Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

If you're a cocksman or slut, there isn't one; you're still basing your raison d'être on how you scratch your itch. But Christians are supposed to be neither, nor are they supposed to live to screw.

So we agree that promiscuous people (whether homo or hetero) go against God's intent for us (according to the Bible), since they are putting their focus on the wrong thing.

So now, how does a homosexual being attracted to members of the same sex means he has "formed his identity around his sexuality", but a heterosexual person being attracted to members of the other sex doesn't?

How is a homosexual who wants to be in a committed relationship "forming his identity around his sexuality", but a heterosexual person who wants to be in a committed relationship isn't?

It's like saying two black people shouldn't be able to get married because black people "form their identity around robbing liquor stores and not Christ like the Bible demands". Sure, some do, but so do some white people, and that doesn't seem to preclude them from the title.

You can't take the degenerates from one group and compare them to the upstanding people in the other as justification. That just makes no sense.

 

[KillerAim]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

SaroDarksbane:

So if a married couple confines themselves to oral sex, they are no different from a non-married homosexual couple in the eyes of the church.

Interesting.

All I can tell you is when I got married my wife and I both had to agree to attempt to have children. If we had refused to sign that document, we wouldn’t have gotten married in the Church. In addition, oral sex is a sin as is Onanism (early withdrawal).

(Saro, you do know that I’m being the devil’s advocate here, right?)

---

Johhny:

What if the woman or man has had an illness that made either of them infertile? Or the woman just went through menopause?

Is it sinful for women in their late 40's to have sex because they can no longer have children?

The Church differentiates between naturally-caused infertility and man-made caused infertility. That is why the only acceptable methods of birth control are abstinence and the rhythm method.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

SaroDarksbane:

All I can tell you is when I got married my wife and I both had to agree to attempt to have children. If we had refused to sign that document, we wouldn’t have gotten married in the Church. In addition, oral sex is a sin as is Onanism (early withdrawal).

(Saro, you do know that I’m being the devil’s advocate here, right?)

---

Johhny:

The Church differentiates between naturally-caused infertility and man-made caused infertility. That is why the only acceptable methods of birth control are abstinence and the rhythm method.

Sure but the church aren't the only people who can marry and no one is demanding that the church does marry *** people. *** people just want recognition from the government.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

So we agree that promiscuous people (whether homo or hetero) go against God's intent for us (according to the Bible), since they are putting their focus on the wrong thing.

Not even promiscuity - <any> time the focus isn't on God then it could be considered sin.

So now, how does a homosexual being attracted to members of the same sex means he has "formed his identity around his sexuality", but a heterosexual person being attracted to members of the other sex doesn't?

Because he or she is demanding that the church condone his or her perversion. It may seem a bit circular to the secular, but the point is that you're supposed to be obeying God rather than concentrating on earthly (or earthy) matters. Demanding that your perversion be accepted simply because you prefer it is seen as arrogant, in much the same way as divorce can be seen.

How is a homosexual who wants to be in a committed relationship "forming his identity around his sexuality", but a heterosexual person who wants to be in a committed relationship isn't?

Either can be, but the queer is more obvious in demanding his/her importance over that of God's will than is the straight.

It's like saying two black people shouldn't be able to get married because black people "form their identity around robbing liquor stores and not Christ like the Bible demands". Sure, some do, but so do some white people, and that doesn't seem to preclude them from the title.

NO, dammit, it has nothing to do with genetics, and just because queers happen to have been granted "protected class" status doesn't avoid the fact that they're queer because of mental or personality problems. I can say that a paedophile is forming their identity around screwing kids and therefore ought not be allowed a church marriage, and nobody bats an eye (Islam excepted). There is not legitimate difference between the two other than that secular Western society condones one and not the other.

You can't take the degenerates from one group and compare them to the upstanding people in the other as justification. That just makes no sense.

That's why I compared similar degenerates.

Sure but the church aren't the only people who can marry and no one is demanding that the church does marry *** people. *** people just want recognition from the government.

Actually, that is indeed what the argument really is about - the term "marriage" being used in a religious fashion. Otherwise we'd not be having this discussion, since clarification of civil ceremonies and commonlaw status would have resolved the discrepancies long ago.

 

[Tanooki]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

Rhythm method? Has anyone actually used that in the past 30 years?

(My wife and I do NFP, both to prevent pregnancy when we didn't want children, and then to plan our pregnancies now that we've decided to have kids.)

Promiscuity seems like a great idea because we live in fallen world. It's virtually impossible to understand why it's so bad until you can change your entire mindset. But it goes without saying that if people didn't sleep around stds would vanish. (At least the ones that are 100% stds - stuff like AIDS which isn't passed solely through sex wouldn't count.)

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

NO, dammit, it has nothing to do with genetics, and just because queers happen to have been granted "protected class" status doesn't avoid the fact that they're queer because of mental or personality problems.

In your opinion. I'm not convinced.

I can say that a paedophile is forming their identity around screwing kids and therefore ought not be allowed a church marriage, and nobody bats an eye (Islam excepted). There is not legitimate difference between the two

Except that one involves two consenting the adults and the other involves a child. Big, big difference.

Actually, that is indeed what the argument really is about - the term "marriage" being used in a religious fashion. Otherwise we'd not be having this discussion, since clarification of civil ceremonies and commonlaw status would have resolved the discrepancies long ago.

I think we're probably on the same page, really, but we probably differ in what we consider a "religious fashion". If the government offers everyone (homo and hetero alike) civil unions, and Steve and Bob want to call themselves "married", I see no problem with that. Perhaps you do, and it's your right to be of the opinion that they aren't and treat them accordingly (Don't offer them the "Just Married" discount on your honeymoon suite, for example.)

The one thing I don't want to occur when *** marriage finally happens (and it will) is that people like you are then forced to treat them as married or else the government comes down on you for discrimination or something. That's just as wrong, in my opinion.

Promiscuity seems like a great idea because we live in fallen world. It's virtually impossible to understand why it's so bad until you can change your entire mindset.

Well, I would never marry someone I hadn't slept with, but neither would I sleep with someone I didn't care about, or under false pretenses, or any other dishonest scenario.

I'm sure that makes me "promiscuous" in some people's eyes, but to me it's all about following your own personal code of conduct.

 

[Dondrei]

Re: Should homosexuals be allows to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

Oddly enough, I think the Jehova's Witnesses' interpretation of heaven (a remade earth) and hell (oblivion) most closely matches the original intent of the text.

In fact, if you disregard some of their more blatant mistranslations about important theological issues such as the trinity and the identity of Jesus, they actually do quite a lot of things that the mainstream Christian denominations should really take note of.

That's true, I was actually thinking of them when I posted that. It's funny, but a lot of the bonkers sects are more Biblically accurate in certain ways, because when a revisionist movement starts up they often take the radical step of actually reading the Bible.

Because heterosexual relationships serve a purpose other than self-pleasure. In my opinion, many Christian sects still teach rules of conduct that are based on the belief that was prevalent during the middle ages --- anything that gives you pleasure in this world is sinful. That is why the Catholic Church, for example, still considers masturbation to be a sin.

If that were true then they wouldn't marry infertile people. Or people over childbearing age.

I thought most denominations considered masturbation a sin.

Second, no matter how careful you are, heterosexual sex can still end up in a pregnancy.

Not true at all. The only 100% effective contraception is anal sex.

So we agree that promiscuous people (whether homo or hetero) go against God's intent for us (according to the Bible), since they are putting their focus on the wrong thing.

Only insofar as say, gluttons and sloths are. Funny how you never see them defrocking fat priests.


*EDIT*

The Church differentiates between naturally-caused infertility and man-made caused infertility. That is why the only acceptable methods of birth control are abstinence and the rhythm method.

Hang on a minute, didn't you just finish saying that they only tolerated sex for the purpose of procreation? Because you're right, now that I think about it they do endorse Vatican Roulette, and that's definitely sex intended for purposes other than procreation.

 

[PFSS]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

The Church differentiates between naturally-caused infertility and man-made caused infertility. That is why the only acceptable methods of birth control are abstinence and the rhythm method.

Where do things like infertility due to smoking/drug use fall?

Actually, that is indeed what the argument really is about - the term "marriage" being used in a religious fashion. Otherwise we'd not be having this discussion, since clarification of civil ceremonies and commonlaw status would have resolved the discrepancies long ago.

Making 'marriage' a 'religious' term would solve nothing as I have no doubt that there are Churches* both Christian and otherwise who would be happy to marry *** people. The situation would be exactly the same as if they allowed *** 'civil unions' (which happen to be legally identical to 'marriage' but are, like, totally different) - you would still get *** people getting married in Churches* who would apparently still be entitled to the term 'marriage'.

I also note that those who are opposed to *** 'marriage' are also largely against *** civil-unions-that-give-the-exact-legal-status-as-marriage.

*'Churches' meaning religious organizations of any type

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

I'm not convinced.

Your cross to bear.

Except that one involves two consenting the adults and the other involves a child. Big, big difference.

Hardly. It's just a matter of existing law. Haven't we had this discussion in a different thread vis-a-vis marital age?

If the government offers everyone (homo and hetero alike) civil unions, and Steve and Bob want to call themselves "married", I see no problem with that. Perhaps you do, and it's your right to be of the opinion that they aren't and treat them accordingly (Don't offer them the "Just Married" discount on your honeymoon suite, for example.)

You're probably right about our being parallel here, and you identified some of the same concerns I have as a religious individual.

First, the shrill demands for absolute equivalency are a legal screen for anti-religious discrimination, along the lines of what is ongoing (and was seen with the Boy Scouts). Such as, if you don't allow & condone queer marriage, you're going to lose your tax-free status, not be allowed to perform certain Gov't-related work, or be branded a hate group.

Second, the religious-ness of the terminology will be used to protect queers on the grounds of religious persecution rather than behavioral preferences. Since all queers supposedly want is equal status, why such hate? The reason is they don't want equal status, but rather equal treatment, with the right to beat the legal snot out of those who are unwilling to give them such.

Third, the slippery slope turning into a football. The fact that queer behavior is fashionable due to Progressive liberal theology, while polygamy is not, is a Pandora's Box which won't be easily closed either. I think I read it well-stated as, "If marriage is everything, then marriage is nothing."

Making 'marriage' a 'religious' term would solve nothing as I have no doubt that there are Churches* both Christian and otherwise who would be happy to marry *** people. The situation would be exactly the same as if they allowed *** 'civil unions' (which happen to be legally identical to 'marriage' but are, like, totally different) - you would still get *** people getting married in Churches* who would apparently still be entitled to the term 'marriage'.

And whether you realized it or not, that's exactly what the current situation IS in many states, though your claim of civil unions being totally different is bogus. That consideration ain't good enough for the queer folk.

I also note that those who are opposed to *** 'marriage' are also largely against *** civil-unions-that-give-the-exact-legal-status-as-marriage.

*'Churches' meaning religious organizations of any type

I noted the opposite. To each their own - and I'd use 'queer' to avoid so many asterisks if I were you. I'm sure someone will take offense no matter what name is used (I had a shrieker regarding my use of "faggot" on the GW boards, so I've avoided it since).

 

[Johnny]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

Actually, that is indeed what the argument really is about - the term "marriage" being used in a religious fashion. Otherwise we'd not be having this discussion, since clarification of civil ceremonies and commonlaw status would have resolved the discrepancies long ago.

*** people don't want "civil unions" they want marriage.

 

[Magi]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

All righty merv, now I can't just sit by and idly spectate.

NO, dammit, it has nothing to do with genetics, and just because queers happen to have been granted "protected class" status doesn't avoid the fact that they're queer because of mental or personality problems. I can say that a paedophile is forming their identity around screwing kids and therefore ought not be allowed a church marriage, and nobody bats an eye (Islam excepted). There is not legitimate difference between the two other than that secular Western society condones one and not the other.

IMHO, being *** is NOT a mental or personality PROBLEM as you appear to be stating. It appears that you are biased vs. gays and are not approaching this discussion soley based on a legal (or religious) debate but from a prejudiced viewpoint. Also, there is a VERY legitimate difference between pedophilia (marriage) vs. being *** (marriage): proper consent.

Second, by the looks of your previous post, you seem to be categorizing all *** people as shrill, demanding and religion bashing, as well as exhibiting "queer behavior" because it's fashionable. Why categorize all *** people into your generalizations? Ever consider that some people just want to say, "Yes we were married last weekend" vs. "Yes we were civil union'd last weekend"?

I don't know what power the government holds over churches, since there is a (supposed?) separation of church and state. If the separation is to be believed, then how can the government force a church to marry ANY individuals? It's the churches decision as far as I'm concerned and no part of the government should be able to challenge it.

And "faggot" is a pretty derogatory term afaik so I can understand the GW boardmember being up-in-arms over it.

If I've made any incorrect conclusions based on what I've inferred from your views, then I apologize, but that's how I took what you've typed.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

I don't know what power the government holds over churches, since there is a (supposed?) separation of church and state. If the separation is to be believed, then how can the government force a church to marry ANY individuals? It's the churches decision as far as I'm concerned and no part of the government should be able to challenge it.

They don't need the churches to marry them. The government can do it as well.

Carlin got Jmervs act pretty accurately

 

[jel]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

IMHO, being *** is NOT a mental or personality PROBLEM as you appear to be stating.

Actually being homosexual is highly different from the norm of what is defined as normal psychic health, due to the way life seeks through evolution and homosexuals have less likelyhood of that.

Therefore being homosexual is by the definition of the word a personality disorder, however it's up to each and everyone of us to deal with that as we like, it's the same with all diseases, you've no problem because you've a disease, unless you don't want that disease (as then the disease of course is a problem, like everything else we don't want).

It's in the term of words that it's defined that homosexuality is a personality disorder, but it doesn't give you fewer rights than others, or more rights, you've equal rights like everyone else, the same goes by for people with scizofrenia, with HIV, with anything you can name, which in many peoples eyes places you in a bad light, but it's only because these people are biased and most likely not worth your time, it's up to you if you'll accept the disease/disorder and live with it or you won't (you always have a choice about who you want to be, it doesn't mean you don't have to fight for it though).

So if someone thinks it's cool and they want to be a homosexual then it's fine, if they don't like that they've feelings for the same gender and tries to fight it to be heterosexual then that's fine as well, it's up to everyone to decide by themselves.

My view on the topic is that, everyone have the same rights, which means in pure legal therms of course homosexual couples should be allowed to be married, however the church is an institution that has nothing to do with the state and can marry whoever they wish, and say no to whoever they wish, if you've put so much fate in the church, then you're probably going to be dissapointed, because the church is one of the most biased placed (and hypocrite as they often claim not to be biased).

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

Your cross to bear.

Not really. I'm not the one arguing that it makes a difference whether or not it's a choice or genetics.

Hardly. It's just a matter of existing law. Haven't we had this discussion in a different thread vis-a-vis marital age?

Are you trying to argue that if we let two consenting adults get hitched, we're on a slippery slope towards removing age of consent laws?

How is one anything like the other? They are on two totally different subjects . . .

First, the shrill demands for absolute equivalency are a legal screen for anti-religious discrimination, along the lines of what is ongoing (and was seen with the Boy Scouts). Such as, if you don't allow & condone queer marriage, you're going to lose your tax-free status, not be allowed to perform certain Gov't-related work, or be branded a hate group.

You do have to assume that your opinions have consequences. How could they not? If a group didn't believe in interracial marriages, they'd be in the same boat.

Not that I agree with such policies (discrimination laws especially).

I think I read it well-stated as, "If marriage is everything, then marriage is nothing."

Doesn't really put too fine a point on it, as you could say the same about extending marriage to anyone except rich, white landowners.

 

[Magi]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

"problem" is a relative term, I guess. In the case of being homosexual, I could imagine most (all?) of the "problem" coming from the social stigma associated with being homosexual.

From a biological standpoint, it's counterproductive to perpetuating the species, and so is marriage for that matter. But that's a completely different topic...

 

[Tanooki]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

One of the problems with the slippery slope appears to be that attitudes change quickly enough that it becomes a "so what?" sort of deal.

When the whole *** marriage thing started, the *** rights supporters claimed it would never lead to polygamy. Now that we've got *** marriage, when asked about polygamy the new answer is "and your problem with it is...?"

So why shouldn't we be suspect with other fringe movements piggybacking on it? When does marrying your turtle turn the corner to "why shouldn't he marry his turtle?"?

So I guess my only real question is which order will other-marriages be introduced?

I'm guessing it'll be first polygamy, then child-adult, then animal-person.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

One of the problems with the slippery slope appears to be that attitudes change quickly enough that it becomes a "so what?" sort of deal.

When the whole *** marriage thing started, the *** rights supporters claimed it would never lead to polygamy. Now that we've got *** marriage, when asked about polygamy the new answer is "and your problem with it is...?"

So why shouldn't we be suspect with other fringe movements piggybacking on it? When does marrying your turtle turn the corner to "why shouldn't he marry his turtle?"?

So I guess my only real question is which order will other-marriages be introduced?

I'm guessing it'll be first polygamy, then child-adult, then animal-person.

Oh don't try to bull**** me. If you have a problem with polygamy then go oppose that. Don't try to convince us that you're really not against *** marriage. You're just protecting us from the paedophiles.

if I don't like the idea of an adult man having sex with six year olds I don't go demonstrate against an adult having sex with an 18 year old because that's a slippery slope to 17 year olds and then 16 year olds and then we're just a decade away from paedophilia being okay.

Besides what's the freaking problem with polygamy? that's more socialy acceptable than even *** marriage is. If 2 women and a man want to get married. Where do you come into the picture?

Besides fire bombing their house while you and your wife yells "think of the children"

 

[caddad]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender?

It should be put on the ballot and decided by popular vote in each and every state and then it should be accepted until the next election. Just like everything else. I do not think it should be a constitutional amendment on a state by state basis (I don't think anything warrants a constitutional amendment), I think it should go how popular vote culture goes from election to election, but if it's voted in, I don't see it going back to not allowed.

Would I vote for or against it? I would abstain from voting on it, much like I do on the other issues I can't get care.exe to boot up on.

-caddad

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

*** people don't want "civil unions" they want marriage.

Correct, they want social equivalency rather than just legal equivalency. And this means the religious context.

IMHO, being *** is NOT a mental or personality PROBLEM as you appear to be stating.

And deeply-held opinions are why this is such a touchy issue. The reason I believe this to be a problems is that it is often not desired, is associated with many other personal disturbances, and is not a permanent condition despite the attempts to claim it as a genetic issue (which I've been arguing against in another forum).

It appears that you are biased vs. gays and are not approaching this discussion soley based on a legal (or religious) debate but from a prejudiced viewpoint.

I'll be the first to admit I'm a homophobe by one specific definition - I dislike (to the point of fear and hatred) the <act> of buggery from a religious point of view. Christians are supposed to hate sin & not the sinner, but few anti-Christians are willing to consider that possibility.

Also, there is a VERY legitimate difference between pedophilia (marriage) vs. being *** (marriage): proper consent.

Sorry, no sale; age of consent is a social question rather than a legitimate condition.

Second, by the looks of your previous post, you seem to be categorizing all *** people as shrill, demanding and religion bashing, as well as exhibiting "queer behavior" because it's fashionable. Why categorize all *** people into your generalizations?

Granted. You'd have to admit, though, that the visible representations in the media largely <are> of the type I describe. I don't doubt that a couple of previous co-workers of mine aren't overjoyed about the stance that those claiming to represent them have, but neither would they speak out against such behavior.

Ever consider that some people just want to say, "Yes we were married last weekend" vs. "Yes we were civil union'd last weekend"?

Why would it matter whether the ceremony is civil (as in a civil union) or a church wedding? I'll tell you why - because there are a significant number of queers who are of the same ilk as the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Gee, I wonder why the Church isn't embracing <that> with open arms?

I don't know what power the government holds over churches, since there is a (supposed?) separation of church and state.

The power is primarily in the tax-free status, and secondarily in their employment capability. The Gov't has beggared churches by applying business law to them.

If the separation is to be believed, then how can the government force a church to marry ANY individuals? It's the churches decision as far as I'm concerned and no part of the government should be able to challenge it.

That's why the issue is so thorny - because many (and not all) queers want to demand a "church" wedding, rather than just the civil contract.

And "faggot" is a pretty derogatory term afaik so I can understand the GW boardmember being up-in-arms over it.

I honestly don't know why, though I tend to be more than a little insensitive as regards labeling. Politically Correct label-modification is the realm of villains, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

Correct, they want social equivalency rather than just legal equivalency. And this means the religious context.

No. They want the word, the label "marriage" the title and all legal rights that come with it.