Gay marriage

[savant]

... But we can take children away from polygimists. Strange, that. I guess one's measure of religious freedom depends on the religion.

There is significant differences between sex with corpses and sex with children. In the first place a corpse doesn't suffer "emotional" trauma. Child sexual abuse is exceptionally damaging to children on a variety of levels. Most polygamists who have been arrested sexually abuse children and recently are in such a state of communial relations that no child is potentially safe from abuse.

i suppose that's why the state of texas separated the children from the respective mothers within a polygamist compound in el dorado recently? the state of texas is arguing that those children may have been subjected to sexual abuse while living within the compound, while the lawyer of the mothers is arguing that the state of texas cannot collectively take every child and must view it as a per case basis.

[MeDeFe]

Actually, polygamy just means that you're married to more than one person, child abuse doesn't come into it anywhere. It is a completely different matter and should be treated as such.

[tzor]

Actually, polygamy just means that you're married to more than one person, child abuse doesn't come into it anywhere. It is a completely different matter and should be treated as such.

Yes that is true by definition, but most polygamists who are in the news are into marrying 14 year olds. In the case of Texas there was also a communial (almost commune) aspect to it. Generally spealing one man marrying several dult women only has the same occurace of child abuse as ... well everyone else in the world.

[Neoteny]

I'm curious why the linkage between the polygamy and the child abuse is brought up so much. People seem to really have a thing for the status quo...

[savant]

Actually, polygamy just means that you're married to more than one person, child abuse doesn't come into it anywhere. It is a completely different matter and should be treated as such.

i don't think anyone is arguing the definition of polygamy. just that sexual abuse regarding children is sometimes associated with polygamy. in fact, this association occurs often enough that a competent authority has deemed it necessary to remove the children from the situation.

[MeDeFe]

Actually, polygamy just means that you're married to more than one person, child abuse doesn't come into it anywhere. It is a completely different matter and should be treated as such.

i don't think anyone is arguing the definition of polygamy. just that sexual abuse regarding children is sometimes associated with polygamy. in fact, this association occurs often enough that a competent authority has deemed it necessary to remove the children from the situation.

That's why I'm pointing it out, to keep the definition from becoming blurred beyond recognizing.

[Napoleon Ier]

I noticed... >_> <_<

Gay marriage is exactly like necrophilia, which is illegal I might add. If we give people the legal right to be married to and have sex with (which normally happens before sadly) someone who is not of the opposite sex, then who are we to say they can't be married to animals or dead corpses (just in case you didn't know they were dead) and have sex with them.

Gay sex and having sex with a corpse are on the same level of grotesqueness to me...

END OF LINE...

There's a good argument against that, one than can be summed up in one word: consent

Animals and inanimate objects, such as corpses, can't give consent, therefor they cannot be married. A person who is homosexual can give consent, and consequently can be married.

So, in your hypothetical wonderful world of sexual liberation and tolewance, you think you should be able to marry your sister?

[Snorri1234]

Actually, polygamy just means that you're married to more than one person, child abuse doesn't come into it anywhere. It is a completely different matter and should be treated as such.

i don't think anyone is arguing the definition of polygamy. just that sexual abuse regarding children is sometimes associated with polygamy. in fact, this association occurs often enough that a competent authority has deemed it necessary to remove the children from the situation.

True, but that is more to do with the sects associated most with it. And that's probably more because 14 is old-marriage age and therefore deemed okay. This whole pedophilia=bad thing is a very recent development (I mean pedophilia regarding post-pubescent kids). So really, people who are followers of something as old-fashioned as polygamy (in western culture) are also more likely to be followers of other old-fashioned stuff.

[Napoleon Ier]

Actually, polygamy just means that you're married to more than one person, child abuse doesn't come into it anywhere. It is a completely different matter and should be treated as such.

i don't think anyone is arguing the definition of polygamy. just that sexual abuse regarding children is sometimes associated with polygamy. in fact, this association occurs often enough that a competent authority has deemed it necessary to remove the children from the situation.

True, but that is more to do with the sects associated most with it. And that's probably more because 14 is old-marriage age and therefore deemed okay. This whole pedophilia=bad thing is a very recent development (I mean pedophilia regarding post-pubescent kids). So really, people who are followers of something as old-fashioned as polygamy (in western culture) are also more likely to be followers of other old-fashioned stuff.

No, actually, paedophilia doesn't apply to post-pubescant kids. It's a different term, which I can't remember, and I really don't feel like getting dawn raided by MI5 by searching post-pubescant paedophilia in google

[savant]

and I really don't feel like getting dawn raided by MI5 by searching post-pubescant paedophilia in google

haha

[Aliksander]

Here's a simple arguement/solution.

Marriage is a religious ceremony. Why does the government even have a hand in it anyway? The Government should not be involved in what constitutes a marriage, should not even bother themselves with marriage at all. It is a religious right, not a state organized one. Why is the government even involved? If Gay's want to marry let them find/found a religion/church that will perform it for them. If Catholics, Jews etc... don't believe gays should marry, their church, temple ect... doesn't have to accommodate them. If the gay couple in question is not religious, why should they even care? (That is they shouldn't after the government eliminates the tax breaks/citizenship allowances for people who simply get married, which SHOULD be done IMO)

Simply the government should not even be involved in this matter, if you want to legally allow people to inherit, write a will! OR It is only by blood inheritance, no marriage inheritance <---That should be the extent to which the law is involved.

There you have it, the easy way to end the gay marriage debate.

[MeDeFe]

Sounds like a plan, eliminate marriage as a political and economic institution. I can agree with that.

[Napoleon Ier]

Sounds like a plan, eliminate gays using a political and economic institution. I can agree with that.

What?

[PLAYER57832]

You know what?  Christ told us "this above all else ... shall you love one another" -- not to go burn crosses or throw stones at those with whom we disagree.

I am a Christian.  Do I LIKE homosexuality? NO?  Do I think it is OK, not really, but neither is sex before marriage, embezzlement, theft .... or taking the lord's name in vain ... ETC.  

Yet, while so many are happy to forgive these sins, they refuse to even consider being NICE (never mind forgiving) a homosexual.  That isn't the Bible I read and that is NOT how I was taught to act as a Christian.  Even CHILD ABUSE is supposed to be forgiveable, but somehow homosexual acts between consenting adults is not?   I would far, far rather sit beside and welcome a homosexual than a child abuser ..  and, by-the-way, I am NOT speaking hypothetically.  These exact issues have come before our church in the past 5 years.

If you wish to think of harm then what about folks who are not even Christian? Are we, then, to return to the days when you either converted or burned ... oh, and let's be sure we are talking about the TRUE Christians, of course ... Except we thankfully put the days of the Inquisition well behind us.

Are homosexuals sinners?   The truth is, no one is capable of judging ANY other human being in that way.   (Though if you are Roman Catholic, you believe the Pope has that right ).   THAT is for God. We can do our best as individuals, but no one has the right to dictate someone else's conscience. This is not relativism, this is realism. You want to be Amish? Fine. Just don't insist I live that way. "Why do you see the speck in thy brother's eye and not the log in your own."


But this is not even about the church, this is about CIVIL law. CIVIL law is very different. CIVIL law deals with physical realities and safety, not the soul.

The line, of course is when actions affect others. Stealing, murder, child abuse ... all of these cause harm to others. Homosexuality is a private matter. People talk as if homosexuality were somehow "catching". The truth is that almost all of you have almost certainly grown up with folks who were homosexual and you did not even know it. I found out myself that 2 long-standing members of my childhood church were only a few years ago.

Many argue that Marriage is a religious institution. That is true, but it is also used by the state to provide for children, for inheritances and ownership. These things are by no means uniform from state to state. In some states, a man and a woman automatically co-own everything or just about everything upon marriage. In other states, one spouse is not obligated to pay the credit card of a spouse (though in practicality, things like houses tend to be joint and therefore can betaken as collateral).

I would like to see a compromise. Let states decide individually whether they will allow a civil union or gay marriage. Unlike a "regular" marriage, states would not have to honor the unions of another state. HOWEVER, each state WOULD have to have in place a means of allowing visiting individuals to make emergency medical decisions for themselves AND any joing children. Further, any custody issues would have to be decided within the original state. No one can agree to co-parent and then suddenly move to a new state and declare the other parent non-existant or illegal.

Do I like the idea of homosexuality? No, but neither do I agree with people of other religions (I do respect them, but I believe my own faith ... and expect the same in return). My liking or agreeing is not a prerequisite for someone to decide how to live their life.

As for kids ... the ideal IS for a child to be raised by two parents, a man and a woman .. for a lot of reasons. HOWEVER, that ideal doesn't exist for many, many kids. It is far better for a child to be in a LOVING and CARING home - be it one parent, homosexual parents or asexual parents (the Shakers, for example) than to be shuffled from place to place or, heaven forbid in an outright abusive home. Will kids who grow up with homosexual parents become homosexual? Studies show not. They are more likely to be tolerant and perhaps (and this is only a perhaps) may be more likely to try out homosexuality than those who have never been around admitted homosexuals, but they are no more likely to BE homosexual than those who are not.

 

[Frigidus]

You know what? Christ told us "this above all else ... shall you love one another" -- not to go burn crosses or throw stones at those with whom we disagree.

I am a Christian. Do I LIKE homosexuality? NO? Do I think it is OK, not really, but neither is sex before marriage, embezzlement, theft .... or taking the lord's name in vain ... ETC.

Yet, while so many are happy to forgive these sins, they refuse to even consider being NICE (never mind forgiving) a homosexual. That isn't the Bible I read and that is NOT how I was taught to act as a Christian. Even CHILD ABUSE is supposed to be forgiveable, but somehow homosexual acts between consenting adults is not? I would far, far rather sit beside and welcome a homosexual than a child abuser .. and, by-the-way, I am NOT speaking hypothetically. These exact issues have come before our church in the past 5 years.

If you wish to think of harm then what about folks who are not even Christian? Are we, then, to return to the days when you either converted or burned ... oh, and let's be sure we are talking about the TRUE Christians, of course ... Except we thankfully put the days of the Inquisition well behind us.

Are homosexuals sinners? The truth is, no one is capable of judging ANY other human being in that way. (Though if you are Roman Catholic, you beleive the Pope has that right ). THAT is for God. We can do our best as individuals, but no one has the right to dictate someone else's conscience. This is not relativism, this is realism. You want to be Amish? Fine. Just don't insist I live that way.


But this is not even about the church, this is about CIVIL law. CIVIL law is very different. CIVIL law deals with physical realities and safety, not the soul.


The line, of course is when actions affect others. Stealing, murder, child abuse ... all of these cause harm to others. Homosexuality is a private matter. People talk as if homosexuality were somehow "catching". The truth is that almost all of you have almost certainly grown up with folks who were homosexual and you did not even know it. I found out myself that 2 long-standing members of my childhood church were only a few years ago.



Many argue that Marriage is a religious institution. That is true, but it is also used by the state to provide for Children, for inheritances and ownership. These things are by no means uniform from state to state. In some states, a man and a woman automatically co-own everything or just about everything upon marriage. In other states, one spouse is not obligated to pay the credit card of a spouse (though in practicality, things like houses tend to be joint and therefore can betaken as collateral).

I would like to see a compromise. Let states decide individually whether they will allow a civil union or gay marriage. Unlike a "regular" marriage, states would not have to honor the unions of another state. HOWEVER, each state WOULD have to have in place a means of allowing visiting individuals to make emergency medical decisions. Further, any custody issues would have to be decided within the original state. No one can agree to co-parent and then suddenly move to a new state and declare the other parent non-existant or illegal.

Do I like the idea of homosexuality? No, but neither do I agree with people of other religions (I do respect them, but I believe my own faith ... and expect the same in return). My liking or agreeing is not a prerequisite for someone to decide how to live their life.

As for kids ... the idea IS for a child to be raised by two parents, a man and a woman .. for a lot of reasons. HOWEVER, that idea doesn't exist for many, many kids. It is far better for a child to be in a LOVING and CARING home - be it one parent, homosexual parents or asexual parents (the Shakers, for example) than to be shuffled from place to place or, heaven forbid in an outright abusive home. Will kids who grow up with homosexual parents become homosexual? Studies show not. They are more likely to be tolerant and perhaps (and this is only a perhaps) may be more likely to try out homosexuality than those who have never been around admitted homosexuals, but they are no more likely to BE homosexual than those who are not.

I wish there were more Christians like you Player. Practice what you preach, you know?

[animorpherv1]

If there not allowed to marry there gpnna live inthe same house anyways, so why not?

[Aliksander]

Many argue that Marriage is a religious institution. That is true, but it is also used by the state to provide for children, for inheritances and ownership. These things are by no means uniform from state to state. In some states, a man and a woman automatically co-own everything or just about everything upon marriage. In other states, one spouse is not obligated to pay the credit card of a spouse (though in practicality, things like houses tend to be joint and therefore can betaken as collateral).

I would like to see a compromise. Let states decide individually whether they will allow a civil union or gay marriage. Unlike a "regular" marriage, states would not have to honor the unions of another state. HOWEVER, each state WOULD have to have in place a means of allowing visiting individuals to make emergency medical decisions for themselves AND any joing children. Further, any custody issues would have to be decided within the original state. No one can agree to co-parent and then suddenly move to a new state and declare the other parent non-existant or illegal.

Well you see that it is the point I am trying to make. The state should have as little to do with marriage as possible. I already stated that inheritances and ownership can be dealt with by a will, or if there is none, then by blood relation alone. As for it being left up to the state, that is pretty much how it is dealt with now. There is currently no federal law defining what a marriage is (so far, thankfully) and so states decide what is legal to be marriage and other states have the right to not recognize it. But many are not satisfied with this and want the state to make homosexual marriage recognized country-wide, hence why I say eliminate the state from the equation entirely so there is no allowances or benefits to anyone (ie no special treatment either way). This reduces marriage back to what it is supposed to be: a personal choice that is accepted or not on a personal level, where it belongs.

[reminisco]

all i know is that if the gay-homosexuals controlled the weather (instead of Al-Qaeda) we'd know it because there would always be rainbows.

a whackity schmackity doo!

[PLAYER57832]

Well you see that it is the point I am trying to make. The state should have as little to do with marriage as possible. I already stated that inheritances and ownership can be dealt with by a will, or if there is none, then by blood relation alone. As for it being left up to the state, that is pretty much how it is dealt with now.

From the "state's" perspective, It is a matter of convenience. In many European countries, you go to the civil authorities to get actually married, any church ceremony is completely seperate. We have just combined the two, but with a "civil only" option (Justice of the Peace, etc.) But don't discount tradition in major events, either.

There is currently no federal law defining what a marriage is (so far, thankfully) and so states decide what is legal to be marriage and other states have the right to not recognize it.

No, currently if a marriage is recognized in one state, the others need to accept it. This came about during the pre-civil rights era. Many a Mississippi couple had to marry outside the state, for example. But once married, the state had to accept them ... though they often chose to live elsewhere.

,

hence why I say eliminate the state from the equation entirely so there is no allowances or benefits to anyone (ie no special treatment either way). This reduces marriage back to what it is supposed to be: a personal choice that is accepted or not on a personal level, where it belongs.

The state gives married couples benefits because it benefits the state. Married couples do a better job, financially, of supporting their kids on average, tend to have children with lower school drop-out rates, lower drug useage, etc. than those in single parent homes. (PLEASE NOTE -- this on average I am well aware that many single parents have done, and do, excellent jobs ... but it is also harder to do it alone). Interestingly, homosexual couples more or less match the married couples here when pulled out as a separate group.

Besides, one of the primary benefits or responsibilities in marriage is one the state definitely would rather NOT have -- deciding proper medical care when a person is incapacitated.

[Aliksander]

,

hence why I say eliminate the state from the equation entirely so there is no allowances or benefits to anyone (ie no special treatment either way). This reduces marriage back to what it is supposed to be: a personal choice that is accepted or not on a personal level, where it belongs.

The state gives married couples benefits because it benefits the state. Married couples do a better job, financially, of supporting their kids on average, tend to have children with lower school drop-out rates, lower drug useage, etc. than those in single parent homes. (PLEASE NOTE -- this on average I am well aware that many single parents have done, and do, excellent jobs ... but it is also harder to do it alone). Interestingly, homosexual couples more or less match the married couples here when pulled out as a separate group.

Besides, one of the primary benefits or responsibilities in marriage is one the state definitely would rather NOT have -- deciding proper medical care when a person is incapacitated.

Ah and there's the rub! I would transfer those benefits to people who actually have children, regardless of marital status. Two people can get married for the benefits and never have children, so how is the state benefited? Better to denote those tax breaks to people who actually need it, those who have children. Now I know people with two parents tend to do better than those who have a single parent, but the government has no right, and NO NEED, to encourage one mode or another. Those who do better (ie the people with two parents) will naturally be more able to find a person to have children and raise a family with, whereas the single parent person is less likely, and so a form of 'natural selection' would AUTOMATICALLY benefit the two parent system without the need for government involvement (IOW without the need for costly management and litigation by the government which wastes both time and money that is better used elsewhere). And if some percentage of single parent people are able to get to the point of having a family, even with their disadvantaged start so much the better that they are allowed to thrive and pass on those qualities to the next generation. Furthermore, if you want to encourage the idea of having a united household, there again is no need to involve marriage, simply make the benefits slightly higher to those parents who live in the same household rather than those living apart (and if they live apart then there is still child support coming from one parent to the one raising the child, so the financial advantage is muted anyway). And the decision of proper medical care can be allocated to whomever you wish, it would be a simple matter of having everyone designate a 'next of kin' that they wish to be responsible if they are unable to decide for themselves for whatever reason.

[Nataki Yiro]

I'm still in this topic...

Oh hey, I have some news involving this topic. You remember all those gay couples who moved to Massachusetts for a short period of time so they could get married? They are all seeking divorce. The hold up is that they can only get one in Massachusetts where they must have lived for 3 years. Sucks to be them...

[Iliad]

I'm still in this topic...

Oh hey, I have some news involving this topic. You remember all those gay couples who moved to Massachusetts for a short period of time so they could get married? They are all seeking divorce. The hold up is that they can only get one in Massachusetts where they must have lived for 3 years. Sucks to be them...

oh my god a gay couple seeking a divorce. Because that totally means gay people should't get married

[Nataki Yiro]

Oh snap! because that's totally what I just said... >_>
It was on the news and related to this topic... grown up...


@ Player

I never said I wouldn't forgive a homosexual. I said I don't put up with homosexuality.

Love the sinner, hate the sin...

Like I said I find homosexuality no more and no less grotesque to me than necrophilia or bestiality.
It is the same as any other sin...

[Frigidus]

Oh snap! because that's totally what I just said... >_>
It was on the news and related to this topic... grown up...


@ Player

I never said I wouldn't forgive a homosexual. I said I don't put up with homosexuality.

Love the sinner, hate the sin...

Like I said I find homosexuality no more and no less grotesque to me than necrophilia or bestiality.
It is the same as any other sin...

Again, I mention freedom of religion. The Abrahamic faiths are opposed to homosexuality (among a few other odd things like shellfish, but those parts tend to be ignored), but most other religions make no mention of it whatsoever. As has been pointed out a few times, before the civil rights movement interracial marriage was on about the same level as homosexual marriage when it comes to opposition, but calling that immoral now would hardly get a chuckle out of most people.

[Neoteny]

::twitch::

If there was a god, Nataki, you'd be one of the people going to hell.