EPTIceland Legalizes Same Sex Marriage - Page 7
| Blogs > Alou |
|
Lysteria
France2279 Posts
| ||
|
TunaFishyMe
Canada150 Posts
On June 28 2010 22:17 JWD wrote:  unfortunately TunaFishyMe's post captures a common conception of homosexuality and the effects of allowing gay marriage. Is that conception incorrect?  It's all fun and games until the kids get involved!! | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
On June 28 2010 22:34 TunaFishyMe wrote: Is that conception incorrect? It's all fun and games until the kids get involved!! What about single mothers and single fathers? It's okay as long as there's no homosexuality involved? | ||
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
On June 28 2010 20:30 JWD wrote: Sorry, but this post is very uninformed. Opposers of gay marriage are not merely arguing that it is anathema to their religion to allow gay people to marry, but that the government should not recognize gay marriages for a variety of (misguided) cultural, political, and social reasons. In fact that's the entire brunt of the debate. If the opposition's only contention was "it's against Christianity" then this would be pretty simple, wouldn't it be? Separation of church and state wins out easily. Furthermore you are way, way off the mark saying that "Christianity does not allow homosexuals to marry". Many churches across the US are marrying gays, individual churches have been a hub of gay rights activism, and actually I know of at least one entire church (the Episcopalian) that has thrown its weight behind the gay rights movement. And do you really believe that nonreligious heterosexual couples treat their relationship as any less meaningful or significant than the marriage that Christians enjoy? To differentiate between those in a "civil union" and those that are "married" based purely on religious belief is to lose sight of the meaning of marriage today. Religion and marriage are intertwined but you can absolutely have one without the other! 1.Lol at the "Opposers" link 2. I have to disagree with you for a number of reasons. a.) Christianity in its "pure" form( I use pure loosely, only meaning what it SHOULD be according to the Bible) does disavow homosexuality.http://bible.logos.com/passage/nasb/Lev. 18.22 To say that Christians would also be forced to give them one of their most sacred covenants is just plain wrong. Now obviously, a more liberal interperation of the Bible favored today may be more gay-friendly, however, you cannot say that for one view of Christianity, homosexuals are not allowed to marry. b.) Yes, they do believe the government should not allow them to be "married" in the christian sense. And why not? Should a religious man be forced to offer a possibly blasphemous ritual? Is that not the government intruding upon the rights of the comman man? And you may say, and rightly so, "Gays have the same rights and same abilities as others! They should be afforded the rights!" And they should! But why MUST they be in the religious form of marriage, when such an act may violate a Christians religious beliefs. To say that "Oh these Christians are just being so arragont by only giving them civil unions and not "true marriages"" is wrong and misleading. Many christians do not wish to deny same-sex couples the RIGHTS of a marriage, merely the ritual involved which makes it sacred to Christianity. Edit: Wow, this is so dramatic sounding. O.o | ||
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
On June 28 2010 22:12 TunaFishyMe wrote: I can think of a reason why I don't want same sex marriage. For the god dam kids!!! I personally believe that the environment plays a large role in the way a child develops. I do not want to be walking down the street to the park and seeing two gay guys making out on the bench in front of my kid! What has this world come to? Blurrying every line in existent because it's more "open-minded." Think of the consequence!! Next it'll be ok to marry your dog since it doesn't affect anyone else except for you. Whats wrong with an enviroment with gays? They have the same feelings and thoughts and wishes and dreams as any other person. What are "these" conseqences of allowing Gays in our enviroment? Elaborate? | ||
|
enzym
Germany1034 Posts
On June 28 2010 22:23 Piy wrote: I would argue that the social stigma associated with Homosexual activity stems entirely from the residue of religious belief that is still present in the minds of the average citizen, even those unaffiliated with a religion. i have personally never been affiliated with any religion or religious institution or belief and the issue of homosexual vs heterosexual couples has never been raised during my childhood, nor during the time the german education system exerted direct influence on my education (i went to a gymnasium until concluding my abitur). on the contrary i consider myself to be opposing any form of religious belief and practice as harmful to humanity, to the open mind, to scientific and technological progress etc. yet i am not in favour of marriage for homosexual couples at all, but opposed to it. edit: i also do not affiliate with (or feel belonging to) any group of humans, nor do i care about what opinion people have about me. for all that i know people (and thus society) are too accepting of ignorance and misinformation and thus im rather careful with who i choose to support, even on the smallest level. | ||
|
Sharkified
Canada254 Posts
| ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32055 Posts
On June 28 2010 22:58 Sharkified wrote: I voted some form of civil union , because marriage is the direct association with religion and church which says that you can not be gay, therefore I don't understand how can homosexual people want to associate with that. On June 28 2010 22:58 Sharkified wrote: I voted some form of civil union , because marriage is the direct association with religion and church which says that you can not be gay, therefore I don't understand how can homosexual people want to associate with that. not all religions forbid homosexuality. The episcopal church marries gays. and legally, civil union ain't the same damn thing as marriage. Basic rights are denied due to discrimination by the government and church. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
Morally, philosophically, socially, homosexual marriage is an unambiguous evil. There are more or less honest liberals who believe that anything benevolent in nature, ought to be stretched and inflated to encompass the whole of society, to ensure the maximum degree of human happiness. Their error is more or less an error of perspective, eying the superficial rather than introspective qualities of the thing in question. There is the iconoclast, whose pretended indifference to all things sublime and human (he calls them social constructs) tips over the boundaries of hostility, because the inertia of his mind forces him to repel what he is not equal to. Both depart from the same flat-minded assumption- that the fundamental question is the reduction of prejudice. That the reduction of prejudice ensures a broader (although not necessarily deeper) constituency of happiness. The absurdity of this claim, the monomania of their social philosophy is easily exposed by at once eying the inequality they mean to flatten. Marriage is not a natural right to be distributed rationally. Every marriage is its own superstition which is a prejudice by nature. Indeed, the greater the prejudice, the more constructive the institution. Marriage is proud and exclusive. It is unwilling to admit an equal among other persons, much less of other natures. A couple undergoing the ceremony in good faith will admit the equality of other marriages in their reason, but not in their hearts. It is this prejudice which binds a man to his wife, though he discovers a superior woman or superior circumstances. It is the same prejudice which convinces a man that his child is the most important of his life, though there be children with greater talents and fewer deficiencies than his. These are pillars on which all civilized life is built. It is the prejudice of the individual which reveals the sublime reasonableness of human nature. What is the consequence of broadening the semantics of marriage? One cannot alter marriage as a word without altering marriage as an institution. I suppose, if one day people discover that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with consensual incest or bestiality (I don't see why relationships between a human being and the more intelligent mammals could not be just this,) marriage will have evolved to such a state as to encompass those preferences as well. However words are not only defined by what they do mean, but more broadly by what they do not mean. If a man is said to be laughing, whereas he is merely smiling, then laughing no longer means what it used to mean, indeed, the concept of laughter becomes as muddled as the modern concept of democracy or music, or any of a thousand words which have betrayed their origins. The more a thing means, the less it means. And this would not be so evil, were it not that the greater part of felicity, no less the intellect, no less the law is dependent on the meaning of a thing. It is true, independently of the taxation to be levied on traditional marriages by the obfuscation of distinctions, there is the condition that homosexuals may exercise the exact same prejudices, and therefore claim a political right as a matter of principle, even though it is unpleasant to the majority of society. However when one views the fundamental question, one comes to very different conclusions. Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is a weakness of the flesh, in so far as sexuality in general is an instinct rather than a conviction. We do not condemn heterosexuals for being heterosexual, but for dissolution and lechery. However, we praise them for love, charity and community. The one as well as the other is implicit in the sexual act. What is marriage (I mean this in the introspective, rather than sociological way, since it is closer to reality) then, but a purification of the processes of nature? Than the rejection of the carnal basis of the relationship, and the elevation of the spiritual? In this cast, marriage is highly constructive, in that it rejects what is merely natural, and transcends upward, into what is human. A heterosexual couple is not married because they are sexual, but because they are hetero: the completion of the self through union with the opposite is transcendental rather than merely natural. It is in loving the opposite that the most ardent feelings are aroused, for, just as the highest form of self-love is selfless love (for we elevate ourselves thereby), so is the most sexual sexuality not merely sexual, but unsexual. It is only blind reason which compels in rational minds this awful theory that men should be no fundamentally different from women. Were that so, both would be degraded. Similarly, the principle of heterosexual marriage is very simple: it is a constructive institution, not one of paltry pleasure. Its bonds (despite its purely symbolic and ceremonial nature) invents higher virtues, which allows us to go further than the liberties of disposition. Its symbolic significance is not to unite two individuals as Mr. A and Mrs. B, but to transfigure this union into one of man and woman. The union of a single couple carries the burden uniting two poles of humanity. Therefore by their own logic, the iconoclasts have nothing to complain about- for deprived of the illusion of transfiguration, marriage has no power, except to repeat what was already true about a relationship. If two homosexuals believe that they are as happy as the world could ever be, there is nothing to be added by the symbolic affirmations of the same. No institution should exist when people don't need it- marriage exists because the majority of the world believes, reasonably or unreasonably, that they do need it, that words, and moreover, words said in sacrament, makes happiness happier, makes realities more real. Therefore where is the virtue of iconoclasm? Except as an outlet for their cynicism? Except to tyrannize people into submitting to their own nihilistic vision of human relationships? It is an evil therefore not by accident but by design, because of its willing destruction of what is good. | ||
|
TunaFishyMe
Canada150 Posts
On June 28 2010 22:47 Pandain wrote: Whats wrong with an enviroment with gays? They have the same feelings and thoughts and wishes and dreams as any other person. What are "these" conseqences of allowing Gays in our enviroment? Elaborate? What's wrong is that I don't want my children getting influenced. Maybe I'm just an asshole but when I was 15, I thought the same was as you did. As I got older (23 now) thinking about my future, I don't want to imagine my children turning out gay. I wouldn't disown them or anything, but I would prefer to have my bloodline passed on. | ||
JWD
United States12607 Posts
On June 29 2010 00:06 TunaFishyMe wrote: What's wrong is that I don't want my children getting influenced. Maybe I'm just an asshole but when I was 15, I thought the same was as you did. As I got older (23 now) thinking about my future, I don't want to imagine my children turning out gay. I wouldn't disown them or anything, but I would prefer to have my bloodline passed on. So, just to be clear: it is your honest belief that if your child was to see two people of the same sex making out in the park, he would be more likely to "turn out gay"? If I showed you an hour of gay porn, would you be interested in homosexual sex? | ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On June 29 2010 00:21 JWD wrote: If I showed you an hour of gay porn, would you be interested in homosexual sex? I think it would have the exact opposite effect. In fact, I watch an hour of gay porn each day just to make sure I don't become interested in homosexual sex. | ||
|
TunaFishyMe
Canada150 Posts
On June 29 2010 00:24 Jibba wrote: I think it would have the exact opposite effect. In fact, I watch an hour of gay porn each day just to make sure I don't become interested in homosexual sex. LOL That's a good point. What it would do though (overtime) would make me desensitized to it. I would start off disgusted but then I would become less and less disturbed. The line will get more blurred as you are more exposed to it. Also, a child's mind is easier influenced than someone who has already matured. Have you ever noticed male boys who grew up without a father figure? 9/10 they always turn out more feminine than the rest. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32055 Posts
On June 29 2010 00:06 TunaFishyMe wrote: What's wrong is that I don't want my children getting influenced. Maybe I'm just an asshole but when I was 15, I thought the same was as you did. As I got older (23 now) thinking about my future, I don't want to imagine my children turning out gay. I wouldn't disown them or anything, but I would prefer to have my bloodline passed on. Shit man, I sure hope you keep your kid in a bubble when they grow up. They might instantly turn liberal the first time they bump into a democrat, or uncontrollably drop to their knees in front of a gay man the second they see one for the first time. I mean, it's not like researchers have found that a hiccup in a person's genetics is most often determines a person's sexuality or anything! On June 29 2010 00:30 TunaFishyMe wrote: Have you ever noticed male boys who grew up without a father figure? 9/10 they always turn out more feminine than the rest. Exaaaaactly man. There's a bunch of raging queers who double as gang bangers in Harlem. Something like 40% of all black males would be gay if this were even remotely true. | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
In other words, I'm not against the civil unions of any 2 people (since it is already part of our culture/society), but I am against marriage in the first place. | ||
|
FreshVegetables
Finland513 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
enzym
Germany1034 Posts
| ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On June 29 2010 00:23 OneFierceZealot wrote: yay! who needs separation of church and state anyways? lets have the government rape the churches ideals! f yeah. gotta love gay people who think their above everyone. Never knew the universal concepts of marriage throughout the world was monopolized by Christianity. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On June 29 2010 00:35 enzym wrote: moltke, i love you. im only halfway through your post yet, but it seems as though you do respect the importance of clarity in words and meanings, finally, the first person besides myself i have found to do so. \o/ The only reason why anyone would ever think that enabling the marriage of same-sex couples is nihilistic is because they fall into an eternally rolling slippery slope due to their own personal prejudices rooted in their culture. Any notions of "transcending" is meaningless in the face of the law. If you find the act of creating meaning to be nihilistic then I can only accuse you of either not understanding what nihilism is or to be rooted in an irrational or nonrational idea of exclusivity that you use to rationalize what simply is in the end, being a bigot. Equating love with prejudice, as a preconception, is laughably nihilistic. Sorry, but using metaphysical concepts as your arguments for an anthropological institution is all rather meaningless in this social issue. I'm not even going to go into your irrational dehumanization of homosexuals. | ||
| ||
