12 reasons why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.

It's only point twelve I disagree with. Marriage as a legal status, recognised by the state and required in order to recieve certain legal priveleges, cannot, if the tenets of American faceless equality have anything more than symbolic worth, be given to a select group of individuals and withheld from another. However, marriage as a social contract between a man and woman believed to hold spirtual and moral value, may be restricted by the issueing parties according to their respective spirtual and moral beliefs. It is not the place fo state to order the Catholic church to sanction gay marriages, any more than it is the role of the state to grant religious civil unions, like traditional Christian marriage, any legal recognition, be it in favor of or against.

So, I'd prefer a general change in the legal definition of "marriage," as described for both homosexual and heterosexual unions, to reflect a more secular and morally irrelevant basis. For example, calling them "civil unions," and defining them as "two persons sharing personal property and retaining pertinent child-rearing rights." This would effectively remove the object of discussion altogether (namely, whether or not gay "marriage" is immoral).

Of course, arguments regarding homosexuals raising children may still apply. However, insofar as I am aware, there has been no scientific evidence to suggest that homosexuality can be deliberately imparted. More careful study and observation is necesarry. However, assumeing it is more likely that a child raised in a homosexual environment will turn out gay himself, is it the place of the state to prohibit the parents' lifestyle choices in this regard? After all, we all agree that the state cannot order families to raise secular, Christian, agnostic, or Jewish children. Whats the difference?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

give me 12 reasons anyone can judge anyone elses choices in sexuality. What they want to do is their business, keep out of it

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i have not even read the reasons and i am already against homosexuallity.

what is unknown is "scarry" so i guess i am looking at a general picture here but still i do not see what the world has to profit from homosexuallity.

I was at our harbor today. We have the worlds larges bench there if i am not misstaking

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

but in the corner, the furthest away you could see the kids with black makeup on then and those with the palestina scarfs (might be spelled wrong).
Hence they do not fit in the society they go to the extreme. Even with simple matters as this.
Homosexuallity i see as one of those extremes, those who did not fit in. But homosexuallity is not just mental, i reckon it is physical too. Actually i do not know what it is, just don't like it.

As the fascist, capitalist, conservative bastard i am, I just dont like gay's.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Baal Zebul, don't insult yourself like that

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I respect your opinion, although I oppose you on this issue.

 

good that someone does. WHAT i respect is your right to get descrimiated against just like you would have everyone do and your right to have your private life interefered with for no other reason than that the other person thinks your life is "wrong"

 

Well, I'm glad that you're at least willing to admit that your opinion is based on the fact that you're a dimwit who hasn't got a clue about even the fundamentals of this issue. If more people had the courage to admit that to themselves, and as such recognize that it's not even particularly their place to hold an opinion, let alone be making decisions for the rest of us, then I think the world would be better off.

 

interesting triviality about the reproduction aspect.
Judging from their rather conservative ramblins. One would guess you are against children born out of wed-lock and/or premarital sex.
So by that thinking how could you tell if couples are fertile or not? Should all straight couples be tested before marriage for fertility and if they fail. They should be denied marital rights?

Also when did we get an official religion and kill all those practicing otherwise? and forbid single parents to raise children?

Who says that a child with a single parent lacks role models in the home, what about grandparents, uncles&aunts, siblings, friends and neighbours? I beleive the apporpriate quote is "it takes a village to raise a child" so unless you intend to raise all children in isolation with just their mom and dad then I don't know how your going to accmplish this.

Also in a "Theocracy like ours" the values of no religions are really being imposed, because otherwise there would be no murder theft or name calling. (the basic general rules of all major world religions...) OH! and no shell-fish!

OH! If only gay parents raise gay children, where did gay people come from? Because they must've come from somewhere and stright parents will only raise straight children.

and last but not least what does Britney spears have to do with gay marriage? I mean she married a man, or am I mistaken? OH! What am I thinking! ONLY ARRANGED marriages are meaningful... those have been around for centuries!

 

Most of those who are against marriage are not entirely against the concept of allow gays civil unions. Our main dillemma is that we believe marriage is between a man and women, husband and wife. The idea of gay marriage is as foreign to us as a three-some called marriage or someone's one night stand.

Moreso, we do not feel that a homosexual family is the *best* situation to raise a family. Calling a relationship "marriage" by the state would be imposing this equality.

 

Hmm and imposition of equality vs. an imposition of inequality. . . which exactly is worse? Considering that in either situation it's not an imposition on you or any other straight people, I don't really see how it should even matter to you!

It's all well and good for you to define marriage how you want based upon your religious teachings, but you've got to keep in mind that "Because God says so" is not an argument that grants you license to impose your views on the entire nation.

 

Oki: Y'know for all this talk of religion and marriage don't you think that that would mean that only religious people could "marry". Oh and then we'd have to decide which religion its legal to marry under. Are muslim marriages any less marriage like? Are they a mockery of christian marriages? should they be banned by constitutional laws?

And then if we go "only christians can marry", Which christians? Catholics? Protestants? Mormons? Anglicans?

Draw me the line.

What about Anti-Anti-disestablishmentarians? They're Christians too!

 

Right, if a marriage is a union between one man and one woman in the eyes of God, then why do we allow atheists to marry?

 

I never claimed that my definition of marriage was religious. Why do you believe your definition, is non-religious but mine is?

I believe nonchristians do not receive a sacramental marriage but would be able to participate in a non-sacramental but valid marriage. I'm not sure about the other christians; I'm sure God blesses their marriages. This is nevertheless a distinction outlined by religion thatis not applicable. I refer to marriage in all cases to be between a man and a women.

It's rather standard terminology that marriage is composed of a husband and wife. I don't believe this is only a religious definition but one that evolved from our society.

 

why?

you do realise that lanuage evolves dont you and that words dont mean the same for everyone

i sugest you never ask an australian girl who she is "rooting for" because she will PROBABLY slap you (here root means sex)

so why cant you keep YOUR definition to yourself

have you ever looked at what the international declaration of human rights defines marrige as?

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

this doesn't define it as only ONE woman and ONE man
it says people have the right to marry and have a familly. Seems that the UN doesnt think that one man and one woman means marrige

 

Well, I will within reason but the purpose is to debate whether my or your's definition is right. To say "keep it to yourself" begs the question of why I must and you not.

This seems to be something thrown in to allow some of the muslim counties onboard.

The UN is not the US, but I believe the UN's statement is consistent with the current laws. The sentence uses the word "marriage," and it would be quite odd for it to mean anything other than man and women, especially with the emphasis on founding a family.

 

Sometimes the US thinks that it is... which explains its actions in Iraq.

That's from your perspective, which has been shaped by American laws.

The UN does not specifiy that marriage CAN'T be between a man and a woman.

A gay couple can have a family, either through adoption, or modern science.

ROFL.
Good call, Asguard. How true indeed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Sorry to single you out, Okinrus, but do people really think this way?

Would you agree with the following statement?

• In the history of the United States, religion has never had any effect on people's perceptions, choices, or actions.

Whence comes the seed from which that definition of marriage evolves? It comes from religion. In the US, that religion is the diverse paradigm of Christianity.

Sometimes you'll hear a poignantly mistaken Christian claim that the US is a "Christian nation." Generally, that person is referring to the prevalence of Christian values in the social norms of America.

Admittedly, the "Christian nation" argument doesn't do much for the alleged Christian who is arguing Christian social supremacy, but it does strike me in contrast when people put forth arguments that ignore that prevalence of Christian values in American culture.

And although I'm not following the whole of the specific part of the debate I've stuck my nose into, I wanted to splinter off in the abstract from another of your statements:

In my personal experience, much over the years has been made of "rights" in terms of religious debates. One of the striking things you'll notice in American social-religious debates, and something I've worked very hard to quash in our Sciforums environment, is a tendency by some Christians to make the argument that if I don't get my special way, my rights are being infringed. This argument has pertained to the publication of books, the stocking of libraries, the gender of your neighbor's sex partner, a woman's right to medical care, biological education of youth, ad nauseam.

For each of those, a quick example:

• Publication - "This book shouldn't be allowed to see the light of day." (e.g. general book burning - Harry Potter, &c.) The general argument is that allowing such obscenity into circulation infringes a Christian's right to free religion by failing to respect their standard of decency required for acceptable existence.
• Libraries - Oregon endured a ten-year fight over the book Heather Has Two Mommies; somewhere in there I recall a Christian woman going before the Salem-Keizer (Oregon) school board to protest the presence of Robert McCammon's Demon Walk in the school libraries. The woman demonstrated a specific lack of understanding of literature in general--in other words, I could see her point if I took a McCammon novel as literally and gravely as she attempted to take the Bible. The general argument seems to be that allowing such books onto public library shelves infringes the Christian's right to free religion by forcing a violation of their religious standards. Allowing a McCammon novel, for instance, or Heather Has Two Mommies on public library shelves seems to be something akin to forcing a Jew to eat pork while tattooing his wife and having consensual sex with another man. (That last refers to Lot's daughters; an obscure swipe I admit.)
• Gender of sex partner - Georgia, Oregon, Colorado, Vermont, Texas, and finally, Massachusetts. I mean, really ... in Oregon, Christians tried to fire state employees for having a sex partner of the "wrong" gender. In the Oregon battle, they even tried to rewrite the state curriculum in a manner that would have screwed the medical schools, for sure. Medicine based on religious moral assertions? Come now--giving bad medical advice to sodomites is a worse idea than faith healing.
• Woman's right to medical care - Even the terminology can set off some Christians. I call it a woman's right to medical care, some folks call it murder.
• Biological education - I agree that there are a number of things that should be taught within the home, but society pays for it collectively when parents fail to perform those certain duties. I look at the school-prayer people and wonder, "Do you really want a public-school teacher teaching your child religious faith?" I mean, I understand that somebody might be uncomfortable having an ogling midlife-crisis explaining sex to their daughter, but that's no excuse for parents to skip out on it. In the meantime, we have a high first-world teen-unwed birthrate and a scant excuse of a social net to protect the future of the species. Abstinence as a cause in the face of HIV didn't really work. Ignorance definitely didn't. People are people, and that means they're human. We must, at some point, prepare to deal reasonably with this fact.

In the end, the simple problem I have with the above arguments spawned by various people pursuing their faith in Christ is a simple comparison:

• Humans appear to be social creatures. As such, we must make certain sacrifices and compromises to get along. Christians claim the highest possible stake in their faith: the eternal soul. And they use it like a club when there is a political cause afoot. Logic and reason take a back seat compared to the value of the soul. But in the end, the reason I choose what I do is that I believe it ensures the greatest freedom to the greatest number of people.

Christians don't give a rat's ass about that sort of thing. As one church in Seattle once put it, in large letters on the marquee, Freedom is not the liberty to do what you want, but to do what God says is right. At a mystical level, sure, it's true. But I guarantee you they weren't aiming for the mystical. It's the classic question of "who watches the watchers." I simply try to minimize the effect of that question by minimizing the watchers.

Generally speaking, if Christians find themselves against a wall whereby they feel their way/opinion/&c is denied while others are being accepted, such as in arguments over the definition of marriage, I would point to the issue of how tightly one draws the circle. People can believe whatever the hell they want. But in a social cooperative, the species has an obligation unto itself to treat people fairly, and that means setting definitions as inclusively as possible.

This is often difficult, especially in gay-related debates, for Christians. The rhetorical tendency of some of the sharper voices to group homosexuality with child rape, bestiality, and necrophilia suggests a lack of understanding of the notion of consent. (I admit that doesn't surprise my sense of humor, as Christianity carries an inherently twisted notion of consent.)

What happens is that "your" ("their," whosever) opinion is perceived as inherently cutting out a legitimate segment of the population.

With what marriage represents in society, it must include homosexual unions. If society wishes to strip the legal privileges of marriage and reduce it to a proprietary contract, then fine, we can leave it to the churches. Most of us have better things to do, anyway, even if it's just sitting on a rock with a cigarette and killing ourselves slowly.

In the meantime, though, when a family that kicked out your deceased partner of over thirty years when he was a teenager steps up and yanks his estate out from under you and your lack of legal recourse stems directly from society's legal regard for homosexuality ... is that really fair?

Should you be denied employment as a police officer or a typist because of the gender of your sex partner?

The problem with some people's definitions is that they are designed to intentionally exclude other people.

 

Tiassa i think its time that someone took this further
after all no one who posted against us actually FOLLOWS the faith they profess to follow

Christanity says that god gave man freewill to do what he saw fit.
after the flood he pledged that he would never punish his people on earth
somepeople here seem to think that they are BETTER than god
oviously they must if they can judge when god has said he wont
but how can you be better than the god you worship?

you cant
so oviously these people arnt true christan worshipers because they dont worship god

they reject christs comandment to "love one another" and they reject gods plege not to judge on earth

 

Unless if you mind updating everything to say person A and person B, marriage really is quite entrenched in society.

No, it's effected the people within the United States but there are number of checks against any particular religious institution taking control.

I don't believe religion persay. There's quite a bit of evidence to suggest that modern depictions of marriage, while being partly inspired by religion, did not come from religion. For instance, the era of romantic love and knights dying for their love do not originate with religion.

This is not what I meant. Those who believe in gay marriage must give as much evidence showing us they do not believe just because of their religious belief, and I do consider the stark anti-religious remarks just as religious as the any Christian's. For if one was to hold a full separation of church and state, one must leave the hatred of church behind. Yet such a thing is not entirely possible, and this is why their understanding of church and state is flawed.

I think this is akin to your following remarks. Why should we take Bible's off of our shelves in goverment and school buildings? There's quite a large difference between supplying students who search and endorsing a particular religion. In fact, quite a few of my teachers quoted from verses that were general enough not to endorse religion.

It's rather unfortunate that Luther removed the book of Sirach. Cults such as the JW would probably not have ever been started.

When I have used my belief in the soul as club? Logic and reason are only as good as the begining and the end. If the beginning is wrong, the conclusion is wrong and if the end's wrong, I'll use of reason and logic will only destroy ourselves.

I think your preacher is referring to what the archbishop Sheen said. Something like "Freedom is not the liberty to do whatever you want but what is right" in response to communism. Obviously, the potential failing of capitalism is when freedom is abused to enslave. All sin will eventually lead to less freedom but the fog makes this unclear to us and some.

It's also not clear when to directly stop evil or allow evil. If were to really try to stop all homosexual relations, I would assume that would only lead to more evil and clash. Yet if we try to influence, perhaps, and with other issues such as abortion we will have to take the risk and forcebly stop.

No, but that doesn't mean that everyone can become a police officer or typist.

 

so oviously slavery couldnt end because they couldnt change the documents?
how about the vote for women?

change ALWAYS happens
everytime parliment sits they change stuff

 

The obvious answer to that is that your definition oppresses a segment of the population, whereas ours has no effect on the rest of the population. If gays start getting hitched you won't even know the difference, if you get your way we will continue to attempt to manage relationships without the legal protections that would be so useful.

In this light it is difficult to understand why you even think your opinion of the issue should matter, however the power of tradition in the United States makes us look to the Christian churches on issues of marriage; you really have no concrete authority on this subject, and no stake in how it is decided.