A quick reiteration of my basic view:
- proud to live in a state that became only the third in the country to grant same sex marriages.
- have yet to hear an even slightly compelling reason to ban same sex marriage
Do we need to delve into this topic? Well...it started...so............?
As the only (?) openly gay man in this whole damn asylum, I'm happy there is a third state that allows me to exercise a certain right that millions and millions of Americans completely take for granted.
As for California...
Well, the voting bloc that came out this year in numbers never before seen (black & hispanic) helped elect Obama, but their cultural heritage is one of, historically, opposition to gay rights. So I understand why Prop 8 flew, even though up until the last month of the cycle it was going down in flames according to all polls.
Personally, I think the idea that a state would do this is absolutely abhorrent. The institution of marriage is just that--an institution. And for all you out there who think that marriage should be between a man and a woman only, God bless you, you're doing just fine, but STOP TAKING YOUR OPINIONS AND TURNING THEM INTO LAWS. California, in the past, banned White/Black marriages. Then when that became legal via the Supreme Court, they banned White/Asian marriages. When that passed through, they banned same-sex marriage. This too shall pass, in much the same way as black people were welcomed into traditionally white schools. The Supreme Court, that band of activist judges, must exercise the authority granted them by the Constitution, and ensure that all people in the United States are treated with the equal brand of justice and protection.
Personally, I couldn't possibly give a shit about what it's called--my people have railed against it being a separate but equal stipulation, such as "Civil Union" instead of "Marriage"--but the rights must exist.
For the Christians in the audience, I'd love to hear why you think you need to legislate your own morality. There are a variety of things stipulated in your Good Book that you follow behind so fervently, but which are NOT LAWS. Adultery, for example, is simply not illegal. Coveting your neighbor's stuff is the reason we have an economy. There is no law to honor your father and mother. There is no law to keep women from wearing two different kinds of fabric at the same time.
These laws that attack me -- and they do -- cannot, will not stand in the future of America. You *will* lose this battle. Absolutely. Clinically. You will lose it, but you demand to go down screaming and biting and cursing, because you cannot understand the world wherein all people are treated equally.
Tyberius Prime
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist with Finglongers
From: Germany Insane since: Sep 2001
posted 11-06-2008 17:25
quote:The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and three hundred sixty-two admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision.
but the push by them to accept that the committed relationship they espouse is equal to the one I share with my husband is irrational and really silly in nature
How many gay couples have you known, Jade?
It would appear...none...
Tyberius, you may be onto something... I mean, "NO GAY MARRIAGE FOR CHRISTIANS" is already, apparently, in the Bible. But that's just not good enough for Christians, who, I guess, just don't believe that their guiding doctrine is actually accurate--they need it in our Constitution.
You Christians confuse the hell out of me. If it's already in your book, why do you need to foist your ideas on everyone else? Is it a recruitment thing, or what?
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 11-06-2008 22:18
quote:jade said:
but the push by them to accept that the committed relationship they espouse is equal to the one I share with my husband is irrational and really silly in nature
Irrational?!
Silly in nature??!!
In what way can a loving relationship between two people be unequal to another two and how can a comparison of them being equal be irrational?
And that goes double for the "silly in nature" comment! I mean...it is natural. Two people love each other. They marry one another because they feel that they are meant for one another and wish to seal this in the bond of Marriage. There is homosexuality documented in nature, btw.
What difference does it make what race, creed, sex they are?
I do have a question to everyone here - how are hermophradites considered in the regard to Marriage (for those not aware of what a hermophradite is, it is someone with both sets of genitals)? Does anyone know what the law says about Marriage for them?
How would you, jade, consider Marriage between two hermophradites? How about you, Bugs?
And that brings up another question for those of a religious bent - if someone has sex with a hermophradite, is that considered a hetrosexual act, or a homosexual act? And what if two hermophradite have sex? What is it then?
What I clearly do not understand, is how anyone can insist that legal rights only apply to them, not due to anything other than because the "others" are different in some manner. Wasn't America built and founded on the idea of Equal Rights? Isn't that why we have the Bill of Rights?
And I quote
quote:Fourteenth Amendment was passed, which stated, in part, that:
? No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I clearly do not understand why anyone who is living in the US, who was born and raised there, or came there and became a citizen, would wish to totally ignore one of the founding blocks upon which the country was built on. I suppose that is why some opposed Obama as President, why some opposed allowing women to vote, allowing different races to vote and be equal citizens, oppose the right of a woman to decide what to do with her body, and insist upon being able to pick and choose who has the right to Marry.
They do not really accept the Bill of Rights, do not really accept America at all. Mind-boggling as that may sound.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
From: The Land of one Headlight on. Insane since: May 2001
posted 11-06-2008 22:24
Marriage is a legally binding contract. That's why you go to court for a divorce not a church. The church stuff is all ritualistic pageantry with no legal standing.
quote: twItch^ said:
As the only (?) openly gay man in this whole damn asylum
There's at least one other. The matter came up a very long time ago in a thread far way.
[quote]
As far as a hermophradite is concerned it's very rare but gender ambiguity is more common than one might think. I get this from my wife who works in a special care nursery.
quote:True hermaphroditism is rare, but the term is commonly used to describe an abnormality called pseudohermaphroditism; those born pseudohermaphroditic may have the appearance of both sets of genitalia.
I have the following questions for anyone opposed to same sex marriage:
1) What about gay marriage do you find problematic?
----1.1 Why do find these things problematic?
----1.2 How do these things affect you and/or society in such a way that it should be banned?
----1.3 How do you differentiate these issues between homosexual couples and the same exact issues in heterosexual couples (in my experience the arguments against gay marriage involve issues common to both homo and hetero sexual couples)
2) What basis do you feel you have to turn the personal objection you have into laws forbidding others from participating in the legal bond of marriage?
quote: twItch^ said:
For the Christians in the audience, I'd love to hear why you think you need to legislate your own morality.
I have been thinking about spelling out my thoughts on the matter on my website, but at the moment I have a number of other things on my plate, so it may take a while. I will say this, tough: please don't assume that all Christians want to legislate morality.
The problem is just that we use the same word for a religious arrangement and a government supervised arrangement... our government, of course, presumably to have separation of church and state. (I mean the real problem is that there are a lot of intolerant & ignorant people out there, but the simplest solution would be to just use two different words or phrases)
It'll be interesting to see how long it is before California allows it again.
I agree reisio. It seems to me that plenty of states allow 'Civil Unions' between members of the same sex (I could be mistaken) It's just the term marraige that gay couple have issues with. I always found 'Marraige' to relate to a religious contract between a man, woman, and god. I personally am in a civil union with my wife. I enjoy the same benefits/detrements as my other 'Married' friends. It seems that if gay couples want to be married they are fighting the wrong group of people. Its the church that disagrees with gays having institutional commitment to each other... the state(s) seem fine with it without calling it marraige... again I don't know how many states allow civil unions between same sex couples but it just seems that the word 'marraige' is not important enough to not have an institutional commitment to someone. Not that I'm so into institutional commitment... I'd like to think my wife knows I'm committed to her without a piece of paper that tells her so.
First to all, I have to ask, ? can we agree, that if there is anything we know for sure, its that there is only one truth in all things in life and beyond in the cosmos? In all, there cannot be a little bit of truth, or a half truth, one side of the truth but simply ?truth.? We know as individuals we base our life on the truth of many things. Its either full truth or not truth at all. Lets look at the definition of truth:
1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5. a. Reality; actuality.
b. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.
Is there a truth that there can be a two mothers of one child biologically? Is there truth you can have two biological fathers for one child?? Is there truth when two males come together intimately, that its called sex. Lets look at the definition of ?sex? from Webster.
either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures2: the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females3 a: sexually motivated phenomena or behavior b: SEXUAL INTERCOURSE4: GENITALIA
How is a marriage consummated in a same sex marriage? Please elaborate.
So here we can agree, when two men (or two women) come together its not considered what Webster or Oxford call ?sex.? So, can we agree what two men (or women) do erotically is not sex..If its not sex.,,,what do you call the act? Please elaborate anyone.
Look what Cornell Law University defines as marriage:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ?marriage? means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ?spouse? refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. ( I have heard many celebrities, etc. refer to each other as spouses as one calling the other wife (Melissa Etheridge refers to her partner a ?wife?)
Is this a truth or a lie? Is she really a wife in every sense of the word it defines: Is Melissa a husband in every sense of what a husband defines.
Wife: 1 adialect : WOMAN b: a woman acting in a specified capacity ?used in combination <fishwife>2: a female partner in a marriage
Husband: : a male partner in a marriage
So,, would you say Melissa Etheridge and her female friend are living a lie. Who?s lie is it?
And Wipedidia? view on marriage:
Marriage is a social, religious, spiritual, or legal union of individuals. This union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding and the married status created is sometimes called wedlock.
Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are acknowledged by the state or by religious authority. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction. If recognized by the state, by the religion(s) to which the parties belong or by society in general, the act of marriage changes the personal and social status of the individuals who enter into it.
People marry for many reasons, but usually one or more of the following: legal, social, and economic stability; the formation of a family unit; procreation and the education and nurturing of children.
The movement to promote nationwide legal gay marriages will suffer defeat as long as those in the movement try to equate gay marriage with the institution of a real marriage union in what it stands for.
Contrary to those on this asylum?s beliefs, the union of heterosexual couples running around as family units was not thought up by the religious. I do not recall reading any science book on the how the caveman mated with his partner and produced offspring. In regard to child rearing how will the child assess the mode in which the genderless like union operates as a partnership. The wellbeing of the child?s emotional, physical, and mental development are dependent upon the role playing of mommy and daddy the child will see at home. Its crucial.. Has anyone read the sciences in regard to the studies in the behaviors of the child reared in a same sex union? When two heterosexual married persons adopt children?do the children still want to know who their biological parents were? Yes.. most times because there is a longing inside their heart to know from whom there were born. Add to that coming from a test tube given from donor sperm to a same sex couple? Add to that going to school for parents night with daddy and daddy, where most everyone else has a mommy and daddy. How does this affect the child? Will they feel odd, insecure, unsure, angry? Will they be picked one? They will have behavioral issues. Their same sex parents will definitely not be able produce a baby brother/sister that this child will be tied to them biologically in the full sense. Maybe be from one partner. The sperm he may have been created from could be from drug dealer, or a person with hereditary dna transmitted diseases or with bad health issues. So let?s pile more confusion on the next generation of people.
Same sex marriage is a copy cat lie of a the ideology of a real marriage institution. There is no truth in it. It lies. It does not benefit society. It handicaps society. Its not for the good of the people for the people. It is only self-serving to the confused individual who loves himself far more than he loves from where he came or where he is going.
You all call those who oppose gay marrige "bigots." You call us Christians. I am ok with being called a Christian. And if you want to label all persons who oppose gay marrige then there must be millions of bigots in California. Christianity is about patience, understanding, love and conversion. I am in all those things. Christianity also calls for strength, wisdom, disclipine. A truthful Christian will not promote gay marriage. He will seek to uphold real marriage. If he does not... he is not a Christian.
First to all, I have to ask, ? can we agree, that if there is anything we know for sure, its that there is only one truth in all things in life and beyond in the cosmos?
Nope. Sorry...
quote: jade said:
Is there truth when two males come together intimately, that its called sex. Lets look at the definition of ?sex? from Webster.
...3 a: sexually motivated phenomena or behavior b: SEXUAL INTERCOURSE...
How is a marriage consummated in a same sex marriage? Please elaborate.
So here we can agree, when two men (or two women) come together its not considered what Webster or Oxford call ?sex.? So, can we agree what two men (or women) do erotically is not sex..If its not sex.,,,what do you call the act? Please elaborate anyone.
Ok, i think you may have some SERIOUS confusion Jade.
Please explain to me how two men, or two women, engaging in "sexually motivated phenomena or behavior" or "SEXUAL INTERCOURSE" does not fit the definition of sex...when it is the definition of sex...that you posted...to support that it isn't sex....?
I can point you to some good films that will demonstrate in very graphic detail if you'd like...
As for the rest of your argument jade, it seems to boil down almost completely to the raising of children, and the conception of children.
So I have to assume then, you feel that heterosexual couples who conceive their children through the help of fertility clinics and surrogate mothers, or heterosexual couples who adopt children because they are unable to conceive are also "living a lie" and are "selfish people who handicap society"?
And heterosexual couples who choose not to have children? They are liars who love themselves more than where they came from as well?
Are we to ban all of these things?
And once again I have to ask Jade...how many gay couples have you known? How much "patience, understanding, and love" have you put into trying to understand where they are coming from? Have you witnessed the damage that gay-marriage bans do to these loving couples?
quote:nutshell, marriage is just a commitment of two persons one for another. Anything else is just folklore and void in the eye of a government
well then why is it so important for gays to have their "committment state approved recgonized"?
in their hearts if they are committed....like some heteros..why the hoopapla. They are trying to make the point that their union should be recgonized like a man/women union. They are trying to change the world in its ideology that gay lifestyle should be acceptable to all.
Some persons I know who are married, ... for income reasons...married in Mexico in a church ceremony. Here they are kinda living together.
To them it matters most the religious cermony in the blessing of the union. Tthey do not care for the state to recgonize their union. Most states recgonize civil gay unions but that is not enough for the gay movement. They want to push the envelope futher. Civil law already allows them benefits required by law same is as if they were heteros. Now, its got so big that, the sleeping giant is awakening in regard to enough is enough. The gay poster ladies, ELlen De'Generra, Lindsay Lohan, and etal. etc. have brought the lifestyle more to the surface in the way of ..."Is this the way we really want the direction of the world to go in? We have that Newsome mayor of San Francisco saying he will take away the tax exempt status of the California churchess if they do not accept marrying gay persons. He did more damage than he could of imagined. You don' tthreaten to close a church because they do not believe like you.
quote:And once again I have to ask Jade...how many gay couples have you known? How much "patience, understanding, and love" have you put into trying to understand where they are coming from? Have you witnessed the damage that gay-marriage bans do to these loving couples?
I know gay persons.. I have a family friend who is very gay(tranvestite). He knows we do not agree with this lifestyle but that does not mean he thinks of us as enemys. He loves us enough to know we l ove him but we do not love his gay lifestyle.. I can separate the act from the person who does the act...contrary to what you think. He comes over for holidays and get togethers.
Ok.. tell me the damage the marriage ban does to gay persons.
Then tell me how a state approved gay union helps gay persons live better lives.
From: there...no..there..... Insane since: May 2001
posted 11-08-2008 01:58
quote: jade said:
Ok.. tell me the damage the marriage ban does to gay persons.
same damage it did to women who could not vote, same damage it did to african americans who couldn't eat at the same places white people did, etc...
It's a right that people have to join together and express their love for one another in a ceremony. And it is recognized by all as that way.
Just remember Jade, that not everyone lives their life as you do or the way in which *you* see fit. Not everyone is a Christian or believes in God. Sometimes Christians forget this simple fact (well...that and many others)
quote: DL-44 said:
So I have to assume then, you feel that heterosexual couples who conceive their children through the help of fertility clinics and surrogate mothers, or heterosexual couples who adopt children because they are unable to conceive are also "living a lie" and are "selfish people who handicap society"?
and you never did answer this question that DL-44 asked. Is that one of those exceptions that you are just going to chalk up to some other excuse?
You don't have to be married in a church by a preacher or priest to make it official. It is still a marriage. My wife and I were married in a castle (yes a real castle) by a justice of the peace. So does that mean that we are not really married? Since it was not "In the eyes of God"??
we could do this argument all year and never come to a resolve. If I'm not mistaken we did this same thing not long ago.
We claim as human beings to grow and advance and yet we can't get over some of the most simple things such as this. Everything advances in our lives around us and yet things such as religion still hold us back. And yes, it does hold back with this form of thought.
It saddens me really. To think that people are so closed minded and are prejudice towards others. Have we not grown past this? This is the freakin 21st century. Good grief!
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 11-08-2008 11:53
Jade, I hope you have a much better reason against Homosexual marriage than those that you have given so far.
Because what you have posted so far, is clearly just a smoke screen for your true reasons(s).
Either that, or as DL has mentioned, you have really serious issues.
In what way would allowing Homosexuals to marry affect you? I think this is your main stumbling block - you are unable to answer this question (at least, you haven't addressed it yet).
As for why it is important for Homosexuals to Marry - I would wager that they have as many reasons as Heterosexual couples that wish to marry. I mean, you know, they are human beings, after all.
Just like you and me.
That means that they are ENTITLED to the same rights as you and I are.
And as TwItch^ has pointed out, they will get them. It may take awhile, to wear down the resistance of those like you - those who resist being educated. The more who are educated, the more will cease to oppose giving equal rights to others.
I personally will rejoice on that day, because I know that the US will be again one step closer to reaching that lofty goal that the Founding Fathers envisioned - a Country where all are considered and treated equally under the LAW.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
From: 127 Halcyon Road, Marenia, Atlantis Insane since: Aug 2000
posted 11-08-2008 17:00
I don't know why you guys rail against Jade so vehemently. Everyone knows she is absolutely right!
Notice above, where she says, "Contrary to those on this asylum?s beliefs, the union of heterosexual couples running around as family units was not thought up by the religious. I do not recall reading any science book on the how the caveman mated with his partner and produced offspring."
This is the most important point above all. Everyone knows that human beings did not make any type of romantic or even tribal unions before they guiding light of organized religion. I dare you to show me one grade school science book that shows cavemen/women fucking. Admit you can't- because it never happened.
And stop giving her a hard time about not justifying her true motivations. She's only scared that you won't accept her real concerns- so I'll say them aloud:
Gay Sex Is Yucky. That's right- ESPECIALLY Twitch^ + gay friend. And Jade is a girl- which means she can even find lesbian sex yucky, a problem most men around the world can't seem to surmount.
And, again- Jade's right. Linsey Lohan was *SO* homosexual. Aaron Carter is openly a woman. The thought of him and her sleeping together is disturbing enough to be in the Constitution.
quote:In what way would allowing Homosexuals to marry affect you?
WS, seriously, you don't know!?
Before you know it we'll have rampant polygamy, beastiality, pedophilia, and maybe even certain sects of humans who marry robots and other lifeless objects. Maybe even plants - I know I've had my eyes on this beautiful maple in my back yard for some time now. Eventually, you will have worldwide orgies in the streets, societal breakdown on a massive scale, all morals out the window. Without the guidance of God, the human race will ultimately devolve into uncaring and unthinking animals, and if we don't become extinct through the spread of evil, we will go extinct because nobody is breeding anymore . Aside from all that, if we allow gay marriage, then the terrorists win.
Anyways, the fundamental problem is that some people just can't separate their mythology from reality nor emotions from rational thought. All I know is I can't wait for the Second Coming so Jesus can clear this shit up.
Ok.. tell me the damage the marriage ban does to gay persons. Then tell me how a state approved gay union helps gay persons live better lives.
As poi as already mentioned, I wanted to restate this issue, because I personally believe that this is the most pragmatic answer.
Marriage or civil unions are important to couples be it straight or gay, for reasons both legal and economic, to have this right taken away or refused to a couple puts them and the people that they are responsible for (children) at a great disadvantage to the rest of society.
Now religious marriage is another matter entirely and offers different benefits.
As I said in the previous topic this popped up in and as reisio said in here, there are at least two kinds of marriage, civil and religious, unfortunately the same word is used for both, and although they are concerned with similar things such as union, they are actually very different.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 11-10-2008 14:45
quote: Ramasax said:
quote:In what way would allowing Homosexuals to marry affect you?WS, seriously, you don't know!?Before you know it we'll have rampant polygamy, beastiality, pedophilia, and maybe even certain sects of humans who marry robots and other lifeless objects. Maybe even plants - I know I've had my eyes on this beautiful maple in my back yard for some time now. Eventually, you will have worldwide orgies in the streets, societal breakdown on a massive scale, all morals out the window.
That sounds good to me!
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
I just need to point out that all the homosex I've had has been remarkably enjoyable for all parties, including those watching live throughout the world, as well as those reading the transcripts afterward. I've received good marks for all my performances, with particular focus placed on my preference not to swear. That has improved my rating among suburban mothers.
Anyway, jade, you're allowed to disagree. That's just great. But you do know you're gonna lose, right? This is the country that just elected a black man to the highest office in the land. That glass ceiling has been shattered. So, too, will this ceiling. It's coming, and our righteousness is justified and unrelenting.
The more you fight, the more you help us remove the religious aspect from "marriage." The more you fight, the more likely it is that all these other marriages committed in the history of America will become "civil unions" instead of "marriages" because you made us remove absolutely all religious connotation from the ceremony.
The more you fight, the more you cheapen your own unions (as though the ~60% divorce rate hasn't already done that). My indignation comes from a lifetime spent as a third-class citizen by the fundamentalists who escaped from Britain 200 years ago fleeing the yoke of oppression and rights handed out partially and to the wealthiest and most accepted first. Will I ever actually marry? I don't know, my personality isn't really one that too many people can stay with for too long. But I deserve the right to do so, should it come to that.
What do you say to the thousands of gay couples whose marriages were just determined to be invalid? Suck it up?
Lets take God / Religion out of this debate, since many of those on this asylum use religion for the reasons I am anti-gay marriage. That would be another post coming. Maybe I am not highly educated like many of you, but it does not take a really educated person not to figure out and look beyond like in crystal ball?to see gay marriage undermining family life as we know it..and its effects on our society.
No doubt the liberal media (news) and Hollywood is defining and educating the masses on the how great and wonderful our great nation would be if we just accepted gay marriage. Their ideology is the world would be a better loving accepting place of equal rights and tolerance. It this right?
And look.. we have chosen an African American president. How far have we come. And this is a good thing I believe.
But, I cannot equate the vision of tolerance in equality by electing an African American president to the tolerance in equality of accepting gay marriage. They are both totally different issues in regard to equality and tolerance affecting our great nation. We, that are against gay marriage are labeled as homophobic bigots by the liberal media and liberal government elected officials. This accusation is made with the stamped approval of the gay and lesbian movement with glee and pride. They want the world to know that we are indeed all stupid uneducated homophobic bigots, just because we will not accept, ?. not the issue in the TRUTH of what they biologically are, but what they choose to call themselves regarding how they act inside and outside the bedroom in pursuit of their individual happiness in what they choose to call married family life. What they are trying to do is to reform the traditional marriage union. Can anyone see the results of the long term effects of ok to gay marriage? Who is the next group to change marriage definition? Group marriage advocates like polygamist? You cannot deny them their civil rights to pursue happiness like the gays/lesbians want. After the polygamist get their day in court, marriage will be transformed in relationships linking two, three, or more persons in every conceivable combinations of male and female. What about three females and one male married to one man. Or five men married to each other? Does this seem far fetched? Will this be put on a ballot in the near future? I recently heard there is an underground organized movement growing seeking legal recognition for group marriage nationwide. I believe in reality there lies a movement to weaken the institution of the traditional marriage of monogamy. They, in the Lesbian/Gay rights movement think its silly to assume the passing of legalizing same sex marriage would lead to a slippery slope passage of group marriage act. Think how group marriage would affect monogamy in traditional marriage in the divorcing because of adultery. There would be no married fidelity. What if you go outside the marriage and have sex with a non-wife / husband. Can one of them decide to divorce others in the marriage. And who would they be divorcing. All of them. You can?t be faithful to just one man or woman. You have to be faithful to all of your spouses. Ha?this is really funny. The polygamist advocates are just waiting for the outcome of same sex marriage passage to pursue their agenda too. To me this is why opening the way of passage for same sex marriages will lead to the erosion and deteroiation of society as we know it. So I take offense to this push for same sex marriage in the name of preserving our society. Society depends on stable families. A monoganus famiy unit is at the core of preserving our society of life and its many cultures on the planet.
quote:What do you say to the thousands of gay couples whose marriages were just determined to be invalid? Suck it up?
No...I would say. sorry your were dissapointed. I would give them no words of encouragement in hopefully things will change. I believe in the tolearance of loving you for who you are as a person, but not loving the act placed upon the beautiful piece of created anatomy given to you and others.
There is a MASSIVE difference between Gay Marriage and Polygamy in America, Jade. Not the only reason, (but one of the most significant) is that polygamy (to my knowledge) is illegal be default and gay marraige was NOT illegal until people passed laws to make it so.
Regardless of this, why are you so up in arms about a TITLE. If people live their lives as though they were in a group marriage/Gay Marriage/etc... how is that different then a state recognized union? It isn't, you've said so yourself. We might as well be argueing that their should be ANY recognized unions at all, much less state recognized ones. Lets return to the days where religious union gain you nothing with the state. That'd level the playing field too. You aren't protecting anything, Jade. The Sanctity of Marriage is in its acceptance and faith in God by the people being married. It is not something that can be taken away or tainted by the actions of the faithless.
Recognizing a RELATIONSHIP (for that is what we are discussing here, NOT SEX) does not make that RELATIONSHIP more valid. It makes us more tolerant people. It is one thing to not like a person's lifestyle and love them anyway and quite another to love them without qualification. Is it not mandated by your faith to love others and help them be happy in any way you can, bring them to God no less? I've got a secret for you, Jade. Lots of Gay people believe in God. Many of them believe they will go to hell for who they are but they love God anyway. I don't see you bringing someone who has accepted who they are as a Gay person to God. Love them? Sure, you can do that if you don't have to accept them. Right now the only way I can see you helping is by minding your own damn business. Let God judge those for the actions THEY have taken. Do not presume to act in Gods best interest.
Now don't take this to mean that I am unfaithful or Pro Gay. I'm not. I believe in God and I believe God's business is God's business, NOT MINE. I also disagree with many Gay movements, not because I don't agree with the goal, I disagree with the methods. I strive to be tolerant of rights that ought to belong to everyone by their right of being HUMAN.
The God you believe in, is it the Christian God. If it is, your ideology is in conflict with his in his teachings. According to your ideology I am going to hell for not accepting the gay lifestyle because I am not loving to gays. I am the one who does not see God?s vision for living in harmony and happiness. For you to not see changing the laws to re-define marriage is not the opening up of a pandora?s box of a hugh deep unending wells of confusion and deceit is a blindness. Don?t think for one minute that your not infringing on the rights of a person to live in a harmony by thinking gay marriages are ok. Many have their own idea of a harmony that don?t agree with yours.
Right now there are demonstrations all over California at churches, because the gays are upset at organized religion. They believe they are the cause of the proposition passing. So if you cannot see the writing on the wall, you need to take a closer look. There is a battle of good and evil going on. Spiritual warfare. And its going to get worse. Not better.
I read the Christian savior clearly points he cares for all regardless of how we are blind in our vision. He loves unconditionally, like a parent loves a child, even if he has to reprimand a child and punish the child when he does wrong. Yeah.. I still love my children when I punish an scold them.. and yeah.. they love me too. Same point with God. So all your telling me is that gays have the capacity to love and be loved. You, me and not even God can tell us who or how to love. Right? You should know if you indeed are a Christian we are called to be ?our brothers keeper? in love and in prayer and in good works. Have you ever visited a homosexual person dying of aids? Have you ever hugged them? Have you ever cleaned their dirty diaper and clean their black spotted legs when they get poops all over it. I have. There is so much beauty in serving a person who is ill or sick. When I helped out serving this man, I did not see gay or homosexual, I saw Jesus in his face. I too have the capacity to love a gay person contrary to your belief. I don?t think God would want for me to ?mind my own dam business? and not help clean up him and his bed. Your trying to point out to me as a mean moral police and if that is what you want to think of me, that it your business. But I don?t feel like I am lacking in my understanding of how God would want me to behave. Its because I love Jesus that I find it heartfelt sick and sad that the human body he created for dignity and love is abused in the most vile and offensive way. It makes a mockery of the created beauty human in it all its fullness. I don?t believe God wants me to be doormat and be in-active in his call to grace. If I see a wrong, I want to make it a right and it that makes a gay person upset.. I sorry to not be sorry about it. Go ahead and live your life according to your ideal regarding gay marriage and family life. They are not my beliefs and I think we can agree to disagree how we want to world to grow and become.
You really do not understand what living in a free society means Jade, after all these years. That's just sad. Seriously, if you truly want to change the world, try living by example rather than worrying about what other people are doing. It is none of your business, and from my interpretation of the NT, the core message was of personal salvation, a philosophy to live your life by, and it had nothing to do with FORCING other people to live like you think they should. Maybe I missed the story about Jesus petitioning the Roman government to pass his morals on others, but I don't think so. Government is force, and you aspire to use that force for Chrsitianty, in your god's name? That's just not right...
The brand of Christianity being practiced by many today in this country is driving more and more people away from your god. You may blame it on Satan or the ...cough..."liberal media", but it is because people are getting really sick and tired of self-righteous, judgmental, closed-minded people butting into their business and trying to dictate to them how they should live. It's bullshit and it has to stop.
And if you want to talk about the degradation of society, let's examine the effects legislating morality can have. No, that never caused any harm. Do you really want to live in a theocracy?
I did not say I advocate Gay Marriage. The closest to that that I have come is stating that it is the church that has issues allowing gays to enter into an official union with each other. Civil Unions are recognized in several states. What I advocate is a live and let live mentality that shows we are capable of being decent to each other and better than society makes us.
I don't think you are going to hell because you don't accept the gay lifestyle. I think you are going to hell because you don't live like Christ. You don't act like someone who aspires to live like Christ, which is the best that we can do. To act in accordance with your presumption of Gods will is to sin in pride that you know the will and way of God. I am not aware of an instance of Christ badgering the unwilling into submission. Christ arrived, Christ spoke. The willing came, the unwilling didn't. Christ moved on. Can you not live your life in such a graceful way?
Akin to what Ramasax is saying... I have an analogy for you.
Proselytization should be something like this:
A Christian in the far distance is yelling something to me. I can't make it all out but if I am interested i will move closer to hear more. Now that I am closer the Christian speaks loudly enough for me to hear. If i like what i hear I'll move closer so i can hear more. Now that I am closer still the Christian talks to me and lets me know what I need to know. His final whisper to me as he pulls me near is that I must make my own choice and that God loves me always.
Proselytization as it is today:
A Christian in the far distance is screaming at me. I choose not to listen so the Christian moves closer. The Christian is still screaming at me, close enough now that my head hurts. I ignore the Christian. The Christian stands in front of me. The Christian screams at me still until I go deaf to the Christians words.
The basic moral of this analogy is that the bible teaches us that the willing are won over with a nudge, not a shove and the unwilling aren't won over at all.
You still don't get the point, Jade. Yes, I have cared for people with aids (not to the physical extent you have but no matter), the only difference was that it was a heterosexual person I cared for. Their sexual persuasion aside... we both cared for sick people... is that supposed to make us more righteous, more correct? It doesn't. It is our duty by faith or basic human decency. Yes, I care for people. I hope they prove to me that we, as a species, can improve. I also accept them for who and what they are and let them be that despite my preferences.
But... to answer your initial question, Jade. My God is all Gods. Lack of proof distills to freedom of choice. I choose God, the only God, of many faces and one message accepted by most in the fashion that helps them be better people. So, Yes, My God is the Theological Ideal of the Christian God and I follow the examples set forth in the bible and the tenets of the christian faith. I try and follow the major tenets and Theological Ideals of all faiths... after all the research I have done (admittedly, I've forgotten a lot of it) most religions, even the man created ones (which would be most religions) say basically the same thing. "Be nice to one another and you will be rewarded." I believe that statement has been true for far longer than we were able to write that it was truer than someone elses version of it.
Well you're in luck - they start today here in CT (I think...).
And I'm a bit hard up these days...a few drinks and who knows
quote: GrythusDraconis said:
Can I get in on that Marriage, twItch^? Lets get this gay, group, polygamous ball rolling! GD
Might as well throw Krets' dog in the mix too, especially since twitch^ already consummated that relationship
Of course, we'll need at least one woman too...who's game?
Blaise - you know I wasn't actually asking, right? Just checking...
That Keith Olbermann's video was soooooo funny.. I thought he was about to weep many times and then he didn't. Such a passionate deep love for his fellow man.. Does he really think anyone would give a flip about what his opinion is or what he thinks.. just because he is on tv. Just like you guys don't give a flip about my opinion because it doesn't agree with yours or his. One thing I can surely see, ...Parts of him live in the closet. My odds are he has had a homosexual experience. His passion for the disbelief of the passage gives him away. And he sorta reminds me of many on this forum who are so heartfelt passionate about their fellow gays. When I sent the video to my friends they thought the same thing.
quote:don't think you are going to hell because you don't accept the gay lifestyle. I think you are going to hell because you don't live like Christ. You don't act like someone who aspires to live like Christ, which is the best that we can do. To act in accordance with your presumption of Gods will is to sin in pride that you know the will and way of God. I am not aware of an instance of Christ badgering the unwilling into submission. Christ arrived, Christ spoke. The willing came, the unwilling didn't. Christ moved on. Can you not live your life in such a graceful way?
You know GD, you really don't see me act... you don't really know me in person.... day to day.... and wow.... just because I don't agree with you, you have sentenced me to hell. Nevermind that I have never commited murder, adultrey, theft, prostitution, or am guilty of the seven deadly sins. I just have a differnce of opinion from you and that qualifies me as a canidiate for hell. According to how you view your faith in your God, I've got my green card to haddies. Well, I am not perfect and I surely will have to spend lots of time purging for my offenses in the eyes of God, but, I would never ever go so far as to say any one, gay or straight is going to the firey pit because they do not live like me. You don't come across as a loving Christian to me accroding to the Christian bible...What about love the sinner, hate the sin.. Or am I excluded and you don't love me cause I don't think like you. You need to look in the mirror, because you accusing me of what you are.....intolerant to those that do not share your views.
I wonder why there are more homosexual men than there are lesbians. I think the ratio is like 10 to 1. In my opinion from what I have read, I see that many straight men are more prone to accept the gay lifestyle, because they do not see the effects of what the lifestyle does to the human spirit/soul, but more in what they mostly see in it the erotic pleassures they can get. They don't see male, or female.. They see the act as a way of gratifying themselves sexually above being concerned with who or what they use. It seems it reveals that many straight/gay men are in more intouch with their animal nature as opposed to women. I mean, women don't frequent brothels, bath houses, neighborhood parks or cyberspace looking for sex a much as men do. That is why I believe some straight men (remember not all) think to be gay is ok.
Herein lies the difference between how we view people, Jade. I do not measure people by what i believe. I measure people by what THEY believe. If they cannot live to the standards they set for themselves... why on earth should I expect them to live up to mine. Your faith decrees that one should live their life like Christ and through Christ's sacrifice and grace you will be entered unto heaven. His is the way and the door and none shall come to me excpept through him. (paraphrased) Your actions here in this thread and on this forum have shown a pattern of belief that includes intolerance of anything that does not fit into your biblical view of the world. You walk through these situations dropping statements and not answering questions that are directed at helping you view things more openly. Namely, how many gay couples do you know and also How does a gay couple being married do ANYTHING to you?
Now to get down to the nuts and bolts of it... I do not condsider myself a follower of any religion so technically I am not a Christian. I do believe in the ideals of Christianity however. I don't really think you are going to hell. I don't believe in hell, or heaven for that matter. I believe those are gifts and punishments created to control the masses. The reality is, if you feel you've done wrong, YOU think you're going to hell. As I mentioned above, it does me no good to measure a person by my beliefs. The only true measure of a person is by what they believe and how they act on it. It appears to me that what you believe causes you to live out of harmony with others because you refuse to accept the differences between us.
I don't agree with you. I don't hate you. I don't want you to live like me. I want you to live like Christ, as your beliefs should guide you to do. The only thing I am intolerant of are people who can't live in a world without shaping that world to their wants. If we just let it alone and lived life as we would, we would all get closer to that ethereal 'peace' thing we all claim to want. Well, damnit, if you act like you want to make the world that way... well... we just might accomplish something. Wouldn't that be a fine day when people get along despite their differences because what you believe just doesn't impact me at all and what I believe just doesn't impact you at all. What a fine day that would be. I strive for it, belive in it. I don't know if I'll witness it. Christ as an ideal... I don't think i'll ever be able to be that... but damnit I'm going to try and in trying I just might become a better person. This is what I hope for you and everyone, regardless of what you believe, live by it and may it help you be a better person.
I think your hypothesis is interesting regarding the men/women aspect of acceptence of gays. I would agree that most men are more focused on gratification than emotion regarding sex. I think your hypothesis starts to break down regarding women not frequenting places such as brothels, cyberspace, etc. My reasoning is this... They don't have to. With a population of gratification hungry men they just need to be available. Women have always been in control of the 'free' relationship, they make the choice of what they want and when. Men just make it easy. While I don't know the demographic of men vs women accepting gays, I personally would think that more women would accept gays than men because they have suffered the intolerance of others and fought (are fighting) to overcome that intolerance. I would think they understand the want for equal rights and would accept and support those who were fighting to gain theirs.
1. So, just because Olbermann had an impassioned plea to his fellow man to treat each other with respect and decency, you think he is, if not actively, than passively or partially gay? I can't even begin to touch that one.
2. If you think homosexuality makes you spiritually bereft... holy crap, that's naive. First, look at most of the music produced for God in the past two thousand years. Many of those spiritual key-masters were openly gay, others it was recorded later they were. The great poets. The great literature of the world, often penned by gay men and women.
3. If you are so eager to pen my lifestyle into mere sexual gratification, I will do the same to you. Your lifestyle is cold, sterile, and meaningless. Your beliefs say that women are naught but baby factories--pleasure dumpsters for their male owners. You are ignorant of the world around you. Your beliefs exist outside the normal boundaries of evolution, and your kind will die off, pitiless and pointless. Your relationships are empty, and you are likely a homosexual.
Yes, jade, you are likely a homosexual.
I said it.
You're gay.
Totally queer.
After all, if someone issuing a plea to his fellow man to accept gay people as people first and gay second means that person is gay, I'll take the opposite tack and say that if you violently oppose the acceptance of homosexuality in America, you're quite likely gay. Thankfully, I'm a much better person than you, so I will not cast you into the pits of fire and brimstone. Because your imaginary friend in "heaven" and his imaginary enemy in "hell" do not exist. Instead, I can treat you with the respect I give to all humans. But since you're clearly a blind, malicious bastard, I will add to that respect a healthy dose of mockery. You amuse me. You're an artifact of the Puritan lifestyle that first brought people to this country. You are a palimpsest, under whose modern words and turns of phrases can be found the scratches of ancient hatred and mistrust. You are a dying breed, a species not worth saving.
Also, jade... you're gay.
Most importantly, I'm lucky that I'm not an intolerant asshole like you.
I wonder why there are more homosexual men than there are lesbians. I think the ratio is like 10 to 1. In my opinion from what I have read, I see that many straight men are more prone to accept the gay lifestyle, because they do not see the effects of what the lifestyle does to the human spirit/soul, but more in what they mostly see in it the erotic pleassures they can get.
ok... iam done.. i wanted to stir the pot cause it has been really boring on the asylum here lately...just thought i would drop in to stir some emotion.
yep...you guys still have some life left in you.
i am sure bugs will take up where I left off only his post will no doubt be well thought out and recieved.
Yeah, it's fun to stir the pot. You gonna go after black people next?
quote:
Genesis 9:25-27: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave'. "
Noting, of course, that it was accepted by theologians that Canaan settled in Africa. The dark skin of Africans became known as the "curse of Ham" and therefore justified slavery. And by "justified slavery" I mean they used it to justify HUNDREDS OF YEARS OF SLAVERY.
i am sure bugs will take up where I left off only his post will no doubt be well thought out and recieved
I've been doing a lot of thinking about this subject for a while now to be sure. I doubt my position on this will be well received but that should never be the point anyways. We're here to share our ideas and thoughts. We should all treat each other with respect and only attack ideas we disagree with and not people.
My problem with this particular topic is it's becoming much like the abortion debate where people are so emotionally charged on the issue that rational discussion is literally obscured. I think this thread pretty much demonstrates some of that.
Personally this is a tricky one because my faith is crystal clear on the subject of homosexuality but how my faith affects my duty to society is less clear. I have to ask myself whether or not making same-sex marriage the norm for our society will hurt or help that society in the long run. This is really the crux of the matter for me. At this point it is coming down to the issue of children and the next generation and how they weigh against the personal rights of adult couples. This is very similar to the abortion problem in that it's a choice between personal rights of women versus the life of a nascent human.
From: The Land of one Headlight on. Insane since: May 2001
posted 01-07-2009 21:13
quote: Bugimus said:
duty to society
This duty should, in my opinion, ensure that laws and policies not be influenced by any flavor of relgion.
It's freedom FROM religion. Not OF.
btw what kinda of kite were you flying the other day. dual or single line? I haven't quite figured out the twitter biz yet. Must be something to do with my advanced years. =)
___________________________________________________________________________
?Privatize the Profits - Socialize the Losses.? Randi Rhodes
quote: NoJive said:
It's freedom FROM religion. Not OF.
Actually, it's both: it's the freedom to hold whatever religious beliefs you choose, or to abstain from religion altogether. Changing the "of" to "from" is swinging too far in the other direction.
From: The Land of one Headlight on. Insane since: May 2001
posted 01-08-2009 15:51
quote: Suho1004 said:
Changing the "of" to "from" is swinging too far in the other direction.
I always stand to be corrected but I thought freedom from, was what brought the first settlers to America. Were they not escaping from the rules of a church which were law of the land?
Yes you are free to practice the religion of your choice but I thought the basic premise was your government was to be free from religion.
___________________________________________________________________________
?Privatize the Profits - Socialize the Losses.? Randi Rhodes
Bugs, the reason that you will never convince me, and I will never convince you is summed up perfectly in what you said: "My faith is crystal clear on the subject of homosexuality."
You worry about how much this will "hurt" society. That's because your faith is crystal clear. You know, from your Good Book, that my lifestyle is evil and wicked, and will bring down society. Unfortunately, there's just no evidence of that. Massachusetts continues to exist, to this day. Similarly, your Good Book tells you that the earth we live on is around 5,000 years old, may well be flat, and is at the center of the universe. Unfortunately, there are mountains of evidence to the contrary. But that doesn't matter to you, because your faith is crystal clear.
And comparing this whole issue to abortion is fallacious at best. We're not talking about the definition of when life begins. Rather, we're discussing whether or not some people should be allowed to live their lives the way they feel best suits them. In much the same way as you're allowed to believe in a magical father figure who lives in the sky, I should be allowed to marry a goat if I so desire.
Why is that?
Because, at the end of the day, those choices do not impact anyone else's life. You can believe any number of fascinating things about fossils being created by God as a test of faith, or that people used to live upwards of 800 years at a time. You're allowed to think that Noah built a big boat on which he put two of each animal so that he could sail off during a flood that completely covered the planet. You're allowed to believe all that and more, because that's your God-given, government-supported right.
I'm never, ever, ever, ever going to tread on your right to believe whatever you want. THE MOMENT that you transcend belief and put that into action, wherein you take your beliefs and push them onto MY world view... Well, that's when you've crossed your God-given, government-supported rights. You've taken a piece of my right to pursue happiness. You've infringed on my God-given right to live my life the way I choose, to exercise my own free will.
And that, my dear friend, is when you exit the realm of faith, and enter the realm of fear-mongering. It is a very small step from saying homosexuals should not be afforded the rights of everyone else to Muslims are evil people and should be wiped off the face of the planet, or perhaps, enslaving the blacks is for their own good, as they lack the purity of the White Man, and maybe just an inch away from the Jews should be placed in camps where we can keep an eye on them. And I feel no shame in calling you out on it.
Please, continue to think that a marriage I would enter into with another man is going to destroy the fabric of society. PLEASE. Continue to read your Good Book and derive great moral principles and elitist propaganda. Please, endure the slings and arrows of unbelievers. Shape your life by the stories told in your stories. That is my gift to you. You're welcome.
Now, give me the same fucking rights. Just because I won't be reading the same book DOESN'T MAKE MY LIFE ANY LESS GOD-LIKE than yours.
I always stand to be corrected but I thought freedom from, was what brought the first settlers to America. Were they not escaping from the rules of a church which were law of the land?Yes you are free to practice the religion of your choice but I thought the basic premise was your government was to be free from religion.
This is a very misunderstood issue on many levels.
1) the "founding fathers" that we talk so often about were a very different group of people than the first settlers who were their ancestors.
2) there were two very distinct groups of settlers who comprised those ancestors - the puritans of New England and the Jamestown group and their followers in Virginia. To count the Puritans as the founders of the United States will do nothing but confuse things.
3) The Puritans were hardly fleeing persecution (it could as easily be argued that they were the persecutors in Europe), and were hardly looking to found a nation free from religion. The goal was precisely to found a nation based on and run via the premise of their particular and inflexible view of religion.
Freedom of religion (and freedom from religion) was a much later view. By the time of the founding of our nation, Deism was far more prevalent among the leading men than christianity, and they were sure to shape their government accordingly.
1) what is it that makes your faith "absolutely clear" about homosexuality? (Bearing in mind the obvious ridiculousness of the extremely over-cited leviticus passage)?
2) what is it about same-sex marriage that you think will harm society?
3) do you agree that homosexuality, both in terms of sexual relations and in terms of long term monogamous relationships will not be in any way reduced in society by laws that ban same-sex marriages?
4) given the absolute clarity of your faith in regard to homosexuality, what do think should be done in regard to the open and tolerated homosexuality in our society?
5) you mention in the other thread that there were "compelling arguments" on both sides of this issue. I replied that I had yet to hear any compelling arguments against the allowance of same-sex marriage. What do you offer as such?
I thought the basic premise was your government was to be free from religion
I suppose it's a matter of perspective. Looking at it from the perspective of the government, I guess you could say it is freedom "from" religion. Looking at it from an individual perspective, I guess you could say we have freedom "of" religion--that is, the freedom to hold religious beliefs or not. I think we probably agree on this, though: however you word it, Americans should be free to believe what they want without interference from the government.
Suho, this is actually one of the reasons that the Christians get so worked up about the issue of marriage recognition. They firmly believe that if/when the government recognizes gay marriage, it is an infringement on their right to practice their faith, as they believe such a recognition is an attack on their fundamental belief structures.
So, by recognizing the marriage, their own rights are being infringed upon.
The solution, actually, is to merely STOP ALL GOVERNMENT RECOGNITION OF MARRIAGE. In so doing, all rights would be brought into alignment, and no one's faith can be considered harmed. Christians can continue to have Christian marriages, Muslims can continue to have Muslim marriages, Jews can continue having Jewish marriages, and the homosexuals can squeeze in wherever there are left-leaning parishes/synagogues/temples/churches/etc that wish to recognize their marriages.
The government's involvement comes in if the pairing in question wants to have tax liabilities and end of life decision making powers, and all that sort of stuff--the truly civil actions. And for those, you just gotta have a certificate signed by a justice of the peace. And this is where Obama wants to take us, and this is where the Fundamentalists are pushing us, and this is the inevitable outcome.
Unfortunately for those who are fighting it, this is going to remove a lot of the government sponsored recognition that they should have never received. But as the primary purpose of government is to protect the minority from the majority, this is just how things go. The powerful must give up certain things to the weak, the majority must accede to the minority. Without this balance, without this protection, we as a civilization fall.
From: The Land of one Headlight on. Insane since: May 2001
posted 01-09-2009 19:11
quote: twItch^ said:
tax liabilities and end of life decision making powers, and all that sort of stuff--the truly civil actions
This is the sort of thing that troubles me most. I know this couple who've been together forever and 6 days and one is suffering with early onset alzhiemers..has for several years now and clearly he's in decline. The other not only has to suffer what Nancy Regan called "The Long Goodbye" (the only thing that woman ever said that made any sense btw) but the other had to go through hell to make sure all "paper work" was in order. If you're committed you're committed. Why should it be any different for a homosexual couple than it is for a heterosexual couple? Makes no sense.
quote: twItch^ said:
I should be allowed to marry a goat if I so desire.
One way to get kids. ~rimshot~
___________________________________________________________________________
?Privatize the Profits - Socialize the Losses.? Randi Rhodes
From: Out on the Sea of Madness... Insane since: Dec 2003
posted 02-18-2009 07:03
Interesting. I've been away from the Asylum for ages now, come back and find a thread on gay marriage where jade is still posting batshit insane things and there's no consensus.
Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose, n'est-ce pas?
(Or something like that, my French is old and rusty now from disuse.)
From: Out on the Sea of Madness... Insane since: Dec 2003
posted 02-19-2009 19:00
quote: twItch^ said:
oh, there's a consensus... I FUCKING WIN, MAN. I WIN!1!!!-S
Only if you make a yaoi manga of it, then I'll agree that U R TEH WINNAH!!
Thanks, WebShaman. Came looking for something and decided to poke around the Silliness forum and found this. I have to remind myself to check dates before I reply to threads though; don't want to necro some months old posts.
I should be allowed to marry a goat if I so desire.
quote: NoJive said:
One way to get kids. ~rimshot~
LOL! While that's so bad it's hilarious, the real difference here is that both parties are not obviously consenting. How can one prove that a goat has consented to own half of all your worldly goods?
_____
I thought this thread had died a death already.
My worthless opinion is that gay marriage is no more silly than the institution of marriage (as it stands) full stop. That there are small-minded bigots out there who feel that their superstitious nonsense should have any bearing on what, by all accounts, should be a civil matter is merely a reflection of their need to impose the rules (or those rules they've selected from a great number of contradictory passages) of their chosen cult upon the rest of the world at large.
I thoroughly believe that state and church should be distinct and distinguishable. The state serves the people (or bloody-well should) and the people want the right to a legal interest in the ones they love - this should be enough to make heterosexual and homosexual marriage indistinguishable by law.
A belief I feel should be shared, that I have no qualms about imposing upon others, is that all humans have the right to live with the same rights and freedoms as every other human. They should not be distinguishable by law, in sex, colour or creed.
Of course, I'm probably a hypocrite, and personally, I don't respect all people's beliefs. If my neighbour beat his wife and kids on a daily basis, it wouldn't matter one iota if he argued "it's my right, as it's allowed in my culture/religion". I don't give a shite if he thinks that some blah-thousand year-old preacher has final say on whether or not he can class his wife as sub-human - I'll still kick his door in and throw him through the window. His beliefs would contradict my sense of right and wrong... the difference for me is that my sense of right and wrong are not driven by some drivel penned by an aging cult.
Ah, crap. I don't even know where I'm going with this, but I do know I could go a lot further without contending with Jade for the crazy crown...
posted 11-06-2008 16:31
