Gay Couples want to be recognized as LEGALLY MARRIED...

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by wesmorrisbabe, Jun 9, 2003.

?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/background/gayrights.html

  1. I'm SUPPORTIVE of it

    24 vote(s)
    80.0%
  2. I'm OPPOSED to it

    4 vote(s)
    13.3%
  3. I feel INDIFFERENTLY towards it

    2 vote(s)
    6.7%
  1. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,938
    I don't find anything to be terably clear in reguards to religion in general. Aside from the fact that many religions simply don't give a shit about homosexuals, I do know several deeply religious Christians who are homosexuals. Rather than foccusing on what God hates, though, they tend to focus on the more feel good aspects of loving your fellow man, and all that rubbish that liberal jew, Jesus put forth.

    What do you mean by a normal marriage? If you mean one between a man and a woman, then yes, homosexuality prevents this, as it would be very psychologically damaging to have a marriage with a member of the opposite sex, which is why homosexuals seek marriage with members of the same sex.

    If, however, you are trying to imply that homosexuals inherently can not have a healthy loving marriage I'd have to say that you're out of your mind. If this is your meaning, please substantiate it. Please provide me with information relating to a higher failure rate of homosexual marriages than heterosexual marriages, because I have never witnessed anything which would lead me to believe this.

    Yes, homosexuals get a lot of emotional abuse (As well as physical abuse) from people. Is this a fault of their own or a fault of those other people? Are you trying to put the burden of the assaulter's wrong doings onto the victim?

    Also, though this extra abuse could well lead to low self esteem in many cases, it's certainly not a guaranteed thing, look at any flamboyant homosexual and ask me if prancing around in full view of others without regard of their opinions is a sign of low self esteem. Self esteem is less of a problem then I think you'd have us believe.


    I'm sorry but I find it difficult to even begin to comprehend what you're talking about here.

    When someone makes love to their partner, who else should it be for but themselves? Are we supposed to screw for the good of society, or the beterment of man kind? Are we supposed to be putting on a porno show for god, and he doesn't dig the guy on guy stuff so much?

    I honestly don't know how you mean this to be an anti-homosexual statement.

    That's just a flat out lie. What exactly makes a homosexual more prone to dissease than a heterosexual? Where did this comment come from? A homosexual having unprotected sex has the same chance of catching something from a partner as a heterosexual does, and the same goes for when protection is used.

    If sheer numbers are at the core of your argument, then I'd remind you that there are far more heterosexuals who have STDs, and AIDS in particular than there are homosexuals (well ok, maybe that is a little off if you feel that Africa doesn't count. . . and really why would they, bunch of dark godless heathens over there anyway, aren't they?)

    The law doesn't effect you one way or another. You can carry on feeling that a homosexual marriage isn't right, or somehow cosmicaly invalid if you want to. The only way you'd have to recognize it is if you were a judge or a lawyer, no one is going to fine you or throw you in jail for saying that you don't think homosexual marriages are valid.

    How will it harm these groups? Please be more specific.

    That's what your ancient tomb of arcane knowledge may claim, but the United States was not founded by degenerate mystics, and we do not live in a theocrasy. Your religious reasons are, when applied to legal situations, are impotent.

    It's more about the principal of the thing. It's about giving what is due, and doing the right thing.

    Webster is less an authority in law than are actual legal bodies, and acts which have been passed. If America were to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, for instance, then perhaps Webster would change it's definition to reflect the reality of the new situation. Linguistics can be a bitch like that.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,938
    Do you mean to propose that simply because people have been doing things the wrong way for eons, or that times have changed such that the way things used to be done no longer fit the contemporary world, people should break away from patterns of behavior simply because it suits the situation better? That's positively heretical! Someone lock this man away!
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,669
    The revolt and backlash on homosexuals resulting
    from allowing them marriage might alone
    be enough.

    So do I along with those who lie, steal, use drugs.

    Well percentage wise more homosexuals have AIDS and stds.
    Do you have another theory why? You can say
    homosexuals were forced to gather in seedy clubs
    but even this doesn't change the odds or the inherant
    danger in homsexuality.

    Marriage will begin to mean an oath between two persons and
    not a solemn oath before God between husband and wife.


    I'm defining the tradition view of marriage.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Originally posted by okinrus
    Beyond the clear religious ones..
    Assuming that your religion is the correct one. Not all the others are against homosexuality.

    Causes psychological associations that basically makes it
    impossible for a homosexual to have a normal marriage.

    If by 'normal' you mean male and female... then... duh. What's your point?

    Since society is against homosexual, the stigma
    forces the homosexual to have low esteem. Now against here needs to be qualified. So many people here will say it's disgusting but it's not my business. Therefore homosexuals get alot of emotional abuse.

    So anything that society is against is automatically wrong if it makes people feel bad. Attention black people: please paint your skin.

    Inforces sexual behavior that is only in fullfillment of
    selfish pleasure.

    You have a problem with selfish behavior? Do you own anything? If so go give it too that bum who can't afford anything. You don't really need a house anyhow.
    Regarless: Normal marriages (and all human actions) are all 'selfish'. People just tend to call it by different names.

    Homosexuals are at higher risk of stds and AIDS.

    Cops are at more risk of being shot. What's your point? Being at higher risk for something also doesn't make it wrong.

    Now I have to qualify a same sex marriage instead
    of using just marriage. I do not consider it a true marriage but now by law I now have to consider them married.

    They could care less if you consider them married. The issue is that you can get benefits for being married, at they can not. Either open the law to all marriages, or get rid of it.

    I believe that it will harm children and those who are unwilling to think for themselves. The traditional institution of marriage has been an institute put forth by God with the purpose of bearing offspring.

    Once again, not everybody believes in your God. This is the number 1 reason I am against religion. It makes people think that they MUST be right, because the bible can be interpreted to support their view. Most of the time, the only way they can make an argument is if it is first assumed that the bible is correct. This just shifts the issue, and for that reason God should be left the hell out of this.
     
  8. shrubby pegasus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    454
    why do we care what the traditional view of marriage is? my traditions may not be the same as yours. also the world and society are constantly evolving. by limiting everyone to "traditional" things like rick santorum you are increasing inefficiency and removing people's freedom to be happy.

    we finally live in world where the idea of homosexuality at the very least can be talked about in a public forum. stating that we must abide by a traditional view of marriage is absurd. homosexuals had no chance until recently to develop a "traditional" homosexual marriage. basically what i am saying is that traditions are biased and arbitrary. if two people want to enter into a recognized long term monogamous union i dont see how anyone's personal views can over ride this.
     
  9. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,669
    Islam, Christianity, Judism. The fact that so many
    religions are against homosexuality can be seen
    as a deterrant.

    No. I was proving that homosexuality was harmful.
    To discuss moral issues you need a God or some
    kind of basis.

    Maybe I should qualify this as Christian, Muslim and Jewish children.
     
  10. shrubby pegasus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    454
    to discuss morals you do not need to bring god into the talk. it is unfortunate that god zealots assume those who arent have no morals. it is by no means true. have you heard of secular humanism? social contract? there are certain behaviours that make living in a community more feasible. ethical systems are evolving entities just as organisms are. certain behavioural beliefs take hold because they are conducive for a fluidic interaction amongst groups of individuals' behaviours.
     
  11. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Originally posted by okinrus
    Islam, Christianity, Judism. The fact that so many
    religions are against homosexuality can be seen
    as a deterrant.

    Or it can be seen as all of them basing their beliefs on old doctorines. As a counter, the following support it in some way:
    Buddism, some branches of Christianity, Judaism (except orthodox&reconstruction).
    Netherlands, Germany, the Greeks/Romans

    No. I was proving that homosexuality was harmful.

    And I just showed that being a cop is harmful. I don't think you proved much of anything along your main case.

    To discuss moral issues you need a God or some
    kind of basis.

    More religious banter. Religion is far from the most accurate sorce for 'morality'. Especially since islam/christianty do things which the other thinks is 'immoral'. Even within christianity you can't agree on much of what the bible is saying. Your only saving grace in this comment is "or some kind of basis".

    Maybe I should qualify this as Christian, Muslim and Jewish children.

    Maybe I should qualify this as a child's religion being forced upon them, even if it punishes them for things they do naturaly.
    I should also qualify this as not being the religion forum.
     
  12. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,406
    Legalized in Canada...

     
  13. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,669
    I invite you to prove that bestiality is wrong.
    I think you will have just as hard proving this
    wrong as I would homosexuality using your moral
    system.
     
  14. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Why would we want to. What you do with your dog is your business... as long as the dog isn't forced into it. But hell, they'll hump anything.
    Personally, I think person on dog and guy on guy is disgusting... but that doesn't give me the right to stop others or discriminate on that basis (unless I'm choosing a mate). Until someone shows me a good reason why either are bad for me, I'm not going to try and stop it. It is not your right to stop others from doing something just because you don't like it... especially if it doesn't harm you.
     
  15. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,669
    Suppose person B commits bestially infront of children
    A. Wouldn't you expect some sort of harm to children A?
    But you cannot define harm. Harm here is only a preferance
    to more sexual perversion that you cannot define.
     
  16. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Harm: scaring for life

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    More preferably, harm can be defined as any action which forces the child to not think rationally and/or allow them to not make choices.

    Gay couples are not getting off in front of their kids any more then strait couples. And no, I would not consider a person kissing a dog infront of a kid to damage them. Now anybody having sex with anyone/thing infront of kids, I would consider harmful. Children are not mature enough to understand the emotional reasons behind the actions... and would try to emulate them without understanding them.
     
  17. shrubby pegasus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    454
    well put persol

    okinrus if you havent noticed children are pretty much forbidden from watching sexual acts in this country. they cant buy porn, they cant go to strip clubs, there is a movie rating system, etc. and i dont know how your family raised you by my parents werent having sex in front of me. you seem to have some irrational fear that homosexuals will engage in sexual acts in front of you. your point about bestiality and children is a moot point. if you happened to see two homosexuals engaged in sex you should be mature enough to make a scene like a 4th grader.
     
  18. shrubby pegasus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    454
    my moral system is system is not based on some assumed faith. instead of passively absorbing what every one tells me should be right and wrong i prefer to look at it objectively and understand why something would be wrong. if the worst harm that occurs is you being offended well that is just too bad. that is the price of a free society. it doesnt matter if what i do offends you. you just need to lighten up. im pretty sure wes morris would agree on this. i saw him post some similar "suck it up" posts last week or so.
     
  19. janeelsa Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    140
    Methinks okinrus doth protest too much.
    (Oh, I'm gonna get in trouble for that.)
     
  20. shrubby pegasus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    454
    yeah he needs to stop fearing what he doesnt understand
     
  21. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,669
    It's all subversive attack by the devil!
    Unfortunatly the devil has checkmated society.
    Marriage in our country was always a worldly
    institution anyways.
     
  22. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,938
    Is that a warning or a threat? Either way, I'm packin' so don't worry about me. If the religious right wants to riot, good for them, about time they learned that the world doesn't center around 'em.


    I don't see how this relates to anything.


    Hey if you want to think of AIDS as a homosexual problem I'm down with that, just don't come crying to me when you realize that heterosexual supermen are not immune to dissease.

    As for "hanging out in seedy clubs" That came completely out of nowhere. Ohh my God, you mean that there are gay bars?! Guess what, straight people hang out in bars too, nasty ass bars, and then some straight people don't even drink, and you know what, the same is true of homosexuals! I myself wouldn't be caught dead in a gay bar, and would have to be knocked out and drug to a night club. I suggest you stop painting such ugly generalizations, you're denying people their individuality, and that's a very ugly thing.


    I really hate to break it to you but it's already an "oath" between two persons. You see, not the whole world is christian, and yet somehow people still have marriages, they aren't marrying under your God, sometimes under no God at all, and yet somehow the world moves on. Besides, there aint' much to stop a pair of religious homosexuals from marrying under god or whatever so long as they can find someone willing to do the ceremony. As it stands, in America religious marriages are the only kind homosexuals have, seeing how as legal marriage is denied to 'em.



    Defending your view of traditional marriage. Other cultures and indeviduals may vary, sorry friend.
     
  23. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,938
    Umm acctualy the Jews aren't homophobes, in fact they allow homosexual marriages. The jews know the score, they ain't afraid of fagilahs.
     

Share This Page