Gay marriage

[Fieryo]

I asked why can't homosexual couples be happy with a civil union? Why not? because it's not fair. Well it's not fair to infringe on a Christian community rights either.

While the Christian community has every right to deny gays recgonition, the US government does not. Since marriage is regulated by the government (marriage licenses and what not) marriage must be available to gay couples. If the Church choses to not allow a ceremony in inside its walls, so be it. But you cannot deny people rights.

[Symmetry]

A quick defense of Beastly so far- he's not trolled, or attacked anyone. He's openly said that he sees both sides, and that while he falls on one, he's open to ideas and isn't committed. He's presented a Christian view, held by a great many people, but hasn't claimed it to be perfect.

If you'd really like to have a debate on Christian values, perhap tarring (or marring if you're rambos poodle), a person with a certain colour from the offset isn't the best policy.

Give the guy a chance. He's not an idiot, he's a guy making up his mind. There are few people better than those in the midst of a decision. Don't all shout at once.

[Snorri1234]

A quick defense of Beastly so far- he's not trolled, or attacked anyone. He's openly said that he sees both sides, and that while he falls on one, he's open to ideas and isn't committed. He's presented a Christian view, held by a great many people, but hasn't claimed it to be perfect.

If you'd really like to have a debate on Christian values, perhap tarring (or marring if you're rambos poodle), a person with a certain colour from the offset isn't the best policy.

Give the guy a chance. He's not an idiot, he's a guy making up his mind. There are few people better than those in the midst of a decision. Don't all shout at once.

*coughfemalecough*

[insomniacdude]

Keep in mind two things in this post: 1) I'm a pretty liberal Christian. 2) I haven't read most of the thread. I got the first three or four pages and the last three or four pages. Meh.

Now, as a Christian, I think that it is a sin to be a homosexual. I don't hold it against gays, though - I have several gay friends, actually. Hate the sin, love the sinner. And though by my personal religious beliefs it might be wrong, it'll be a cold day in hell before I say that my moral compass is better than anybody else's. I generally ascribe to a government with little interference in a person's life. As long as whatever you do is consensual in both/all parties, it doesn't disrupt or hurt anybody else, and it doesn't really damage public or private property, then you most likely should be free to do whatever it is you would like....including getting married to a person of the same sex. If that's how you jive, that's cool. So long as you don't bust into my house and getting busy, so be it. And that goes for all you straight couples too!

What I would like to see is civil unions. I think. I understand the separate but equal problem here. But mandating an allowance on gay marriage implies that a church has to allow a gay ceremony, IMO. Either it would take some craftily worded legislation, or there has to be a distinction made to ensure that a religious community's rights are not encroached. For taxing, licensing, and insurance purposes, gay marriage should be on the exact same plane as straight marriage. Whatever legislation it takes to get us there is fine with me - it will probably have to get a bit creative is all.

[insomniacdude]

We talked about this in one of my classes. Someone made the point that if homosexuality is in fact, genetically based then parents would try to eliminate that genetic factor in order to force the child to be heterosexual. Have you heard about anything like that?

What do you mean? Like parents giving their kids meds to make them heterosexuals?

I think he means making parents give abortions to children if they find out they are gay inside the womb. Make sense?

Man, I'd have a field day on the religious right if that ever happened. "Abortions are wrong....unless its gay!!!!!!"

[Snorri1234]

But mandating an allowance on gay marriage implies that a church has to allow a gay ceremony,

It does? Because I'm sure in my country churches could decide for themselves whether or not to marry gay couples.

[jiminski]

A quick defense of Beastly so far- he's not trolled, or attacked anyone. He's openly said that he sees both sides, and that while he falls on one, he's open to ideas and isn't committed. He's presented a Christian view, held by a great many people, but hasn't claimed it to be perfect.

If you'd really like to have a debate on Christian values, perhap tarring (or marring if you're rambos poodle), a person with a certain colour from the offset isn't the best policy.

Give the guy a chance. He's not an idiot, he's a guy making up his mind. There are few people better than those in the midst of a decision. Don't all shout at once.

*coughfemalecough*

hehe .. the Beast be a lady!.... had the change some years ago

[Symmetry]

mandating an allowance on gay marriage implies that a church has to allow a gay ceremony, IMO.

Sorry dude, that doesn't pan out. Women gained equality relatively recently, but Catholic churches are not forced to include them as priests. Even private golf clubs don't have to include them.

You can hold a religious belief, and others don't have a right to impose it on you in a religious sphere. But I think that you're confusing allegations of bigotry and homophobia with what is legal and illegal.

If gay marriages were legalized, then it would have no impact on the religious position of the church. They would not have to allow gay marriages too. The church would be open to perfectly valid criticism of bigotry, as it is now. That's pretty separate from the legal argument though.

The rest of your argument, sorry to say, doesn't deal with the separate but equal problem. Civil unions are fine, but they aren't marriages. Atheists can get married and be recognized as a married couple. It's not an argument about encroachment on religion. You're arguing for a contract, or a financial handshake when you suggest civil unions. Most people, gay or straight, want more than that in a life-long partner.

[unriggable]

Oh come on. The gays aren't looking for a religious marriage, they want a certificate, a license, saying that they are together forever and they have the rights of any decent couple.

[Napoleon Ier]

Oh come on. The gays aren't looking for a religious marriage, they want a certificate, a license, saying that they are together forever and they have the rights of any decent couple.

This does ignore that a man and a woman can raise a child (no idiotic sterile arguments, they could adopt), whereas gays, unless you are going to assume this in the face of almost every developmental psychological principle ever devised, cannot.
(Having said this, a definition of civil marriage excluding adoption, and I am more than happy, indeed supportive of gay marriage ; a society should be honest with itself and allow them to marry, if it is healthy, individuals will not generally be pushed to this perversion, if it is not healthy, it has no right to stop them).

[Frigidus]

Oh come on. The gays aren't looking for a religious marriage, they want a certificate, a license, saying that they are together forever and they have the rights of any decent couple.

This does ignore that a man and a woman can raise a child (no idiotic sterile arguments, they could adopt), whereas gays, unless you are going to assume this in the face of almost every developmental psychological principle ever devised, cannot.
(Having said this, a definition of civil marriage excluding adoption, and I am more than happy, indeed supportive of gay marriage ; a society should be honest with itself and allow them to marry, if it is healthy, individuals will not generally be pushed to this perversion, if it is not healthy, it has no right to stop them).

Once again you mention these unfounded principles...the only concrete example I can remember is Freud, and looking at every idea he had as true would be no better than taking every idea Darwin had as true. They were both pioneers and had a general grasp on their field, but their views only provided the groundwork, not the particulars, of psychology and evolution. Not to mention that the world at large has been vehemently homophobic until very, very recently. I wouldn't be surprised if there were studies portraying homosexuals as evil (heck, looking back didn't you show a study linking homosexuality and crime?).

[JoeCorden]

Oh come on. The gays aren't looking for a religious marriage, they want a certificate, a license, saying that they are together forever and they have the rights of any decent couple.

This does ignore that a man and a woman can raise a child (no idiotic sterile arguments, they could adopt), whereas gays, unless you are going to assume this in the face of almost every developmental psychological principle ever devised, cannot.
(Having said this, a definition of civil marriage excluding adoption, and I am more than happy, indeed supportive of gay marriage ; a society should be honest with itself and allow them to marry, if it is healthy, individuals will not generally be pushed to this perversion, if it is not healthy, it has no right to stop them).

I don't see why you consider arguments about sterile couples to be idiotic. You are arguing that marriage should be reserved for those who can produce children but the prospect of a heterosexual couple who are sterile having children is the same of a homosexual couple. How can you use your argument against the homosexual couple, but not the heterosexual sterile couple?
(I don't expect anymore answer than you gave to the countless other people who have asked this question but I thought I'd try)

[Napoleon Ier]

Read the post above.

(they [heteros] could adopt), whereas gays, unless you are going to assume this in the face of almost every developmental psychological principle ever devised, cannot.

[JoeCorden]

Read the post above.

(they [heteros] could adopt), whereas gays, unless you are going to assume this in the face of almost every developmental psychological principle ever devised, cannot.

Homosexuals can adopt too.

[Napoleon Ier]

Read the post above.

(they [heteros] could adopt), whereas gays, unless you are going to assume this in the face of almost every developmental psychological principle ever devised, cannot.

Homosexuals can adopt too.

[got tonkaed]

as a public service announcement....

if you are one of the few who may disagree with napoelons views...it is increasingly becoming a waste of time to argue that his collection of scientific sources are not up to date, necessarily relavant, or in fact considered today to be unbiased versions of accepted work. To continue to do so, will only lengthen this thread to the size of some of the other great works in this forums history, and should be your only motivation for doing so.

He has his stance on the issue, and frankly he will not be swayed from his position on it. He has clearly put this position together over the last 20 or so pages, and to continue to badger him on a position he clearly will not change, seems like wasting motion of the fingers.

Thank you, that is all.

[Guiscard]

as a public service announcement....

if you are one of the few who may disagree with napoelons views...it is increasingly becoming a waste of time to argue that his collection of scientific sources are not up to date, necessarily relavant, or in fact considered today to be unbiased versions of accepted work. To continue to do so, will only lengthen this thread to the size of some of the other great works in this forums history, and should be your only motivation for doing so.

He has his stance on the issue, and frankly he will not be swayed from his position on it. He has clearly put this position together over the last 20 or so pages, and to continue to badger him on a position he clearly will not change, seems like wasting motion of the fingers.

Thank you, that is all.

QFT. Best quit this once, I think.

[Frigidus]

as a public service announcement....

if you are one of the few who may disagree with napoelons views...it is increasingly becoming a waste of time to argue that his collection of scientific sources are not up to date, necessarily relavant, or in fact considered today to be unbiased versions of accepted work. To continue to do so, will only lengthen this thread to the size of some of the other great works in this forums history, and should be your only motivation for doing so.

He has his stance on the issue, and frankly he will not be swayed from his position on it. He has clearly put this position together over the last 20 or so pages, and to continue to badger him on a position he clearly will not change, seems like wasting motion of the fingers.

Thank you, that is all.

Advice taken.

[MeDeFe]

Read the post above.

(they [heteros] could adopt), whereas gays, unless you are going to assume this in the face of almost every developmental psychological principle ever devised, cannot.

Homosexuals can adopt too.

Care to elaborate on those principles so we can rip them to shreds as well?

And you still haven't responded to whether a heterosexual couple who plan on not having nor adopting any children should be allowed to marry.

[JoeCorden]

Read the post above.

(they [heteros] could adopt), whereas gays, unless you are going to assume this in the face of almost every developmental psychological principle ever devised, cannot.

Homosexuals can adopt too.

In the face of such stubborn, unfounded idiocy I'll take GT's advice and bow out.

[Dancing Mustard]

No, GT is right. Nappy has dug himself deep into his untenable position and is apparently blind to its flaws, no matter how starkly we throw them into relief. He's been kicked around this thread so many times, by so many different parties, and on so many different issues, that it's hard to imagine he'll ever see sense and concede that his opinion is indeed founded on irrational prejudice and lack of experience. The fact that there's no logically defensible reason for gays not to marry has been roundly proven here, and there's no need to strive for the last word in order to reaffirm that. I for one do not have anymore time to waste, wading through the bilgewater that Msr Nappy appears to intend to keep sloshing through this thread.

Should sensible arguments surface from beneath the rapidly rising tide of crap, then I may perhaps return to contribute. But for now I shall quit the field, content in the knowledge that it is now quite devoid of any worthwhile fruit.

Farewell dear thread; and thanks for the laughs.

[Fieryo]

*sigh* without this thread, I have nothing to look forward to every night. I guess it's back to breaking and entering.

Where did I put my glass cutter?

[suggs]

unitil gay marriage is allowed, gays are being discriminated against.
its a restriction of their personal freedom.

[comic boy]

But mandating an allowance on gay marriage implies that a church has to allow a gay ceremony,

It does? Because I'm sure in my country churches could decide for themselves whether or not to marry gay couples.

In Britain a particular church can refuse to marry a couple for any reason, straight couples have been refused because they are not members of the congregation for example. In practice this tends to happen in the popular,picturesque country churches and in my mind is utterly reasonable.
Whilst it is no business of any religious group to prevent anybody from legally getting married, it should also not be the right of those same people to expect to marry in a church if it is offensive to the regular worshipers.

[suggs]

well, its the cvil bit of getting married that is legally significant, so i guess we should make gay marriage legal, and then leave it to the individual priests.