|
On May 30 2009 09:25 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:23 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:19 Idle wrote:On May 30 2009 09:14 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:12 Idle wrote:On May 30 2009 09:09 houseurmusic wrote:On May 30 2009 09:06 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 08:34 houseurmusic wrote:On May 30 2009 08:17 D10 wrote:On May 30 2009 07:56 houseurmusic wrote:
Although I am very liberal I am concerned about the institution of marraige. Marraige is the foundation to a proper family. Almost all these sacred bonds between a man and a women yield children. These children will have the best chance for survival if their parents are in love and don't stray. This is true from a Darwinian point of view, being in love means there is less chance of straying to another partner because of chemical reactions tricking our minds into believing the one we are with is the best possible choice. However, this chemical reaction isn't enough. Humans are a very social species and even in the most primitive cultures there was the idea of this sacred bond between men and women. People who loved, and cultures that had this bond were the groups that had the best chance of survival, and thus went on reproducing to lead to us.
This sacred bond has then been passed on as a meme for thousands of years now. We call this bond marraige. This bond is understood universally since every culture has a form of it. It is also the same word that connects us to our most primitive ancestors.
Do I care about gays being together? Hell no, but should we call a union between two of them marraige? The answer is simple. No. You sir are a hateful fool, like all the others against it. Catch words like Sacred bond, foundation proper family and even survival are nothing more than a pile of bullshit If anything a society with more gays is the only thing that can keep our world from being completely flooded with people, and more orphans with decent family that care for them. As I have posted before in this thread http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alec-baldwin/why-childless-straight-co_b_208457.html Here is pretty well writen the basic explanation of why theres no rational explanation of why gay couples should be denied this right. If a straight couple can decide not to have any children at all, only marry for pleasure, benefits, and being with each other, why cant gay couples do the same ? Also, gay couples have as many options as many couples in regards to having children, lesbians can do in vitro, and they can adopt in general. Also saying that gay couples are unfit to raise children as a whole is a hatefull assumption, as there are many straight couples completely unqualified and qualified to the job who completely screw their children life in every possible way daily. If you really believe that marriage is all about the children (which seems to be the only straw man left), then straight couples should not be able to marry until they have children, and that still is not enough grounds to forbid gay marriage because all the "evidence" on gays being unfit to raise children is steriotype based. no where in my post did I say that gays cannot raise children or are unfit to. Oh come on: On May 30 2009 07:56 houseurmusic wrote:Marraige is the foundation to a proper family. On May 30 2009 07:56 houseurmusic wrote:Do I care about gays being together? Hell no, but should we call a union between two of them marraige? The answer is simple. No. "Marriage is the foundation to a proper family" "Two gays together shouldn't be called a marriage" Sounds like "gays are unfit to raise children" to me. Then please, objectively define a proper family for me. You can't objectively define a proper family. I can't, he can't, you can't. A "proper family" is only what somebody decides is a proper family. Your definition is no more right than anybody else's. Its a personal belief, and you have no right to decide what constitutes a "proper family" for anybody but yourself. This is relativist bullshit and has no place in this thread. Of course I can objectively define a proper family. You may disagree with my definition, but here it goes: A proper family is a social unit which will provide children with a proper upbringing. That's still not objective. Your view is that a proper family must provide children with a "proper upbringing." That's completely subjective. Your view of a proper upbringing can be completely different than somebody elses. The fact that I can disagree with your definition and we can have a debate on it is the very definition of subjective. Proper family is the nuclear family. Statistics show that this is the best environment for success for children. Period. You disagree, I'll go link you with 50 sources if you want to go there. Let's not get sidetracked. The debate here is over Proposition 8 (gay marriage), not gay parents. They're different issues.
Oh, so now you don't want to go there, yet the other responses were ok. Sorry, I had to burst the bubble that people don't think the nuclear family gives the best chance at success. Anyways, lets end it here, unless people really want me to go there and prove them wrong.
|
On May 30 2009 09:27 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:26 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:23 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:21 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:17 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote:
#2 I have no problem with Civil Unions. However, Marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. Please provide any rational justification for this statement. #3 Do homosexuals want marriage, because of the benefits it bestows (Which they can all ready get from civil unions, or other ways outside of marriage such as Power of Attorney), or because they want to impose their views on society. It's obviously the latter. This statement is so absurd It's hardly worth addressing. How does getting married (an intimate rite between you, your spouse, and your closest family and friends) "impose views on society"? What the fuck does that even mean? Are you suggesting that, by marrying, gays are trying to tell people to be gay? When you get married, are you going to see it as some sort of social commentary?? Because they can get all the benefits that a married couple has with civil unions. ...except being married. Unless you think marriage is worthless? Marriage is between a man and a woman, period. They aren't losing out on anything that a married couple has. Marriage is sacreligious. Even though I'm agnostic I can at least recognize this. I have no problems with civil unions. It's a contract with the state for explicit benefits. I'm fine with that. Marriage, however I am not. Thank you for regurgitating your original claims instead of addressing my point or answering my question. I'm going to stop debating with you now, because you show no interest in backing your claims.
I answered your question. You don't think marriage is between a man and a woman, I do. Therefore I see them trying to impose their ideological views on the church, and anyone who disagrees with them on the history, and name of marriage. If its state benefits they are after they have those all ready. What do homosexuals really want? Ask yourself this.
|
On May 30 2009 09:25 Archerofaiur wrote:
Spoken like someone who doesnt understand evolution. People like to lump social, behavioral and political patterns into evolution in the hopes that it will lend scientific crediblity to their argument. They are wrong. Evolution deals with the selection of genetic traits overtime in a population. Social, behavioral and political patterns are emergent properties from a host of other factors.
you are the one who doesn't understand evolution
look the word up. there is more than 1 definition.
|
On May 30 2009 09:22 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:17 Idle wrote:On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote:
Please, homosexuals stop trying to impose your ideology onto others. This is the most hypocritical comment I've seen in a long time. You want to ban people from being married because of your personal views, yet feel they're imposing their ideology on others by wanting something which will have no effect on you in any way? I... don't even know how to respond to something that asinine. Do you realize that Civil Unions have the same benefits as Marriage? Civil union is a contract with the state, marriage is a religious ceremony and between a man and a woman. Off topic, but yes it does in fact effect me. I am paying for their benefits with my tax dollars.
So its okay for them to pay for your benefits with their tax dollars but you refuse to pay for theirs? Sorry man that doesn't fly. Until the government stops conducting marriages than no, its not a religious ceremony between a man and a woman. Religious institutions conduct religious ceremonies, not courts. They have the right to stop gays from being married in their churches. If the government is conducting it then it needs to be everybody or nobody.
|
On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote:
Please, homosexuals stop trying to impose your ideology onto others. It's getting a tad ridiculous.
LOL I like this arguement. Make the gay people seem oppressive. Its the Pro-marriage (btw the name is ridiculos for a group that wants less marriage) bloc that is being wronged. We should have used this with slavery (stop trying to impose your "free" ideology on me).
|
On May 30 2009 09:30 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:27 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:26 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:23 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:21 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:17 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote:
#2 I have no problem with Civil Unions. However, Marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. Please provide any rational justification for this statement. #3 Do homosexuals want marriage, because of the benefits it bestows (Which they can all ready get from civil unions, or other ways outside of marriage such as Power of Attorney), or because they want to impose their views on society. It's obviously the latter. This statement is so absurd It's hardly worth addressing. How does getting married (an intimate rite between you, your spouse, and your closest family and friends) "impose views on society"? What the fuck does that even mean? Are you suggesting that, by marrying, gays are trying to tell people to be gay? When you get married, are you going to see it as some sort of social commentary?? Because they can get all the benefits that a married couple has with civil unions. ...except being married. Unless you think marriage is worthless? Marriage is between a man and a woman, period. They aren't losing out on anything that a married couple has. Marriage is sacreligious. Even though I'm agnostic I can at least recognize this. I have no problems with civil unions. It's a contract with the state for explicit benefits. I'm fine with that. Marriage, however I am not. Thank you for regurgitating your original claims instead of addressing my point or answering my question. I'm going to stop debating with you now, because you show no interest in backing your claims. I answered your question. You don't think marriage is between a man and a woman, I do. Therefor see them trying to impose their ideological views on the church, and anyone who disagrees with them on the history, and name of marriage. If its state benefits they are after they have those all ready. What do homosexuals really want? Ask yourself this.
And since when does 1 religion define institutions in this country? Sorry buddy, but neither the U.S.A. nor marriage belong to Christianity.
What do homosexuals really want? Equal rights. fucking duh
|
United States12607 Posts
On May 30 2009 09:30 Aegraen wrote:
What do homosexuals really want?
To get married, just like you or I want to get married.
Edit: or, more broadly, what kOol said.
|
On May 30 2009 09:30 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:27 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:26 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:23 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:21 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:17 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote:
#2 I have no problem with Civil Unions. However, Marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. Please provide any rational justification for this statement. #3 Do homosexuals want marriage, because of the benefits it bestows (Which they can all ready get from civil unions, or other ways outside of marriage such as Power of Attorney), or because they want to impose their views on society. It's obviously the latter. This statement is so absurd It's hardly worth addressing. How does getting married (an intimate rite between you, your spouse, and your closest family and friends) "impose views on society"? What the fuck does that even mean? Are you suggesting that, by marrying, gays are trying to tell people to be gay? When you get married, are you going to see it as some sort of social commentary?? Because they can get all the benefits that a married couple has with civil unions. ...except being married. Unless you think marriage is worthless? Marriage is between a man and a woman, period. They aren't losing out on anything that a married couple has. Marriage is sacreligious. Even though I'm agnostic I can at least recognize this. I have no problems with civil unions. It's a contract with the state for explicit benefits. I'm fine with that. Marriage, however I am not. Thank you for regurgitating your original claims instead of addressing my point or answering my question. I'm going to stop debating with you now, because you show no interest in backing your claims. I answered your question. You don't think marriage is between a man and a woman, I do. Therefore I see them trying to impose their ideological views on the church, and anyone who disagrees with them on the history, and name of marriage. If its state benefits they are after they have those all ready. What do homosexuals really want? Ask yourself this.
to be treated as equals
|
On May 30 2009 09:32 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote:
Please, homosexuals stop trying to impose your ideology onto others. It's getting a tad ridiculous. LOL I like this arguement. Make the gay people seem oppressive. Its the Pro-marriage (btw the name is ridiculos for a group that wants less marriage) bloc that is being wronged. We should have used this with slavery (stop trying to impose your "free" ideology on me).
Do you realize that Gay couples HAVE THE SAME BENEFITS DERIVED FROM THE STATE AS THOSE MARRIED?
Do you even know this?
|
On May 30 2009 09:30 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:25 Archerofaiur wrote:
Spoken like someone who doesnt understand evolution. People like to lump social, behavioral and political patterns into evolution in the hopes that it will lend scientific crediblity to their argument. They are wrong. Evolution deals with the selection of genetic traits overtime in a population. Social, behavioral and political patterns are emergent properties from a host of other factors.
you are the one who doesn't understand evolution look the word up. there is more than 1 definition.
You specifically invoked the biological definition.
On May 30 2009 09:08 houseurmusic wrote:
being in love means there is less chance of straying to another partner because of chemical reactions tricking our minds into believing the one we are with is the best possible choice. However, this chemical reaction isn't enough. Humans are a very social species and even in the most primitive cultures there was the idea of this sacred bond between men and women. People who loved, and cultures that had this bond were the groups that had the best chance of survival,
|
On May 30 2009 09:33 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:32 Archerofaiur wrote:On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote:
Please, homosexuals stop trying to impose your ideology onto others. It's getting a tad ridiculous. LOL I like this arguement. Make the gay people seem oppressive. Its the Pro-marriage (btw the name is ridiculos for a group that wants less marriage) bloc that is being wronged. We should have used this with slavery (stop trying to impose your "free" ideology on me). Do you realize that Gay couples HAVE THE SAME BENEFITS DERIVED FROM THE STATE AS THOSE MARRIED? Do you even know this?
Aegraen please reply, from where do you derive the definition of marriage ?
|
On May 30 2009 09:25 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:08 houseurmusic wrote:
There is an evolutionary reason for almost everything my friend.
Spoken like someone who doesnt understand evolution. People like to lump social, behavioral and political patterns into evolution in the hopes that it will lend scientific crediblity to their argument. They are wrong. Evolution deals with the selection of genetic traits overtime in a population. Social, behavioral and political patterns are emergent properties from a host of other factors.
On the contrary, only someone who has not and idea on what evolution is would say something like this.
Memes
When it comes to primitive human survival, cultural inheritence is mandatory.
(Dawkins, "The God Delusion", Chapter 5)
Dawkins is a world renowned evolutionary biologist.
You are completely wrong for not "lumping" social behavioral reasons into the evolution of humans.
|
On May 30 2009 09:32 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:30 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:27 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:26 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:23 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:21 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:17 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote:
#2 I have no problem with Civil Unions. However, Marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. Please provide any rational justification for this statement. #3 Do homosexuals want marriage, because of the benefits it bestows (Which they can all ready get from civil unions, or other ways outside of marriage such as Power of Attorney), or because they want to impose their views on society. It's obviously the latter. This statement is so absurd It's hardly worth addressing. How does getting married (an intimate rite between you, your spouse, and your closest family and friends) "impose views on society"? What the fuck does that even mean? Are you suggesting that, by marrying, gays are trying to tell people to be gay? When you get married, are you going to see it as some sort of social commentary?? Because they can get all the benefits that a married couple has with civil unions. ...except being married. Unless you think marriage is worthless? Marriage is between a man and a woman, period. They aren't losing out on anything that a married couple has. Marriage is sacreligious. Even though I'm agnostic I can at least recognize this. I have no problems with civil unions. It's a contract with the state for explicit benefits. I'm fine with that. Marriage, however I am not. Thank you for regurgitating your original claims instead of addressing my point or answering my question. I'm going to stop debating with you now, because you show no interest in backing your claims. I answered your question. You don't think marriage is between a man and a woman, I do. Therefor see them trying to impose their ideological views on the church, and anyone who disagrees with them on the history, and name of marriage. If its state benefits they are after they have those all ready. What do homosexuals really want? Ask yourself this. And since when does 1 religion define institutions in this country? Sorry buddy, but neither the U.S.A. nor marriage belong to Christianity. What do homosexuals really want? Equal rights. fucking duh
Marriage is not a right. The benefits that you get when you are married, you get in a civil union. Tell me, what do married couples have that those in civil unions don't have.
Not sure if you know this, but name a religion that allows 'gay' marriage. Islam? Ha! funny. They'll kill you if you're gay. Buddhism? Hinduism?
|
On May 30 2009 09:33 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:30 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 09:25 Archerofaiur wrote:
Spoken like someone who doesnt understand evolution. People like to lump social, behavioral and political patterns into evolution in the hopes that it will lend scientific crediblity to their argument. They are wrong. Evolution deals with the selection of genetic traits overtime in a population. Social, behavioral and political patterns are emergent properties from a host of other factors.
you are the one who doesn't understand evolution look the word up. there is more than 1 definition. You specifically invoked the biological definition.
well, it wasn't me that you were talking to before
but anyways I don't see where that happened
|
On May 30 2009 09:34 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:32 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 09:30 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:27 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:26 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:23 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:21 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:17 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote:
#2 I have no problem with Civil Unions. However, Marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. Please provide any rational justification for this statement. #3 Do homosexuals want marriage, because of the benefits it bestows (Which they can all ready get from civil unions, or other ways outside of marriage such as Power of Attorney), or because they want to impose their views on society. It's obviously the latter. This statement is so absurd It's hardly worth addressing. How does getting married (an intimate rite between you, your spouse, and your closest family and friends) "impose views on society"? What the fuck does that even mean? Are you suggesting that, by marrying, gays are trying to tell people to be gay? When you get married, are you going to see it as some sort of social commentary?? Because they can get all the benefits that a married couple has with civil unions. ...except being married. Unless you think marriage is worthless? Marriage is between a man and a woman, period. They aren't losing out on anything that a married couple has. Marriage is sacreligious. Even though I'm agnostic I can at least recognize this. I have no problems with civil unions. It's a contract with the state for explicit benefits. I'm fine with that. Marriage, however I am not. Thank you for regurgitating your original claims instead of addressing my point or answering my question. I'm going to stop debating with you now, because you show no interest in backing your claims. I answered your question. You don't think marriage is between a man and a woman, I do. Therefor see them trying to impose their ideological views on the church, and anyone who disagrees with them on the history, and name of marriage. If its state benefits they are after they have those all ready. What do homosexuals really want? Ask yourself this. And since when does 1 religion define institutions in this country? Sorry buddy, but neither the U.S.A. nor marriage belong to Christianity. What do homosexuals really want? Equal rights. fucking duh Marriage is not a right. The benefits that you get when you are married, you get in a civil union. Tell me, what do married couples have that those in civil unions don't have. Not sure if you know this, but name a religion that allows 'gay' marriage. Islam? Ha! funny. They'll kill you if you're gay. Buddhism? Hinduism?
it has to be a religion?
|
United States24773 Posts
I heard the most ridiculous radio ad today about gay marriage. It was against it and tried to convince the listener to contact your senator that we don't want gay marriage. From what I can remember...
Do you want THIS to be your child after a day at school? "Mom, Dad, I learned today that a prince can marry a prince and that I can marry a princess!"
Children have enough to worry about. They don't need to worry about gay marriage also!
Do you want the rights of those who consider marriage between a man and a woman to be violated? If you do nothing, then your voice will no longer be heard!
Politicians can't even fix our economy, and yet they have time to make changes to marriage?
It went on and on. It was so laughable for so many reasons.
|
On May 30 2009 09:34 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:32 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 09:30 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:27 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:26 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:23 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:21 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:17 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote:
#2 I have no problem with Civil Unions. However, Marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. Please provide any rational justification for this statement. #3 Do homosexuals want marriage, because of the benefits it bestows (Which they can all ready get from civil unions, or other ways outside of marriage such as Power of Attorney), or because they want to impose their views on society. It's obviously the latter. This statement is so absurd It's hardly worth addressing. How does getting married (an intimate rite between you, your spouse, and your closest family and friends) "impose views on society"? What the fuck does that even mean? Are you suggesting that, by marrying, gays are trying to tell people to be gay? When you get married, are you going to see it as some sort of social commentary?? Because they can get all the benefits that a married couple has with civil unions. ...except being married. Unless you think marriage is worthless? Marriage is between a man and a woman, period. They aren't losing out on anything that a married couple has. Marriage is sacreligious. Even though I'm agnostic I can at least recognize this. I have no problems with civil unions. It's a contract with the state for explicit benefits. I'm fine with that. Marriage, however I am not. Thank you for regurgitating your original claims instead of addressing my point or answering my question. I'm going to stop debating with you now, because you show no interest in backing your claims. I answered your question. You don't think marriage is between a man and a woman, I do. Therefor see them trying to impose their ideological views on the church, and anyone who disagrees with them on the history, and name of marriage. If its state benefits they are after they have those all ready. What do homosexuals really want? Ask yourself this. And since when does 1 religion define institutions in this country? Sorry buddy, but neither the U.S.A. nor marriage belong to Christianity. What do homosexuals really want? Equal rights. fucking duh Marriage is not a right. The benefits that you get when you are married, you get in a civil union. Tell me, what do married couples have that those in civil unions don't have. Not sure if you know this, but name a religion that allows 'gay' marriage. Islam? Ha! funny. They'll kill you if you're gay. Buddhism? Hinduism?
How does it matter what past religion allowed gay marriage? How did you not understand my point. This entire country is built upon freedom of religion.
So I ask again, where does your definition of marriage come from ?
|
United States12607 Posts
On May 30 2009 09:33 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:32 Archerofaiur wrote:On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote:
Please, homosexuals stop trying to impose your ideology onto others. It's getting a tad ridiculous. LOL I like this arguement. Make the gay people seem oppressive. Its the Pro-marriage (btw the name is ridiculos for a group that wants less marriage) bloc that is being wronged. We should have used this with slavery (stop trying to impose your "free" ideology on me). Do you realize that Gay couples HAVE THE SAME BENEFITS DERIVED FROM THE STATE AS THOSE MARRIED? Do you even know this?
In many states, same-sex partners are even prohibited from civil unions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg
Pro tip: don't ask "Do you even know this?" incredulously, when "this" isn't true in many cases.
|
I don't care about gay marriage in terms of "marriage," the church can keep that. The part I have a problem with is how gays aren't allowed the same domestic partnership and financial/social benefits as male/female couples. I think the church can refuse to "marry" two gay people, but they shouldn't be allowed to even have influence on whether or not these people share the benefits.
Basically, I think they should be allowed to "marry" without the title of "marriage."
|
How warped has religion become that it now precludes love?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
