|
On February 10 2012 07:47 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:42 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:37 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:34 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:30 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:
[quote]
When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but thats basically what your arguement is stemming to so... If it's for procreation why did "god" make it pleasurable? (and why is masturbation even possible by that arguement) Fact is, your arguing based on religious terms, and the concept of Gay Marriage is a government function. Religion is supposed to be seperate from Government, so this shouldn't have anything to do with Religion. No one is forcing your church to start marrying gay couples, nor is this bill forcing you to marry a gay guy. I'm athiest thank you for assuming im religious though. The pleasure side of sex is to trick humans into doing it (lust) the side which harbors a strong relationship and bonds familys is (love). It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with giving the best chance for the child. If your gay, it would be your partner, not your husband/wife. Wtf. Tricking humans? Why the hell are humans being tricked? You just said you don't believe in god....and your statement goes completely against evolutionary concepts... I'm just going to concede you're deluded I'll summarize every up for you so maybe you will understand. People have no sense of responsibility. Sex until marriage is so that you will find a long lasting partner that can support your family. With all of the young pregnancys and marrying so young it makes a huge single parent/divorce rate. Stable marriage always results in better chances for your child to develop properly. Waiting and finding the right person later in life, instead of giving into pleasures, will always be better later in life. So by that logic you'd support bills that outlaw sex until marriage, masturbation, and that require people to "be in love" before they get married? Sounds like you'd be better off in Saudi Arabia or something buddy. Here in the United States we have things called freedom of expression and privacy.
That reminds me an episode of South Park. Cartoon wars part 1 hehe.
I think that we're as human are all equal. Even the bible points it afaik.Therefore gay marriage should be allowed or we wouldn't be equal. So i'm happy with those news.
|
I can't believe there are still places where gay marriage isn't recognized as valid. Oh well, there's one less now!
|
On February 10 2012 07:51 Saltydizzle wrote:Im saying that it gives them the best chance. there is more than one way to skin a cat. The changes in society have caused divorce to be seen as "acceptable" which has turned the american family to shit. I don't believe in god or believe any story from the bible truly happened, but its all about the morals of the bible. The morals are the only thing to be taken seriously.
The "morals" of the bible tell us that working on Sunday is abomination and that you should stone anyone who does so. They tell us to stone to death any woman who has sex before marriage.
You really want to take those seriously? 
|
On February 10 2012 08:42 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:51 Saltydizzle wrote:Im saying that it gives them the best chance. there is more than one way to skin a cat. The changes in society have caused divorce to be seen as "acceptable" which has turned the american family to shit. I don't believe in god or believe any story from the bible truly happened, but its all about the morals of the bible. The morals are the only thing to be taken seriously. The "morals" of the bible tell us that working on Sunday is abomination and that you should stone anyone who does so. They tell us to stone to death any woman who has sex before marriage. You really want to take those seriously?
You can mix my words all you want. But the morals in the bible are for the most part good. Obviously wars are all about religion but religion has its good sides. I don't believe any of the stories are real, but like greek mythology, there are lessons to be learned.
|
one would think that young/semi-young people with enough brains to go to through the registration process at TL would be either smart enough not to spew anti-gay arguments which have been disputed millions of times before, or just refrain from arguing outside their areas of expertise. apparently not. i'm happy for our washington state friends, and hope to see things like this spread like the plague all around the world.
but, seeing an alarming number of young minds being void of elementary reasoning, sadly, speaks for itself and we still have a very long way to go.
|
On February 10 2012 08:46 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 08:42 sunprince wrote:On February 10 2012 07:51 Saltydizzle wrote:Im saying that it gives them the best chance. there is more than one way to skin a cat. The changes in society have caused divorce to be seen as "acceptable" which has turned the american family to shit. I don't believe in god or believe any story from the bible truly happened, but its all about the morals of the bible. The morals are the only thing to be taken seriously. The "morals" of the bible tell us that working on Sunday is abomination and that you should stone anyone who does so. They tell us to stone to death any woman who has sex before marriage. You really want to take those seriously? You can mix my words all you want. But the morals in the bible are for the most part good. Obviously wars are all about religion but religion has its good sides. I don't believe any of the stories are real, but like greek mythology, there are lessons to be learned.
So the lesson you learned from the bible is that we should arbitrarily deny someone legal rights because of a biological factor?
Or was it to burn a woman who wears a garment made of 2 threads.
I'm sure 1 of those is in the bible.....
|
On February 10 2012 08:46 Saltydizzle wrote:You can mix my words all you want. But the morals in the bible are for the most part good. Obviously wars are all about religion but religion has its good sides.
If you admit that not all the "morals" of the bible are good, then why are you incapable of understanding that the homophobia of the bible is a bad thing?
Look, either the bible is a moral authority or it isn't. If some of the shit in the bible is bad, then you can't use it as a moral authority. It's complete bullshit to say that something is wrong because the bible says so, when you've already admitted that the bible isn't always right!
On February 10 2012 08:46 Saltydizzle wrote:I don't believe any of the stories are real, but like greek mythology, there are lessons to be learned.
If there's any lesson to be learned from the bible, it's that religious people do immoral things in the name of god.
I don't disagree that there are some good moral lessons to be learned from the bible, but if the one you took away was "deprive gays/lesbians" of their rights, then you're just despicable.
|
|
|
So this makes seven States and only 42 left. The Mormon Church and Evangelicals, I'm sure, are preparing to go into overdrive.
|
On February 10 2012 10:00 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 08:46 Saltydizzle wrote:You can mix my words all you want. But the morals in the bible are for the most part good. Obviously wars are all about religion but religion has its good sides. If you admit that not all the "morals" of the bible are good, then why are you incapable of understanding that the homophobia of the bible is a bad thing? Look, either the bible is a moral authority or it isn't. If some of the shit in the bible is bad, then you can't use it as a moral authority. It's complete bullshit to say that something is wrong because the bible says so, when you've already admitted that the bible isn't always right! Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 08:46 Saltydizzle wrote:I don't believe any of the stories are real, but like greek mythology, there are lessons to be learned. If there's any lesson to be learned from the bible, it's that religious people do immoral things in the name of god.
I mean its not unreasonable to pick and choose certain stories and morals from the bible and teach them to your children (or your parish as a priest) There are good morals and lessons in the bible, I think anyone would agree that is objectively true. But I understand your frustration, trust me lol.
By the same token:
It is unreasonable to pick and choose certain stories and morals from the bible and use them as a basis to deny someone their rights.
|
On February 10 2012 08:46 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 08:42 sunprince wrote:On February 10 2012 07:51 Saltydizzle wrote:Im saying that it gives them the best chance. there is more than one way to skin a cat. The changes in society have caused divorce to be seen as "acceptable" which has turned the american family to shit. I don't believe in god or believe any story from the bible truly happened, but its all about the morals of the bible. The morals are the only thing to be taken seriously. The "morals" of the bible tell us that working on Sunday is abomination and that you should stone anyone who does so. They tell us to stone to death any woman who has sex before marriage. You really want to take those seriously? You can mix my words all you want. But the morals in the bible are for the most part good. Obviously wars are all about religion but religion has its good sides. I don't believe any of the stories are real, but like greek mythology, there are lessons to be learned.
You can have morals without religion casting a code of law down in stone.
|
The debate on the first few pages is so annoying. Maybe they should start not allowing gay marriage opponents from marrying and spreading on their genes to prevent future stupidity. (sort of similar logic to what I read in this thread)
If you have to pick and choose from the bible to find good morals then you already have a moral center independent of the bible, by the way.
|
On February 10 2012 07:32 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:30 aebriol wrote:
The state should stay out of marriage.
Have people sign a document that says 'civil union' and gives whatever rights marriage currently does, and that's your contract with the state and each other, and then it's up to you and whatever church / service you use, to get 'married' or not - and it has no legal or economic impact on anything. This. There should be no discrimination in government. Religious people have their own little ceremonies, but legally the only thing that should matter is a civil union between two consenting adults.
If people had any sense, they would do this. Let those who want to be married religiously be married religiously, but the benefits of a civil union should be available to two consenting adults, regardless of orientation.
|
The Christian's believe that marriage is between man, woman, and God. They believe whether gay or straight a marriage without God is not technically a marriage. So it makes sense to me why they won't recognize gay marriage. Seems to me this is an attack on Christianity more than it is about establishing rights. They could just use the term "civil union" like many other countries with all the same rights as married couples and not offend the Christian groups.
|
On February 10 2012 10:27 steev wrote:
The Christian's believe that marriage is between man, woman, and God. They believe whether gay or straight a marriage without God is not technically a marriage. So it makes sense to me why they won't recognize gay marriage. Seems to me this is an attack on Christianity more than it is about establishing rights. They could just use the term "civil union" like many other countries with all the same rights as married couples and not offend the Christian groups.
Um, marriage isn't a christian institution sir. You can get married in plenty of places beyond a christian church.
This ruling says that 2 consenting adults of the same gender can be legally married. That means a judge performs the nuptials (or a captain i suppose^^)
Since marriage is a legal institution,-basically a legal right adults have to get legally married- not allowing a certain percentage of the population to exercise this right because of something that is biological determined (just like your skin color) is a violation of the 14th amendment. The precedent for this is the well known supreme court case Brown Vs Board of ED, which ruled that separate but equal (aka civil union and marriage or black school and white school or gay marriage and straight marriage) is unconstitutional.
|
On February 10 2012 10:35 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 10:27 steev wrote:
The Christian's believe that marriage is between man, woman, and God. They believe whether gay or straight a marriage without God is not technically a marriage. So it makes sense to me why they won't recognize gay marriage. Seems to me this is an attack on Christianity more than it is about establishing rights. They could just use the term "civil union" like many other countries with all the same rights as married couples and not offend the Christian groups. Um, marriage isn't a christian institution sir. You can get married in plenty of places beyond a christian church. This ruling says that 2 consenting adults of the same gender can be legally married. That means a judge performs the nuptials (or a captain i suppose^^) Since marriage is a legal institution,-basically a legal right adults have to get legally married- not allowing a certain percentage of the population to exercise this right because of something that is biological determined (just like your skin color) is a violation of the 14th amendment. The precedent for this is the well known supreme court case Brown Vs Board of ED, which ruled that separate but equal (aka civil union and marriage or black school and white school or gay marriage and straight marriage) is unconstitutional.
Except it's not a violation of the 14th amendment, which states equal protection for all. As it is now in most states, all male citizens have the right to marry a woman. Gay people have this exact same right. The problem here is, marriage isn't something the government should be interfering with in the first place.
|
On February 10 2012 10:27 steev wrote:
The Christian's believe that marriage is between man, woman, and God. They believe whether gay or straight a marriage without God is not technically a marriage. So it makes sense to me why they won't recognize gay marriage. Seems to me this is an attack on Christianity more than it is about establishing rights. They could just use the term "civil union" like many other countries with all the same rights as married couples and not offend the Christian groups.
Because marriage involves the government from a legal standpoint. If you have the government acknowledging two things that are the same you've essentially just made it "Separate but equal". You've segregated the two for absolutely no logical reason. The government must acknowledge every legal pairing of people as the same exact thing with the same exact rights. Then people can call it anything they like.
|
On February 09 2012 13:43 SafeAsCheese wrote:
Why not make it a church thing?
Your logic is that gays are unable to ever call themselves Christians, or many other religions.
That's illegal segregation in the US, even if "civil unions" are the same thing with a different name. "separate but equal"
I don't follow this issue much, but if it is true that gays are not allowed to be Christians, it just makes me laugh all the more at religion and even more sad at how much governmental power they have.
There have been a few gay Christians tho, having homosexual tenancies is just like any other sin, such as Pornography or Sex before marriage. And since in Romans 3:23 it says "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". When you become a saved christian you are still tempted with sin. So basically I believe you can be a christian and still struggle with having homosexual tendencies.
Just my two cents.
|
On February 10 2012 10:39 Bonkerz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:43 SafeAsCheese wrote:
Why not make it a church thing?
Your logic is that gays are unable to ever call themselves Christians, or many other religions.
That's illegal segregation in the US, even if "civil unions" are the same thing with a different name. "separate but equal"
I don't follow this issue much, but if it is true that gays are not allowed to be Christians, it just makes me laugh all the more at religion and even more sad at how much governmental power they have. So basically I believe you can be a christian and still struggle with having homosexual tendencies. Just my two cents.
Why would anyone want to be part of a religion that believes because the people they are attracted to are of the same gender, they have to fight this "sin" for their whole lives, live alone, without ever physically connecting with anyone, due to a genetic trait. Its disgusting that people are subjected to this kind of treatment, and its even more disgusting that people whole heartedly believe that that is what some supreme LOVING being would want a persons life to be.
|
On February 10 2012 10:38 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 10:35 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:27 steev wrote:
The Christian's believe that marriage is between man, woman, and God. They believe whether gay or straight a marriage without God is not technically a marriage. So it makes sense to me why they won't recognize gay marriage. Seems to me this is an attack on Christianity more than it is about establishing rights. They could just use the term "civil union" like many other countries with all the same rights as married couples and not offend the Christian groups. Um, marriage isn't a christian institution sir. You can get married in plenty of places beyond a christian church. This ruling says that 2 consenting adults of the same gender can be legally married. That means a judge performs the nuptials (or a captain i suppose^^) Since marriage is a legal institution,-basically a legal right adults have to get legally married- not allowing a certain percentage of the population to exercise this right because of something that is biological determined (just like your skin color) is a violation of the 14th amendment. The precedent for this is the well known supreme court case Brown Vs Board of ED, which ruled that separate but equal (aka civil union and marriage or black school and white school or gay marriage and straight marriage) is unconstitutional. Except it's not a violation of the 14th amendment, which states equal protection for all. As it is now in most states, all male citizens have the right to marry a woman. Gay people have this exact same right. The problem here is, marriage isn't something the government should be interfering with in the first place.
Well, one could argue that marriage should be legally defined as "a legally binding union between 2 consenting adults." Which is basically what was argued in Wash. (and everywhere else that has legalized gay marriage.) and their argument for why it must be worded that way is: One's sexual orientation is something that is biologically determined. So by the same logic that arraigned marriages are frowned upon in the US in general, forcing someone to marry someone to whom they feel no attraction just for the legal benefits of a marriage does not seem to be a satisfactory fulfillment of a homosexual's right to enjoy the benefits of marriage. Since we are now working under this assumption.
Allowing homosexuals to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage but calling it something different (I think the south park parody where they call it "Gay butt buddies" articulates the argument beautifully) basically falls under the Brown V BoE ruling-- and would be seen as a violation of the 14th amendment
So since forcing gays to marry someone of the opposite sex (to whom they are by their biology not attracted to) is unsatisfactory, and allowing them to marry but calling it something else is a violation of the 14th amendment,
the only reasonable way to give homosexuals full 14th amendment coverage is to redefine marriage, as a legal term, to a binding union between 2 consenting adults.
Edit: wait what do you mean government shouldn't interfere with marriage. There are plenty of legal benefits to being married that's why the government should interfere with marriage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
