Gay marriage: where do you stand?

[RolandtheHeadless]

"Not bringing something up is hardly evidence of anything."

Well, we could claim that Jesus disapproves of a lot of things he didn't mention. Star-gazing or walking in the rain with your beloved, for instance. Since we're being legalistic now, the ordinary interpretation of prohibitive legislation is, that which isn't mentioned isn't prohibited.

"Thanks for the personal remarks completely lacking any substance. You can find churches/temples/etc. doing just about anything. However, that hardly means they follow their original ideology."

I apologize for any personal offense. Sometimes my frustration comes through when dealing with believers in supernatural entities. Every follower of the Bible that I've ever talked to claims to read the Bible literally, then engages in the pick-and-choose exercise. But unless you're going to abandon reason, you can't have both.

Does your church allow divorced people to re-marry? If so, are you lobbying to change that practice?
I'd be surprised if you answer "no" to the first question. Even the Catholic church is now bending their supposed prohibition to well past the breaking point.

Most importantly: If most churches ignore Jesus' condemnation of divorce and re-marriage, then how an you justify strict adherence to the Old Testament prohibition of gay sex?

Incidentally, reading the OT LITERALLY, only gay sex between MEN is forbidden, not gay sex between women.

 

[Hezam]

my nature and my book And also my culture do not accept such thing like gay marriage.

 

[nahadef]

my nature and my book And also my culture do not accept such thing like gay marriage.

But that has nothing to do with the law, right? Your book demands halal meat, but you wouldn't make non-halal meat illegal, would you?

 

[Hezam]

But that has nothing to do with the law, right? Your book demands halal meat, but you wouldn't make non-halal meat illegal, would you?

What law ?

 

[BrianLewis]

Law almost always starts off as a reflection in values of that culture's religion.

I see where the lynchpin is here. Your contention is that gays are born with different urgings. Our contention is that it is a social disorder and should not be catered to. You don't accept our religious values and call them oppressive. And we don't accept your propaganda as fact. Propaganda is never based in the factual realm. Until you can actually back your statements with actual scientific data, it's nothing more than another man's words, repeated over and over again.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Law almost always starts off as a reflection in values of that culture's religion.

Why is it so hard for you to separate church and state?

Our contention is that it is a social disorder and should not be catered to.

A social disorder?? Did you just make that up??

You don't accept our religious values and call them oppressive.

So what? You are free to oppress your followers as much as is legal and as much as they will consent to, which I think is pretty GD much. It should be plenty for you to oppress them without oppressing me and others who are not followers of your religion.

You don't have to accept gays at your church, or marry them there. You are free to refuse them. You don't seem to appreciate that freedom one jot, so perhaps I should support taking it away from you? All your belly aching, if I were King, I would do so. Some people don't seem to appreciate what they have until its gone.

And we don't accept your propaganda as fact. Propaganda is never based in the factual realm. Until you can actually back your statements with actual scientific data, it's nothing more than another man's words, repeated over and over again.

You put the shoe on the wrong foot. The burden of proof is on YOU, not us. Its YOU that wants to restrict freedom, so its YOU that has to prove a danger to the country and the society. YOU HAVEN'T. You have guessed. You have fear mongered. You have cited holy books, which do not matter to secular law. It is you that has promoted propaganda and not given one scientific fact to support banning gay marriage. In short, you have failed. We are just showing that you failed. We actually don't need to make a case for this.

Maybe when one of the many countries allowing gay marriage implodes, you will have your proof. Its going to be a LONG wait.

---------- Post added at 15:52 ---------- Previous post was at 15:46 ----------

Most importantly: If most churches ignore Jesus' condemnation of divorce and re-marriage, then how an you justify strict adherence to the Old Testament prohibition of gay sex?

Incidentally, reading the OT LITERALLY, only gay sex between MEN is forbidden, not gay sex between women.

As much as I support your post in general, this is ABSOLUTELY NOT ABOUT SEX. Its about marriage. Many couples, gay and straight, are celibate. Sex does not equal marriage, marriage does not equal sex. Or least it hasn't since I left the elementary school playground.

 

[Hezam]

Define marriage first...

 

[BrianLewis]

The burden is on those that want the change, not those that preserve what has been so for a long, long time. That's simply how the world works.

 

[nahadef]

And we don't accept your propaganda as fact. Propaganda is never based in the factual realm. Until you can actually back your statements with actual scientific data, it's nothing more than another man's words, repeated over and over again.

That's exactly how I feel about what you're spouting. Just an opinion, even if it's held by lots of religious types.

You don't accept our religious values and call them oppressive.

What you do at home is your business. I don't really care. I don't want laws set based on your superstitions. Luckily, my country has moved beyond religious doctrine as basis of law. My sympathy to all the Americans stuck in conflict with these brick walls who think it's fair to legislate their personal doctrines for all.


And Hezam, the conversation is about the legality of marriage, not whether your book or culture accepts it. The laws of the land are not based on my personal values. They are based on respect of others, and allowing them to do what they want, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rest. I won't make you live like me, and you don't make me live like you. That's what legal gay marriage is about. Freedom of choice. I don't believe in the veracity of the Bible, Koran, Torah or any other holy books. So be happy people like me don't try to legislate how people like you live.

---------- Post added at 16:16 ---------- Previous post was at 16:10 ----------

The burden is on those that want the change, not those that preserve what has been so for a long, long time. That's simply how the world works.

Yeah, like when minorities couldn't vote, or when interracial marriage was illegal. Hey, slavery was an old institution. The burden was on those wanting change, right? Are you just morally selfish? If it's not you, who cares about equality, right? People have vilified homosexuality for a long time, and you're just helping maintain the status quo.

I've had enough of this conversation. You haven't written a single thing to imply you care about anything outside of your religious self-interest. Good day to you sir!

 

[Hezam]

Do you think your doing good for your nation or for humanity ?
It's gay people now, Maybe later son to his mother or daughter to her father, Why not ? you said you want to allow people to do what they want, right ?
There are morals that we Humans should hold to them.

 

[nahadef]

Do you think your doing good for your nation or for humanity ?
It's gay people now, Maybe later son to his mother or daughter to her father, Why not ? you said you want to allow people to do what they want, right ?
There are morals that we Humans should hold to them.

I think religious indoctrination is a cruel thing for an adult to do to a child. In some cases, immoral, because of the emotional and intellectual damage suffered. I will never fight to outlaw religion, as that is people's right to live their lives that way, even if I morally disagree. That is my respect to you and the BrianLewises of the world.

If you cannot respect others, they will never respect you.

Good bye, Hezam. Good luck.

 

[BrianLewis]

You can do whatever you want, the truth is it will never happen. You can rob kids of a lot of things, but I feel sorry for any kid that would do without any purpose or understanding in life. Perhaps that's why liberals love their drugs so much.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

BrianLewis, your positions have been destroyed. You were defeated in your claim that homosexuality isn't a natural part of the animal kingdom, and your religious position has been undermined.

So now you fall back on tradition? Tradition is the last bastion of someone who's losing an argument. It's a logical fallacy, an appeal to popularity and authority.

Why not just live and let live? If you don't want to marry another man, then don't. (Believe me, I won't!) But if someone else wants to marry someone of the same sex, why not accept that they are compelled by different desires and urges than you are? Why condemn them to solitary lives, or to "living together in sin" as it used to be phrased?

 

[BrianLewis]

BrianLewis, your positions have been destroyed. You were defeated in your claim that homosexuality isn't a natural part of the animal kingdom, and your religious position has been undermined.

I hardly consider Wikipedia to be a scientific journal. Furthermore, running down the source list, aside from the transgender species (which has nothing to do with being gay) there are no medical journals with exception to chimpanzees. Every other resource is gay propaganda magazines. You can't have science while you hold an agenda, that's what your suppose to learn before ever becoming a scientist. But let's say that isn't true, then all those animals are never with the opposite sex again? They never procreated? They became evolutionary dead ends? So, all my experiences with gays were actually 'bi-sexuals' and all animals are gays? Are we picking and choosing our truths to suit our needs here?

Thanks for the slander though. If you say something enough, or emphatically enough does it make it true? You / they have posted nothing compromising my religious position. I have seen only assumptions about my lifestyle that they know nothing about. I kindly disregarded their outlandish phishing attempt.

I guess if you can't reason, you just resort to attacks. That's been true throughout history for those with a weak standing point. My only demand was show me the science. Liberals still believe in science right? Just wondering...

 

[Mark of Zorro]

You assume I'm religious, you assume that I'm the only one that thinks like this.

I never said anything about you being religious! I never said you were the only one who thinks like this!

Marriage is for heterosexuals and gay people have something else which isn't a marriage.

That is your opinion and you are welcome to keep it, so long as you don't violate someone else's rights in the process. Preventing legal recognition of same sex marriage is violating people's rights.

You talk about me preaching, what are you doing?

Preaching, but about different things. I am preaching tolerance in general. You are preaching intolerance on a specific. I am not giving you hell for preaching. I am giving you hell for being INTOLERANT.

If I don't follow your idea or opinion, I'm wrong.
Double standards?

Your whole post was like a corn field...full of straw men.

There is no double standard in being intolerant of intolerance except in a mind very limited in its reasoning ability.

 

[Half-n-Half]

I hardly consider Wikipedia to be a scientific journal. Furthermore, running down the source list, aside from the transgender species (which has nothing to do with being gay) there are no medical journals with exception to chimpanzees. Every other resource is gay propaganda magazines. You can't have science while you hold an agenda, that's what your suppose to learn before ever becoming a scientist.

Just to take one example, all of the references at the bottom that refer to Bagemihl (which is a great majority of them) are citing from this text. It's hardly a "gay propaganda magazine."

But let's say that isn't true, then all those animals are never with the opposite sex again? They never procreated? They became evolutionary dead ends? So, all my experiences with gays were actually 'bi-sexuals' and all animals are gays? Are we picking and choosing our truths to suit our needs here?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. Are you implying that the possibility of a species to have homosexual members equates to the entire species turning homosexual, therefore killing them off?

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Define marriage first...

Bingo!

How about we define a marriage as a civil union between a man and a woman joined by God by the power invested in a CHRISTIAN MINISTER. Muslims claiming to be married according to Islamic tradition are in fact, adulterers who must be stoned until dead, and stoned again for each wife they claimed over the first.

How do you like that? Instead of holding the clock still on intolerance, why don't we just go ahead and turn it back? Lets get these Muslims and Christians at each other's throats instead of ours! Surely no real Christian is going to support polygamy, or allow it in their country!

There, how do you like the taste of intolerance?

Or we could just separate church and state, and define marriage as a legal and civil union between two or more consenting people, and further define it by the rights, privileges and obligations they have, such as joint ownership of all property, joint custody of any children born or adopted between them, appropriate and fair tax breaks, and right to visitation should one be hospitalized, etc.

Do you think your doing good for your nation or for humanity ?

Its besides the point. The point is no longer doing harm to innocent people. But yes, I think its doing good for both. Marriage equals stability. It equals sharing burdens. It equals efficient use of property and resources. And squashing intolerance is definitely good for humanity.

It's gay people now, Maybe later son to his mother or daughter to her father, Why not ? you said you want to allow people to do what they want, right ?

Absolutely. If they all consent, what is it to you? And try to be exact. Because I have some exact problems with those also, but I would only restrict them based on those exact problems, and not just heavy handedly forbid the marriage.

I know of some brother/sister marriages. Mostly, I don't care. They are not hurting anyone.

There are morals that we Humans should hold to them.

Not all so-called "morals" are good, beneficial or remotely necessary. And that is why morals have been discarded, altered and added and we are better for it. (that said, not all morals have been altered or added for the better. Some new ones are crap as well.)

 

[Tsuchi1]

[\Quote]You are confused between what is reality and what is merely the way you expect things to be. The reality is that none of the rules we humans have made for ourselves are laws of nature. And if you believe God made some of our laws, that is your superstition to cherish, but not to try and force on others.[/QUOTE]
Care to eat your words? I didn't say you said, I said you assume. Big difference.

---------- Post added at 22:11 ---------- Previous post was at 22:04 ----------

[\Quote]You are confused between what is reality and what is merely the way you expect things to be. The reality is that none of the rules we humans have made for ourselves are laws of nature. And if you believe God made some of our laws, that is your superstition to cherish, but not to try and force on others.

Care to eat your words? I didn't say you said, I said you

Bingo!

How about we define a marriage as a civil union between a man and a woman joined by God by the power invested in a CHRISTIAN MINISTER. Muslims claiming to be married according to Islamic tradition are in fact, adulterers who must be stoned until dead, and stoned again for each wife they claimed over the first.

How do you like that? Instead of holding the clock still on intolerance, why don't we just go ahead and turn it back? Lets get these Muslims and Christians at each other's throats instead of ours! Surely no real Christian is going to support polygamy, or allow it in their country!

There, how do you like the taste of intolerance?

Or we could just separate church and state, and define marriage as a legal and civil union between two or more consenting people, and further define it by the rights, privileges and obligations they have, such as joint ownership of all property, joint custody of any children born or adopted between them, appropriate and fair tax breaks, and right to visitation should one be hospitalized, etc.



Its besides the point. The point is no longer doing harm to innocent people. But yes, I think its doing good for both. Marriage equals stability. It equals sharing burdens. It equals efficient use of property and resources. And squashing intolerance is definitely good for humanity.



Absolutely. If they all consent, what is it to you? And try to be exact. Because I have some exact problems with those also, but I would only restrict them based on those exact problems, and not just heavy handedly forbid the marriage.

I know of some brother/sister marriages. Mostly, I don't care. They are not hurting anyone.




Not all so-called "morals" are good, beneficial or remotely necessary. And that is why morals have been discarded, altered and added and we are better for it. (that said, not all morals have been altered or added for the better. Some new ones are crap as well.)

The world order according to you! Talk about self righteous. What you say it fair in your mind and only yours. You can speak for others.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Care to eat your words? I didn't say you said, I said you assume. Big difference.

Oh. I thought it might have been something I said that gave you that impression.

Nope, I can't think of anything I said that would give you the faintest impression I thought you were religious or based you reasoning on religious reasons. I merely made an "if" statement in case there was a relation. It was just in case. I did not assume that.

The world order according to you! Talk about self righteous. What you say it fair in your mind and only yours. You can speak for others.

Not all statements are opinions. Some are facts and some are lies. Speaking facts is not "speaking for others".

There is not a damned thing self-righteous about preaching tolerance. Not a damned thing. Nothing self-righteous about condemning the intolerant either.

Gays don't hurt you even when they get married, just like inter-racial marriages did not hurt you or anyone, and the Jew that married a Muslim did not hurt you or anyone and Jerry Lee Lewis marrying his 13 year old cousin did not hurt you or anyone.

You and the others against gay marriage are the ones being self-righteous. You have nothing but your own personal hate and misconceptions to give you the idea that there should be a legal bar to gay marriage. This is not like being intolerant of a man holding a gun to your head. This is like being intolerant of races and religions. This should all be clear by now, and you should hang your head in shame.

Just by supporting oppression, you are an oppressor, and believe me, your sad attempts to turn the tables have zero effect on me. Yes, I see what you are trying to do. It won't work. And if you actually believe what you are saying and its not a sad trick, more's the pity.

 

[nahadef]

The world order according to you! Talk about self righteous. What you say it fair in your mind and only yours. You can speak for others.

Tsuchi, can you tell us where about you're from? Myself, I was born in Canada, which has a great mix of world cultures living there, and has created a national identity of acceptance of others. I don't love the country 100 percent, but I believe in a lot of the ideals from growing up there. I think it makes me proud that the country has legalised gay marriage.

When you say "only yours," it's not really the case. It's actually just in people opposed to your opinion.

You've claimed to expound "reality." That was your word. But, a large percentage of the world disagrees, i.e.. Canada. Why do you think you can speak for others? Really. Personally, I don't want to define the morality/perception of others. You want to. Isn't that self-righteous? It seems to me that it is.

---------- Post added at 23:12 ---------- Previous post was at 23:03 ----------

And if you actually believe what you are saying and its not a sad trick, more's the pity.

That's the real endgame for me. Too many people in the world against it truly believe they are just. I think they have no sympathy for others, or it's a form of self-loathing. How can you see two people who care for each other and want them to feel less equal for doing so. It's a primitive aspect of the human species to think that way. Of course, they can always blame a book for their opinion.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Why do you think you can speak for others? Really. Personally, I don't want to define the morality/perception of others. You want to. Isn't that self-righteous? It seems to me that it is.

And me. I have clearly said they can all keep their biases, and their prejudice, but just keep it at home and in their own places of worship. I never told anyone they have to love any gays, even their own children. I never told them they have to personally accept them. I clearly said they can refuse to have them as members of their churches. I think its clear enough that goes for private clubs as well.

They can do all this with Blacks, Asians, Whites too. Muslims, Buddists, Mormons, and Agnostics. Men or women too.

Yet they just cannot be happy with that. They have to reach over and oppress gays through the law and government as well. Its like some animal need to feel higher up in the wolf pack and they just cannot control it, just like real wolves!

It was the same with those who wanted Rosa Parks in the back of the bus. I wish there was a mirror to show them their own ugliness.

 

[nekojita]

Gay marriage has been legal in the Netherlands since 2001 and it hasn't collapsed or fallen into the sea yet, nor does anybody make a habit of marrying their sister or their dog.

A brief history of marriage in England and Wales:

1534: Henry VIII founds entire new church over disagreement about marriage with the Pope.

1753: Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act passed. From the passing of this law, the only legitimate marriages were those carried out by the Church of England (although exceptions for Quakers and Jews were written in). This forced Catholics and other 'dissenters' to marry in a CoE church if they wanted their marriage to be recognised and their children legitimate. In the following decades this caused particular problems for Irish immigrants. Minimum age of marriage at this point was 14 for men and 12 for women (girls!), although anyone under the age of 21 required the consent of the father or other guardian.

1820s: several 'dissenting' churches, such as the Episcopalians, petition to have the law changed to allow them to carry out their own marriage ceremonies. These attempts eventually fail, but they set the stage for the establishment of civil marriage.

1836: The Marriage Act 1836 establishes civil marriage in England and Wales. This means that not only can Catholics, Methodists, Episcopalians, etc, marry in their own churches if the church is registered with the state, but it becomes possible for a marriage to take place without recognition from any religious body. The Bishop of Exeter calls the act a 'disgrace'; others claim that allowing dissenter and non-religious marriages equal status with 'proper' Anglican marriages will destroy the sanctity of marriage and lead to the downfall of society.

1858: Divorce becomes legal (previously only available through act of Parliament). The requirements for obtaining a divorce are stricter for a woman than a man, in that he can obtain a divorce on grounds of adultery, and she must show adultery plus additional causes such as cruelty or desertion. There were investigations into 'collusive' divorces, where couples got around the requirements by agreeing to invent a story of adultery to provide grounds for a divorce that didn't otherwise exist.

1907: It becomes legal for a widower to marry the sister of his deceased wife. This was previously outlawed as in the Church of England in-laws were treated as if they were blood relatives, making this equivalent to marrying your own sister. (This bit of church law was widely ignored even before 1907, but it makes for a fun bit of trivia).

1923: Rules on divorce are changed to make it easier for women to divorce their husbands for adultery.

1929: Marriage ages are changed to sixteen for both men and women.

1937: Rules on divorce further changed to allow divorce for reasons such as drunkenness (what would today be called 'unreasonable behaviour').

1969: Divorce permitted 'no fault' if both parties desired it and the marriage could be shown to have broken down irrevocably (two years or more separation).

So where in this timeline do we draw a line and say we're going to stop 'redefining' marriage? Because there was strong opposition, usually from religious conservatives, at several points along that timeline. (Personally, I'd pick 1754, just to annoy as many people as possible).

Note that this is civil marriage we're talking about. Religious is a different matter - when divorce laws changed, Catholic churches weren't forced to start marrying divorcees, and I don't think any religious group should be forced to hold gay marriages. I have really never heard any logical argument as to why my marriage - with no religious component (in fact under law we cannot have religious components in the ceremony, including the music selections, since it's being held at the register office), out of which there will be no children - should be treated any differently to a similar marriage between two men or two women.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

I hardly consider Wikipedia to be a scientific journal. Furthermore, running down the source list, aside from the transgender species (which has nothing to do with being gay) there are no medical journals with exception to chimpanzees. Every other resource is gay propaganda magazines. You can't have science while you hold an agenda, that's what your suppose to learn before ever becoming a scientist. But let's say that isn't true, then all those animals are never with the opposite sex again? They never procreated? They became evolutionary dead ends? So, all my experiences with gays were actually 'bi-sexuals' and all animals are gays? Are we picking and choosing our truths to suit our needs here?

Thanks for the slander though. If you say something enough, or emphatically enough does it make it true? You / they have posted nothing compromising my religious position. I have seen only assumptions about my lifestyle that they know nothing about. I kindly disregarded their outlandish phishing attempt.

I guess if you can't reason, you just resort to attacks. That's been true throughout history for those with a weak standing point. My only demand was show me the science. Liberals still believe in science right? Just wondering...

Whoa, throw aside that shovel and quit digging yourself deeper. Wikipedia may be just a general source, but you haven't offered any scientific evidence to controvert it.

Never mind, let's look at chimps, which you concede. They're our closest relatives; we share 98 percent of our genes with chimps. So who teaches homosexual/bisexual behavior to chimps? Gay scientists with an agenda?

Slander? You should look up the term sometime. No, wait -- I can give you a definition from memory and work experience, to save you the trouble:

Slander is a false statement of fact made about a person that tends to damage that person's reputation.

- I made no false statements of fact about you.

- I made no statements at all about you personally. An attack on an argument is not an attack on a person.

- The only one who's possibly damaged your reputation is you, in continuing to make desperate, untenable arguments.

If you feel so defensive, maybe you should consider why your argument is so weak. You've been provided links, and offered nothing to the contrary. Why don't you go look up the issue yourself, before making further demands.

I have a polite demand of my own: Please answer my questions about your church and religion.

And please don't try to snow me. I was raised a strict Christian, and probably have read the Bible as much or more than you have.

 

[Tsuchi1]

Tsuchi, can you tell us where about you're from? Myself, I was born in Canada, which has a great mix of world cultures living there, and has created a national identity of acceptance of others. I don't love the country 100 percent, but I believe in a lot of the ideals from growing up there. I think it makes me proud that the country has legalised gay marriage.

When you say "only yours," it's not really the case. It's actually just in people opposed to your opinion.

You've claimed to expound "reality." That was your word. But, a large percentage of the world disagrees, i.e.. Canada. Why do you think you can speak for others? Really. Personally, I don't want to define the morality/perception of others. You want to. Isn't that self-righteous? It seems to me that it is.

---------- Post added at 23:12 ---------- Previous post was at 23:03 ----------


That's the real endgame for me. Too many people in the world against it truly believe they are just. I think they have no sympathy for others, or it's a form of self-loathing. How can you see two people who care for each other and want them to feel less equal for doing so. It's a primitive aspect of the human species to think that way. Of course, they can always blame a book for their opinion.

I come from a land down under, where politicians spin their spin and people are just to darn PC to actually stand by their beliefs,
Preferring to be guided by a nanny state. Much like Canada I presume.
Thanks for letting me have my opinion as much as it dicusts you.

Your are forcing your tolerance. You are self righteous to think that everyone should be like you and follow the so called masses in your endeavor of creating the "perfect world"
Good luck

 

[nahadef]

I come from a land down under, where politicians spin their spin and people are just to darn PC to actually stand by their beliefs,
Preferring to be guided by a nanny state. Much like Canada I presume.
Thanks for letting me have my opinion as much as it dicusts you.
Your are forcing your tolerance. You are self righteous to think that everyone should be like you and follow the so called masses in your endeavor of creating the "perfect world"
Good luck

You've certainly got your buzzwords down pat

It's not that people are too PC to stand by beliefs, it's that they actual believe in treating people equally. You don't. But you can't be confused why people want to have an equal society, rather than go back to the good ol' days when might made right and the ruling class dictated the lives of the others.

You've illuminated a lot about where you're coming from though. Thanks.