Homosexual Marriage

[Jack]

Let's keep this debate civil and respect other member's right to their opinion, even if you disagree with it. Challenge the opinions, not the person posting them.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[jb_1430]

Quote by: minorwork Today\'s political climate bears little resemblance to the attitude in the age of Enlightenment that was present in our nations beginning.

American colonies and early states considered it to be a crime against naturehttp://www.gale.cengage.com/pdf/Chronology/LesbianGayChrono.pdfWasnt until 2003 that sodomy became a constitutional right, making it un constitutional to prohibit it by law

Quote by: minorwork Today the conservative movement is held hostage by the idea that the revealed supernatural religions are sole proprietors of morality.

Well, he was responding to me and I am an atheist and none of my arguements are based on morality.

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: jb_1430 Ive never stated that marriage was to entice couples to procreate. Government, society, religion and culture throughout the history of human civilization has enticed sexually active, heterosexual couples to get married because they might procreate. All your othe points have been addressed in my other post responding to other posters besides you. All of you use the same old, tired arguements. I dont see any need to address the same arguements from different posters.

So, are you or are you not saying marriage is about procreation? Let me remind you of your previous post

Quote by: jb_1430 Marriage is about procreation.

[minorwork]

Quote by: jb_1430 American colonies and early states considered it to be a crime against naturehttp://www.gale.cengage.com/pdf/Chronology/LesbianGayChrono.pdfWasnt until 2003 that sodomy became a constitutional right, making it un constitutional to prohibit it by law

Indeed. The attitude of the time seemed far more Deistic or even Atheistic than today. Today there are few members of Congress that have the balls to admit their lack of faith while pandering to those that do. This is my impression only based predominantly on my thought experiment of the commotion that article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli would have caused in today's religious climate and its complete acceptance by the Senate at the time. From: Little-Known U.S. Document Proclaims America's Government is Secular - The Early America Review, Summer 1997

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Of course the times were not as awash in knowledge; Darwin had yet to be born. The Constitution's writers had to hold back some of their idealism in order to establish the nation. Today the monetary ideals of our nations fathers are sadly missing in the general disregard for the limitations of government that the writers embedded in the document. The separation of church and state is denied by the Christian right.

Quote by: jb_1430 Well, he was responding to me and I am an atheist and none of my arguements are based on morality.

I am having trouble understanding your use of the word marriage as it applies to the issue. It seems you have a precise usage that others are missing. I'm not sure I get your sense of it.

[PatrickHenry]

Dang!

This thread still running?

I wonder how the issues will fall out on November 5?

I know it's on the ballot in California.

Are any other states considering the question on the ballot?

[Tycoon]

Ive never stated that marriage was to entice couples to procreate. Government, society, religion and culture throughout the history of human civilization has enticed sexually active, heterosexual couples to get married because they might procreate. All your othe points have been addressed in my other post responding to other posters besides you. All of you use the same old, tired arguements. I dont see any need to address the same arguements from different posters.

I know what you've stated, and I've stated that your statement is complete untrue! Heterosexual couples that marry get all the benefits of marriage regardless of whether or not they have children. If that can be said of heterosexual couples, then it should also be said of homosexual couples.

[jb_1430]

Quote by: minorwork Indeed. The attitude of the time seemed far more Deistic or even Atheistic than today. Today there are few members of Congress that have the balls to admit their lack of faith while pandering to those that do. This is my impression only based predominantly on my thought experiment of the commotion that article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli would have caused in today's religious climate and its complete acceptance by the Senate at the time.

Your point? You prefer the views of our founding fathers that saw homosexuality as a crime against nature, as opposed to todays views which probably view it as a crime against nature and God?
And Tripolii was probably more about the fact that we didnt have the naval power to do anything about the barbary pirates. And todays christian right frequently claims we are a christian nation, not that we have a christian government.

[minorwork]

Quote by: jb_1430 Your point? You prefer the views of our founding fathers that saw homosexuality as a crime against nature, as opposed to todays views which probably view it as a crime against nature and God? And Tripolii was probably more about the fact that we didnt have the naval power to do anything about the barbary pirates. And todays christian right frequently claims we are a christian nation, not that we have a christian government.

I prefer deism to christianity. I see little of it today. I was under the impression that our founding fathers made concessions to various groups in order to get a constitution that would pass.

I do not know what a crime against nature is. I can see that there would be no reproduction between two of like gender. Maybe that is the 'crime.' I would not call that a crime as partners of different genders where one or both are sterile results in the same situation. The word 'crime' is misplaced. It implies intent to do illegal acts.

[ironeagle]

Quote by: minorwork Noble indeed to support the right to make a choice when you choose to. Even though acknowledging an immoral act, now it is OK to have a choice. I, too, have a firm policy of flexibility.

Minor work good try at baiting me over the abortion right choice, that choice which does effect others who are the victim and have no choice in what is done to them is not even close to the same thing as allowing choice between two consenting adults who have jointly made a choice. I am sorry but I would think you mature enough to know the difference.

[Jack]

The word 'crime' is misplaced.

I'd say it's wholly inappropriate.

[goodeone]

I am against the idea of homosexual marrige firstly as a christian the first acount of a marrige was according to The Bible between a man and a woman. Second The Bible condems homosexuality as being displeasing to our creator.I have no intense dislike of homosexuals as people but i cannot agree with sex between the same sex. My son is a homasexual and i have asked him his opinion on several ocassions and he is totally aginst the idea of homosexual marrige.

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: goodeone I am against the idea of homosexual marrige firstly as a christian the first acount of a marrige was according to The Bible between a man and a woman. Second The Bible condems homosexuality as being displeasing to our creator.I have no intense dislike of homosexuals as people but i cannot agree with sex between the same sex. My son is a homasexual and i have asked him his opinion on several ocassions and he is totally aginst the idea of homosexual marrige.

Religion shouldn't be used as an excuse to deny people rights. Otherwise, women may still be second class, we may still have slavery, etc etc etc.

[italiangm]

Quote by: goodeone My son is a homasexual and i have asked him his opinion on several ocassions and he is totally aginst the idea of homosexual marrige.

Has your son also expressed his reason(s) for being against same-sex marriage? If so, would you kindly share those reason(s) with us?

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: goodeone I am against the idea of homosexual marrige firstly as a christian the first acount of a marrige was according to The Bible between a man and a woman. Second The Bible condems homosexuality as being displeasing to our creator.I have no intense dislike of homosexuals as people but i cannot agree with sex between the same sex. My son is a homasexual and i have asked him his opinion on several ocassions and he is totally aginst the idea of homosexual marrige.

Completely wrong, marriage existed long before the bible and homosexual marriage was still practiced right up to the 1500's, where the council of trent decided that the bible says to ban it.
It was the council of trent that decided that homosexuals have a malady of the mind that causes them to be that way. Which of course has no basis of truth to it.

[Jack]

but i cannot agree with sex between the same sex.

So because you can't accept such a notion it should be outlawed? Are you in favor of outlawing all concepts you disagree with for personal or religious reasons? Note, no one is asking you to like it or even encourage it. All we're asking is to have the freedom to exercise that option if we choose to.

[Diogenes]

I don't see the harm whether you agree with it or not. Personally I think everyone should have the right to do as they please as long as it does not infringe upon anyone else's rights.

If two men, three women, five sheep, and one rubber sex doll want to get married...

let em'.

[Michael1695]

As a christian I am also against homosexual marriage, however I do feel that it is not the federal government's place to define what marriage is. The government can't tell gay people not to marry because it is sinful, because Im sure those people do not believe it is sinful, and the government shall make no establishment respecting religion. So I believe that the people should vote on gay marriage in each state and those states where the majority of citizens supports it shall recognize it.

[Michael1695]

Quote by: Diogenes I don't see the harm whether you agree with it or not. Personally I think everyone should have the right to do as they please as long as it does not infringe upon anyone else's rights. If two men, three women, five sheep, and one rubber sex doll want to get married... let em'.

I don't disagree with you, but any marriage that involves anyone or anything more than 2 people should not receive the same legal benefits as a marriage of 2 people. It opens things way up for fraud.

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: Michael1695 As a christian I am also against homosexual marriage, however I do feel that it is not the federal government's place to define what marriage is. The government can't tell gay people not to marry because it is sinful, because Im sure those people do not believe it is sinful, and the government shall make no establishment respecting religion. So I believe that the people should vote on gay marriage in each state and those states where the majority of citizens supports it shall recognize it.

But that's still not right. What if people voted on things like Inter-racial marriage? What if people voted on many other civil issues? What if people had voted on equal rights for women and blacks? You can't have people vote to decide whether a group of people has a certain right the other groups of society have, otherwise your creating second class citizens.

[minorwork]

Quote by: Michael1695 As a christian I am also against homosexual marriage, however I do feel that it is not the federal government's place to define what marriage is. The government can't tell gay people not to marry because it is sinful, because Im sure those people do not believe it is sinful, and the government shall make no establishment respecting religion. So I believe that the people should vote on gay marriage in each state and those states where the majority of citizens supports it shall recognize it.

I suggest we are ruled by law, not by popular opinion.