Going off topic with the religious discussion from page 11 and onwards will net you a 2 day ban at least. Stay on topic pretty please, with minerals on top.
On September 20 2011 08:46 askTeivospy wrote: I'm always curious if people that spam science wikipedia links actually know anything about what they're linking
what kind of chromosomes/number has nothing to do with defining gender genetically speaking at least. If you have proper SRY you're a man, if you don't you're a woman. Go wikipedia some more :|
I'm always curious why people are jerks to strangers on the internet.
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
It's people like you who make me want to leave this country.
Anyway, glad to hear this is official, good stuff!
Why leave? This attitude of intolerance keeps diminishing over the years, soon enough same sex marriages will be recognized by the government. Any way, that someone is allowed to say something like that, as ignorant and bigoted as it is, is the main reason I'm interested in staying here.
Well yeah, I'm glad that we as a country are moving forward towards legalizing gay marriage, but it's the people who cling onto their non-existent arguments as to why gays don't deserve to get married that make me ashamed to be an American.
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
This topic gave me hope for American culture and society.
Then you killed it.
How did you do it so effortlessly?
Do people really have to all believe the same things? It's not exactly wise to espouse such opinions on the forums because people like to jump all over opinions like that, but you people reacting that was are as much of the problem as those baiting you.
On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote: I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things.
There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman".
Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones.
I don't know...hasn't marriage always been defined to be between a man and a woman? (I mean, this is how most cultures have done it historically regardless of their degree of religiosity). - correct me if I'm wrong.
If that's true, then gay advocates are actually wanting to change the definition of marriage - which means they want additional rights (i.e. marrying someone of the same gender) in addition to the original definition of marriage.
Which is totally fine, if they want to that. Just hope that someone could help me clear that up
On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote: I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things.
There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman".
Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones.
I don't know...hasn't marriage always been defined to be between a man and a woman? (I mean, this is how most cultures have done it historically regardless of their degree of religiosity). - correct me if I'm wrong.
If that's true, then gay advocates are actually wanting to change the definition of marriage - which means they want additional rights (i.e. marrying someone of the same gender) in addition to the original definition of marriage.
Which is totally fine, if they want to that. Just hope that someone could help me clear that up
Yes, the vast majority of marriages have been between a man and a woman. However, homosexual couples don't want additional rights, they want the same rights that hetero couples have under the law. As for religion, some churches are willing to condone homosexual marriage. It's just a matter of time before the bigoted churches die out.
A union between two gay people should absolutely be equal in the eyes of the law than a union between two heterosexuals. But frankly why stop there? Why shouldn't a union between more than two people also be equal in the eyes of the law?
On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote: I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things.
There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman".
Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones.
I don't know...hasn't marriage always been defined to be between a man and a woman? (I mean, this is how most cultures have done it historically regardless of their degree of religiosity). - correct me if I'm wrong.
If that's true, then gay advocates are actually wanting to change the definition of marriage - which means they want additional rights (i.e. marrying someone of the same gender) in addition to the original definition of marriage.
Which is totally fine, if they want to that. Just hope that someone could help me clear that up
Yes, the vast majority of marriages have been between a man and a woman. However, homosexual couples don't want additional rights, they want the same rights that hetero couples have under the law. As for religion, some churches are willing to condone homosexual marriage. It's just a matter of time before the bigoted churches die out.
I disagree 100%. I don't think churches should have to condone homosexual marriage whatsoever and personally feel like condoning it is turning their backs on their religion. I think it's ridiculous they should be forced to acknowledge it. "Bigoted" churches? You mean, the ones actually following their scripture?
*shrug* churches have to acknowledge atheist marriages too
met some people on a bus ride one, saying you can't be in love with someone until you love jesus. that's the sort of stupid thing churches say
you don't have to condone homosexuality. But this isn't a theocracy. If something is legal, live with it. two dudes getting married isn't cutting into anyone else's rights.. same arguments against mixed race marriage..
this repeal is great tho.. forgotten that this had not "happened" yet. don't see what it really changes practically tho
On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote: I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things.
There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman".
Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones.
I don't know...hasn't marriage always been defined to be between a man and a woman? (I mean, this is how most cultures have done it historically regardless of their degree of religiosity). - correct me if I'm wrong.
If that's true, then gay advocates are actually wanting to change the definition of marriage - which means they want additional rights (i.e. marrying someone of the same gender) in addition to the original definition of marriage.
Which is totally fine, if they want to that. Just hope that someone could help me clear that up
Yes, the vast majority of marriages have been between a man and a woman. However, homosexual couples don't want additional rights, they want the same rights that hetero couples have under the law. As for religion, some churches are willing to condone homosexual marriage. It's just a matter of time before the bigoted churches die out.
I disagree 100%. I don't think churches should have to condone homosexual marriage whatsoever and personally feel like condoning it is turning their backs on their religion. I think it's ridiculous they should be forced to acknowledge it. "Bigoted" churches? You mean, the ones actually following their scripture?
Even religions change over time. Many (most) religions of today are completely different from religions in the past, even based on the same scripture.
The argument that something isn't bigoted because it's following scripture isn't a good argument.
As for forcing churches to acknowledge homosexual marriages, that's not happening. Unless you mean culturally and not legally. Churches are free to marry and not marry whomever they choose, and legalizing gay marriage doesn't change that even one little bit.
On September 21 2011 00:15 FabledIntegral wrote: "Bigoted" churches? You mean, the ones actually following their scripture?
If the church's dogma is bigoted, and they adhere to that dogma, then yes. Bigoted church. Most scripture also condones and advocates slavery, would you give them a free pass just because they went around advocating slavery because they're doing it out of religious beliefs? Marriage goes far beyond a religious institution due to all the legal rights and benefits that come with it, religious institutions should have no say over whom should have the right to receive those benefits based on their scriptures.
This is a great step in the right direction, and a victory for equality and our culture.
A few thoughts: - Pedophilia cannot be compared to homosexuality, even if both might be a mental disorder. There is no victim in a gay relationship, while there is a victim when a pedophile pursues his or her thoughts. - Marriage has nothing to do with religion (the only thing religion may have to do with marriage is coining the term), it is simply a legal bonding between two consenting human beings.
As for the topic, it's great that the USA finally took another step away from being an oldfashioned country.
On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote: I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things.
There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman".
Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones.
I don't know...hasn't marriage always been defined to be between a man and a woman? (I mean, this is how most cultures have done it historically regardless of their degree of religiosity). - correct me if I'm wrong.
If that's true, then gay advocates are actually wanting to change the definition of marriage - which means they want additional rights (i.e. marrying someone of the same gender) in addition to the original definition of marriage.
Which is totally fine, if they want to that. Just hope that someone could help me clear that up
Yes, the vast majority of marriages have been between a man and a woman. However, homosexual couples don't want additional rights, they want the same rights that hetero couples have under the law. As for religion, some churches are willing to condone homosexual marriage. It's just a matter of time before the bigoted churches die out.
I disagree 100%. I don't think churches should have to condone homosexual marriage whatsoever and personally feel like condoning it is turning their backs on their religion. I think it's ridiculous they should be forced to acknowledge it. "Bigoted" churches? You mean, the ones actually following their scripture?
Even religions change over time. Many (most) religions of today are completely different from religions in the past, even based on the same scripture.
The argument that something isn't bigoted because it's following scripture isn't a good argument.
As for forcing churches to acknowledge homosexual marriages, that's not happening. Unless you mean culturally and not legally. Churches are free to marry and not marry whomever they choose, and legalizing gay marriage doesn't change that even one little bit.
Changing over time hardly is a valid argument though. In fact, I'd just argue modern day religion chooses to filter out part of the scriptures to better suit their message, and not a true representation of what the religion is meant to embody. So I'd argue most religions today are simply less "true" to the scripture they're based off.
But I'll give you that maybe it wasn't the best argument that following scripture doesn't mean they aren't bigoted. I'll argue instead that churches should be bigoted.
On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote: I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things.
There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman".
Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones.
I don't know...hasn't marriage always been defined to be between a man and a woman? (I mean, this is how most cultures have done it historically regardless of their degree of religiosity). - correct me if I'm wrong.
If that's true, then gay advocates are actually wanting to change the definition of marriage - which means they want additional rights (i.e. marrying someone of the same gender) in addition to the original definition of marriage.
Which is totally fine, if they want to that. Just hope that someone could help me clear that up
Yes, the vast majority of marriages have been between a man and a woman. However, homosexual couples don't want additional rights, they want the same rights that hetero couples have under the law. As for religion, some churches are willing to condone homosexual marriage. It's just a matter of time before the bigoted churches die out.
I disagree 100%. I don't think churches should have to condone homosexual marriage whatsoever and personally feel like condoning it is turning their backs on their religion. I think it's ridiculous they should be forced to acknowledge it. "Bigoted" churches? You mean, the ones actually following their scripture?
What qualifies as "forcing" the church to acknowledge gay marriage? Honest question -- this could be interpreted a few ways.
From an individual perspective, if somebody wants to believe that marriage is limited to white Christian heterosexual couples, that's their right to do so. But if they make the government/law only grant the rights of marriage to those couples, then they're the ones forcing everybody else to accept a particular view of marriage.
Don't ask dont tell is the least of our worries our government i swear ... WHO CARES anymore if your gay your gay *high five* give me a hug lets move the fuck on. If gays want to join the military and bleed for our country WHO the hell gives our government the right to say no ....
On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote: I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things.
There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman".
Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones.
I don't know...hasn't marriage always been defined to be between a man and a woman? (I mean, this is how most cultures have done it historically regardless of their degree of religiosity). - correct me if I'm wrong.
If that's true, then gay advocates are actually wanting to change the definition of marriage - which means they want additional rights (i.e. marrying someone of the same gender) in addition to the original definition of marriage.
Which is totally fine, if they want to that. Just hope that someone could help me clear that up
Yes, the vast majority of marriages have been between a man and a woman. However, homosexual couples don't want additional rights, they want the same rights that hetero couples have under the law. As for religion, some churches are willing to condone homosexual marriage. It's just a matter of time before the bigoted churches die out.
I disagree 100%. I don't think churches should have to condone homosexual marriage whatsoever and personally feel like condoning it is turning their backs on their religion. I think it's ridiculous they should be forced to acknowledge it. "Bigoted" churches? You mean, the ones actually following their scripture?
What qualifies as "forcing" the church to acknowledge gay marriage? Honest question -- this could be interpreted a few ways.
From an individual perspective, if somebody wants to believe that marriage is limited to white Christian heterosexual couples, that's their right to do so. But if they make the government/law only grant the rights of marriage to those couples, then they're the ones forcing everybody else to accept a particular view of marriage.
Nah you're right, I just remember people YES on prop 8 bringing up a court case where some lawsuit where a gay couple sued a church for refusing to marry them because they were homosexual and won. I forgot the conclusion of the case was that it was actually because he was somehow employed by the government or something along those lines, and thus a completely different matter. My bad.
I shouldn't have used the word "forced" it's just how I sort of interpreted the message of "bigoted churches will die out" as "they'll need to adapt" or something along those lines. Probably interpreted it incorrectly.
On September 21 2011 00:45 Thorakh wrote: A few thoughts: - Pedophilia cannot be compared to homosexuality, even if both might be a mental disorder. There is no victim in a gay relationship, while there is a victim when a pedophile pursues his or her thoughts. - Marriage has nothing to do with religion (the only thing religion may have to do with marriage is coining the term), it is simply a legal bonding between two consenting human beings.
As for the topic, it's great that the USA finally took another step away from being an oldfashioned country.
Conservative Christians have invented all sorts of reasons to explain why homosexuality is a crime, and the victims are the people doing it. If you say that two consenting adults are not victims (an argument I agree with), it'll go right over their heads.
EPT
