to build their lives on caring for each other. Whatever your intentions, the results of your actions are causing millions of people unhappiness, distress, and difficulty. How could that be anything but evil? How is making people's lives miserable, simply because they love each other, not a sin?

Lucki Chaarms
01-09-2004, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by Darph
By the way i've been reading these forums for 2 years - I've finally registered because i think these forums are a little too ignorant(ignorance meaning you arent exposed to another point of view). And figured i should throw in my 2 cents even if it gets me banned/flamed whatever. Its good for thought.

To a certain extent, I agree. There's an awful lot of knee-jerk anti-religious sentiment on these boards, but it's quickly overcome when a person shows themself to be a polite, reasonable, intelligent person. You'll do no favors to the people on this board whose viewpoints could use broadening or to the cause of Christianity by throwing in something meant to be inflammatory in order to get people thinking. All you'll do is reinforce the stereotypes that some of our members already hold. The people here do a lot of thinking, but not all viewpoints are represented. If you remain civil, actually respond to people's points and don't go looking to shake anybody up just to get them thinking, you'll be serving as an infinitely better witness to and member of the community.

If you can't do that, you don't belong here, but don't claim it's because of your Christianity. Nobody has ever been banned for sticking to their traditional Christian guns here. If you can't help but be a jerk, you don't belong here, I'd just hate to see more slandering of the name of Christianity because some pompous ass appointed himself official spokesperson for the entire religion and ran around offending everybody just to watch the liberals shriek and point. At the very least, if you're not really going to address the points people make against you, stay out of GD, as you're just going to make everyone mad, and that has nothing to do with your poisition.

LC

spectrum
01-09-2004, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Skammer
Spectrum said: I absolutely don't think gays deserve less freedom and liberty. And you've never heard me ridicule your relationships, either (please don't get me confused with Darph).

By denying me the right to marry the person I love, just as straights marry those they love (with reasonable age of consent and familial limitations) is ridiculing my relationship. Somehow, my relationship doesn't deserve the stablility and benefits imbued by marriage. Why? Bigotry, plain and simple.

spectrum
01-09-2004, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by Darph
As far as you and your boyfriend - God is love, Homosexuality is sin, God is not sin, You are not experiancing love, you are experiancing Sin, sorry!

Oh. My. God.

Watching this board tear you apart is going to be fun.

Wasn't there another bitter, hateful fundamentalist on the board about a year ago? His-something? The more things change...

robertliguori
01-09-2004, 03:19 PM
That's absurd. Both gays and straights are prohibited from marrying all kinds of people, including
-- minors below the age of consent
-- close relatives
-- multiple partners
-- people of the same sex
These laws apply to everyone equally.

Or, the law prohibits men from marrying people that it allows women to marry, and is blatantly sexist. Works equally well both ways, which makes me think I'm missing something.

Lilairen
01-09-2004, 03:24 PM
I do think it worth noting that in ancient Egypt -- with its three thousand or so years of recorded history -- considered marriage to be obviously a matter of state concern, and marriages were administered civilly. (As were divorces, and both spouses had the right to sue for divorce. Egypt wasn't a bad place to be if you were a woman in the ancient world; beat the hell out of Greece.)

I don't know what the marriage laws were like in the basin of the Tigris and Euphrates, but I think that's a pretty good cite for "Prove marriage hasn't always been a god thing!" nonetheless.


And incidentally, speaking as a polygamist who can't marry her partners legally, I really wish people would stop using me as a bogeyman to beat up the gays. (I'd like to not be a bogeyman in the first place, but if I'm stuck with the role I'd like to protest being used for vile agendas.)

Malthus
01-09-2004, 04:01 PM
Being married and not gay myself, I just can't understand why anyone would be against marriage for gays - it goes against self-interest.

Marriage has an economic side to it. The rules of family law are designed to limit the damage inflicted on society from the break-up of the partnership that is marriage - by providing for equalization of family property (the bugbear of my lesbian study-buddy friend) and by spousal support.

Without this system, the likelihood of the "diadvantaged" partner requiring social assistance is increased. Which must be paid out of tax revenues, increasing the tax burden for everyone - gay or not.

kidchameleon
01-09-2004, 04:19 PM
Now my blushing bride and I went down to the Cook County Court House last month and gave the county $10(plus $25 for the marriage lisence). A judge then gave a little non-religious speech asking if we would be there for each other and *presto!* I'm a married man. Or would someone beg to differ, since God wasn't involved? (He'd always make me feel self consious, doing a better job at everything than me)

Personally I see polygamy as a messy situation for spousal rights and passing on of the estate, but other than that, knock yourself out.

And on the historical perspective, Egyuptians were getting married before the old testament was written...

depocali
01-09-2004, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by Darph
Marriage is itself a religious doctrine, Without religion the roots of marriage would not exist, and would not be a part of our society, so if you want to abolish religious "holy" martrimony,why not abolish marriage period eh - it would certainly put an end to a lot of legal headaches. :cool:

I don't think so. Marriage has been a contract since the beginning and not necessarily religious. The attached show that in Ancient Egypt and Assyria, among others, marriage was not religious, but mostly a civil affair, that grants rights to the parties. Additionally, the Establishment Clause clearly disavows the notion of "Holy Matrimony" or a religious wedding from having any higher standing than any other, and all marriages, validly performed confer state enforceable civil rights. These rights include access to property, inheritance, alimony, etc.

As to whether homosexuality is a sin, that is irrelevant when discussing civil rights, although as a Catholic all I can say is that the Church considers it so, and I belive most Protestant, Jewish and Islamic clerics do as well. I believe it is the right of any of those religions to refuse to marry anyone that they belive to contravene their norms, as such I can not be wed by the Church of England if I insist on the supremacy of the the Pope, etc. Again, that has no bearing on whether the state should recognize rights to people who express an interest to form a stable relationship.

Justifying legal statutes or limitations based on religion is contrary to how western democracies work. After this long rant, and slight hijack, I say yes it is inconsistent to deny someone their rights because you don't feel comfortable with the result. It is naive and irrelevant whether you like the group or not, defending people's rights does not mean you like or dislike them, it means you believe human rights are given to all human beings.

Assyria


http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/Contracts/marri01.html
Contract of Mibtahiah's third marriage oath[c]
Text: Sayce-Cowley, G; Cowley, 15. Date: about 440 B.C.
On the 2[5]th of Tishri, that is the 6th day of the month Epiphi,[4] [year . . . of] Kin[g Artaxerx]es, said Ashor b. [Seho], [5] builder to the king, to Mah[seiah, A]ramean of Syene, of the detachment of Varizata, as follows: I have [co]me to your house that you might give me your daughter Mipht(ah)iah in marriage. She is my wife and I am her husband from this day for ever. I have given you as the bride-price (5) of your daughter Miphtahiah (a sum of) 5 shekels, royal weight. It has been received by you and your heart is content there with,[6] (Lines 6-I6, Miphtahiah's dowry.) (I7) Should Ashor die tomorrow or an[othe]r day having no child, male or female, by his wife Mi[phtah]iah, Miphtahiah shall be entitled to the house, chattels and all worldly goods of Ashor. (20) Should Miphtahiah die tomorrow or (another) day having no child, male or female, by her husband Ashor, Ashor shall inherit her property and chattels. Should [Miph]tahiah, tomorrow [or] another [d]ay stand up in a congregation and say, I divorce my husband Ashor, the price of divorce shall be upon her head: she shall sit by the balance and weigh out to [As]hor a sum of 7 shekels 2 R.[7] But all that which she has brought in (25) with her she shall take out, shred and thread, and go whither she will, without suit or process. Should Ashor tomorrow or another day stand up in a congregation and say, I divorce my [wif]e Miphtahiah, [he shall] forfeit her bride-price, and all that she has brought in with her she shall take out, shred and thread, on one day at one stroke, and shall go whither she will, without suit or process. And [whoever] arises against Miphtahiah (30) to drive her away from the house, possessions, and chattels of Ashor shall give her the sum of 20 karash,[8] and the law of this deed shall [ . . . ] for her. And I shall have no right to say I have another wife besides Mipht(ah)iah or other children besides any Miphtahiah may bear to me. If I say I have chi[ldren] and wife other than Miphtiah and her children, I shall give to Miphtahiah a su[m] of 20 karash, royal weight. (35) Neither shall I have the right to [wre]st my property and chattels from Miph[tah]iah. If I take them away from her (erasure), I shall give to Miphtahiah [a sum of] 20 karash, royal weight. [This deed] was written by Nathan b. Ananiah [at the dictation of Ashor]. Witnesses: (signatures).

Others
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/Contracts/marri02.html


Egypt

For all that religion played in ancient Egyptian life, there was one place it had no role at all: the Egyptian marriage. There wasnít even a civil ceremony

http://www.egyptmonth.com/mag09012000/magf4.htm

MrVisible
01-09-2004, 05:47 PM
depocali, that was a great post. Concise, informative, and cogent. I hope you stick around the boards a while; I very much look forward to your continuing contribution.

Homebrew
01-09-2004, 05:51 PM
Thirteen posts since registering in May 1999. Wow. You don't say much. But when you do, it is something to behold.

Shodan
01-10-2004, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by spectrum -
You are a real arrogant SOB. Nothing to add, except that Darph was the one who got banned.

Curious, that.

jayjay
01-10-2004, 02:49 PM
Not really curious at all. Did you happen to follow Darph into his Pit thread? He was being gratuitously offensive, to the point where he could quite plausibly be fitted for a bridge. Darph self-engineered his own banning, believe me...his spewings in this thread were only a part of it. And yes, for the SOB remark, spectrum should at least have been warned, but it's tough to see a penlight when it's right beside a Klieg.