Homosexual Marriage

[Starboy]

Quote by: mr.perfecto It doesn't matter how many married couples there are in the nation. The number of people who are married does not change the purpose of marriage.

mr.perfecto, you can think of marriage anyway you like. That is your choice. But if the law already recognizes marriages that do not conform to you narrow definition of what a marriage is then the law doesn't have anything to do with your concept of marriage. Now if you think that the law should follow your narrow concept of marriage then fine. Go get all those people who do not follow your conception of marriage to give up their marriage rights, otherwise people should have equal treatment under the law whether mr.perfecto thinks it mirrors his views on marriage or not.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: fogus For all those who say that same-sex couples will not interfere with the religious beliefs of some people who want nothing to do with homosexuals: A lesbian couple will appear today before BC's Human Rights Tribunal to argue they were discriminated against by a Catholic men's group that refused to rent its Coquitlam hall to the couple for their wedding reception. ...Under the Human Rights Code, a service or facility that is normally available to the public must be available to everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

Hey. Good to see that Canada has its fair share of bigots.

Starboy

[fogus]

The core of this issue is morals. Name calling, arguing about definitions and the like is taking up more space than what this debate is about. What Starboy and tinybear need to debunk is the belief that the Christian code of morals is right. Then what they need to do is come up with a new set of morals and defend them and their source. If they cannot do that then they have lost. If they can do that then they have won.

And please, don't give any sort of "your Bible isn’t accurate" stuff. The debate about the accuracy of the Bible would last an eternity and this forum isn’t about the accuracy of a manuscript. If you want to quote the Koran I wont question the accuracy of it. I will assume that what Mohammad wrote down is exactly what is contained today. Please do the same for me. What must be done is the questioning of the source of the morals from both of our systems. I believe yours are indefensible, you believe mine are BS. Since what is happening is the changing from same-sex marriage from being wrong to being right I suggest that you attack the Biblical morals first, and not the other way around. What will be necessary is a rather longish response. (unless you believe that centuries of the worlds brightest were stupidly wrong. no world view is completely stupidly wrong. man is intelligent, and he will not believe something utterly stupid about reality. his beliefs may be completely wrong, but they are not stupidly wrong. it would not work to tell someone, in two short insulting sentences, who has never seen anything but shadows, that the shadows are not the objects themselves, but that they are created by the objects blocking light. without much discussion he would never believe you, so if you want to win this I suggest that you not try to get it over with in an afternoon.)

[Starboy]

Quote by: fogus The core of this issue is morals.

Whose morals? Christian morals or American morals?

Starboy

[fogus]

Your morals versus mine. The morals of a christian versus the morals of an athiest. It has little to do with "American-ishness" or "Christian-ishness". It has to do with what conforms with reality.

[Starboy]

What is that supposed to mean. Are we to have a morals arm wrestling competition?

Starboy

[fogus]

Unless you can show me that my morals are wrong it means that you cant prove that homosexuality isn't wrong. Morals don't have arms. We happen to have forums for them.

[Starboy]

Quote by: fogus Unless you can show me that my morals are wrong it means that you cant prove that homosexuality isn't wrong. Morals don't have arms. We happen to have forums for them.

Your morals are not wrong for you. You are welcome to live by them. My morals are not wrong for me. I live by my morals. Then there are the morals embodied in the constitution, a common set of morals that we live by in this country. One of these moral values is that all people have a right to equal treatment under the law. This is the law for everyone, not just for Christians or atheists. Now if these morals are not restrictive enough for you then you are welcome to form a church and gather like minded people and within your group practice any sort of morals that do not conflict with those of the constitution to your little heart's desire. When you decide that your morals must now be my morals is when I can now decide that my morals must now be yours. So the best thing for everyone is to keep their morals to themselves and live by them as best they can. And if a particular set of morals proves in reality to result in the better life then people will see and they will naturally gravitate towards it. It is when Christians decide that their morals must be everyone's morals, is when they behave immorally when it comes to American morals. There is far too much Christian immorality going on at this time. It is time for Americans to put a stop to it.

Starboy

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: fogus Unless you can show me that my morals are wrong it means that you cant prove that homosexuality isn't wrong. Morals don't have arms. We happen to have forums for them.

You are suffering a rather acute flaw in your logic.

You are making the assertation that homosexuality is wrong. An accusation against a life style choice, thus the burdon of proof falls on you. Just as the burdon off proof falls upon those making an accusation in legal cases. The defendant does not have to prove they are innocent of a crime, the prosecuter must prove they are guilty.

The reason for this is that it is often impossible to prove a negative. In the medieval period many people were burned, tortured, drowned, mutilated, etc, because of the error in logic you are making. How can one prove that one is not a witch?

This is the reason modern logic dictates that you the accuser must come up with proving a theory.

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: RickSp Quote by: mr.perfecto It doesn't matter how many married couples there are in the nation. The number of people who are married does not change the purpose of marriage. When your ideals get that divorced, so to speak, from practical reality, don't you think it might be time to reconsider them?

I don't think I would, however since "my ideals" are the norm, I don't see much point in thinking about it.

Quote by: Starboy Quote by: mr.perfecto It doesn't matter how many married couples there are in the nation. The number of people who are married does not change the purpose of marriage. mr.perfecto, you can think of marriage anyway you like. That is your choice. But if the law already recognizes marriages that do not conform to you narrow definition of what a marriage is then the law doesn't have anything to do with your concept of marriage. Now if you think that the law should follow your narrow concept of marriage then fine. Go get all those people who do not follow your conception of marriage to give up their marriage rights, otherwise people should have equal treatment under the law whether mr.perfecto thinks it mirrors his views on marriage or not. Starboy

The law does not recognize any marriages that don't conform to my narrow view. My view is the same as the current laws of marriage.

The thing you have to understand about marriage and the laws about it is that they did not randomly evolve. Marriage is the result of intelligent design and all of the rules about it fit a pattern and purpose.

Every marriage on the planet (until some countries started granting same sex marriages) has always involved a man and the woman and...the man and the woman have sex with each other. Do they have to? No...but why would you get married if you weren't going to have sex?

Now, why does anyone care that a man and woman are having sex? Because when a man and a woman have sex, at some point they produce children.

Would marriage exist if people didn't have children? No. It's all about the children.

[voyager]

If my anthropology is correct, it was very important that a line of succesion was to be true, bonding two people in a monogamous relationship became a method of insuring that goal. As for the Bible, the jews were very imperialists, wanting to build a large nation as soon as possible. A gay population worked against this goal hence homosexuallity was an abomination.

As for my personal views on gay marrige, I find it personaly displeasing. But I must ask the question on what grounds am I to condemn the homosexuals? The only question that I arrive at is are the gays seeking more liberity than they have a right to by justice?

[tinybear]

It is said and believed that this great nation was founded upon Christian principles and values. Let's see what Christians think about same sex marriage, shall we?

"And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called woman because she was taken out of man.’ Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed" (Genesis 2:18, 22-25).

There has never been a greater threat to the family and institution of marriage than the potential legalization of same-sex marriage. This progression began with a battle in June of 2003 when a Texas court denied Texas the right to prosecute gay couples engaging in sex and overturned sodomy laws. Then, in November of 2003, four extremist judges in Massachusetts ruled that their state may not deny the protections and benefits to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry, thereby legalizing marriage between homosexual couples. Four months later, the mayor of San Francisco allowed 4,000 homosexual couples to be married in his city, despite California’s state law that mandates that marriage be between one man and one woman. Before you knew it, the mayor of New Paltz, New York began marrying homosexual couples in spite of New York’s state law to the contrary. On May 3, 2004, Portland, Oregon began marrying homosexuals, approximately 2,000 couples.

Don’t think for a moment that this was “luck” on the part of the homosexual community. Rather, it was the manifestation of a well thought out plan that was devised decades before but articulated in April 1993 at the Gay Pride March on Washington, D.C. The homosexual demands at that march included, among other things, the legalization of same-sex marriages; the recognition and protection of any family structure; homosexual education programs at all levels of education presenting homosexuality as a valid, healthy preference and lifestyle as a viable alternative to heterosexuality; and allowing sexual re-assignment surgeries to be considered medical, not cosmetic surgery. Indeed, gay activist have been busy, focused and relentless in seeing each of their demands come to pass.

The legalization of same-sex marriages is far-reaching and has consequences that we have only begun to imagine. If same-sex marriage is legalized, then on what basis can marriage be denied to any other group or coupling? If marriage were a civil right, than what would stop group marriages or what would stop someone from marrying their pet? Schools would be mandated to teach that homosexuality is a viable option to heterosexual marriage. Adoption laws will be challenged across the country to allow for same-sex parenting. Anyone who expressed his or her disapproval as such would be considered a bigot and hate monger. Legalization of same-sex marriage is just another step to eliminating all restrictions on sexuality and marriage as a whole. The words “husband” and “wife” would be meaningless. “Mother” and “father” would mean nothing because with the legislation of same-sex marriage, family and parenthood are terms of any number of attached people who have adults and children in their care.

The Christian Response:

Just as we have laws in this nation to protect our currency from the counterfeit, we must have laws to protect the counterfeit to marriage, without which, the real has no value. The Federal Marriage Amendment would amend the United States Constitution to read as follows: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, or the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”

Marriage is defined by God in the Word of God, not by judges in black robes or 2% of Americans. Thirty-eight states have enacted laws similar to the Defense of Marriage Act, but state law, can come under direct attack by liberal judges and renegade mayors. Survey after survey indicates that the majority of Americans favor a Federal Marriage Amendment. Why the struggle then? Why are lawmakers hesitant about signing on to the FMA? Because the homosexual community has done a much better job of letting their voice be heard than the Christian community. Their side is organized, relentless and unified in meeting their objectives. Christians however, are lying asleep, much the same way they did when Supreme Court Justices legalized abortion in 1973 in the famous Roe vs. Wade case. Same-sex marriage is being forced upon the majority of Americans by a small group of people who feel they know better than 2,000 years of civilization.

[Starboy]

Mr.perfecto you are an unmitigated troll. We have been over this ground. There are forms of marriage that are recognized by the state that do not fit your narrow view. You just let it pass on by as if it didn't exist. It is essentially the LALALALALA argument. Well such arguments and your overall dense and tedious style make you a toll. There is no point in continuing this anymore since you will not even acknowledge the kinds of marriage that do exist that turn your limited concept of marriage into not only a notion that doesn't exist but a notion that never existed as marriage in this country. There is so much in current law and historical practice that makes it clear the marriage was a societal recognition of a family that it boggles the mind that you could persist in your vacuous argument.

Starboy

[FIFI]

I just dont understand why followers of religions do so in such a mindless, unquestioning ways. I am not saying that just those of Christ based religions do this, but followers of one word are so unable to cope and accept those with another. Why do we make God have such rules on our sexual choices and practices? Where does it say in the bible that God never practices sex or finds it utterly repulsive unless it is to reproduce children?
I believe sex can be a pure and natural act between to consenting adults.
Why wouldnt God see it that way?

[tinybear]

Who knows? The ways of God are mysterious.

[Starboy]

Hey, I really don't care if their god tells them to do things and they do it as long as it only involves them and god. They can all blow their brains out for all I care. It is when their god starts telling them to tell others what to do, it is at that point when these godbots need to tell god to go tell it to them itself.

Starboy

[Chris the Chees]

People who suggest that modern attitude and legal legislation should be based upon flawed texts in some cases written over 3000 years ago, seriously need to understand that we now live in a different society, and that the values and ideals in these works may not be relevant in the modern day.

[Starboy]

Hear! Hear! It is not as if our modern society relies on explanations of reality based on demons, souls, sin, devils, angels, heaven, hell or even god. There are many magical thinking people that didn't get the memo and for some reason seem to think that those outdated explanative constructs still explain reality but they are in a severely dishonest disconnect. When their car breaks down they do not ask a priest to remove the demon, when they are sick they do not go to a priest to try to determine what sin they have committed. They live in the modern world but their thoughts are still with the demons. It is all very medieval.

Starboy

[voyager]

We should remember that the first religious settlers in this country were not main stream members of their church. The "founding fathers" of our country were religious extreamists. Evicted from their homes for their non-conformity.

some skated the issue by calling themselves as " Unitarians", close enough to be called "religious" but did not belong to a particular church.

Today we don't want homosexuals to marry. Tomorrow we will be shoving them into ovens.

[FIFI]

I highly doubt a knowledgeable public would ever allow something like gas chambers and ovens to happen to homosexuals, even the most close-minded upon us must realize that something that horrible cannot EVER happen to any other group of human beings again.
But who says the government would share :wink: but thats a different story. :)