Gay Marriage

I understand what she was saying. But if she's a christian and believe the faith and all that, she's religious. Doesn't mean she's a crazy religious person or anything.

As for me I see no reason to believe in it. Nothing that even makes me go hmmm there might be something to this. I'm open minded though, people can do what they want. I just believe that once you set yourself into a religion, your mind is closed in at least some point. Because you've found the truth at that point, which makes competing things that have just as much chance of being true, false.

At least she found a decent church though. Hard to find churches that aren't drilling information and beliefs into you. And especially finding churches that are cool with gay people.
 
As children, our minds were always littered with the phrase that America is the "land of the free". Has anyone every really thought about this? Our financial freedoms are being further stripped by the liberals and personal freedoms are being further stripped by the conservatives. Outside of a police force and a few other areas, the government is unproductive and not necessary at all. People should be able to make decisions for themselves and do as they please long as no one else is harmed is harmed in the process. Our freedoms and liberties are being stripped from us left and right as we progress in time. Throughout our government'S times, many changes were made for the good (proper representation for women, slaves, etc.)

However, there needs to be more done in regards to the homosexual population. They should receive the freedoms that heterosexuals enjoy. If gay people want to get legally married and legally have gay sex in their bedroom, why not let them? (as long as no one else is harmed in the process) If people want to snort cocaine and shoot heroin why not let them? (again, as long as no one else is harmed in the process) Not saying I would ever practice any of these things, but I certainly have no right to tell anyone not to, nor should our government. If you really think about it, all of these issues are common sense, something that both major political parties seem to lack. Freedom should not just be a phrase, but a right granted to us by birth. Both parties are only half correct and only getting less correct as time goes on. Long live the libertarian party. They are only ones with their heads screwed on right.

Damn, wasn't planning on writing that much, haha.
 
you would actually be REALLY surprised how accepting a lot of churches can be. Mine back home ended up hiring a former drug addict and pimp to be a high school leader haha also, dont think that just because you are religious you dont think/research a lot of the other theories out there. For me its more that nothing out there really makes all that much sense, and I would much rather believe of some cool guy in the sky then some theory that has a ton of holes that noone can explain (please stay away from a argument over the big bang, they never go anywhere). Plus there are just some moments in my life that have really grown my faith and where nomatter how much I doubt something will just bring me back right at a low point. Now with that said you will never see me at your door, I wont try to guilt you into believing or anything, and I will never judge you for being atheist. All that I ask of anyone is to research both sides of the argument, be open minded about people's beliefs, and in the end notice that we are all in this thing together.. A ton of atheists need to become more accepting, and even more christians/religious people need to do the same
 
I agree. Both parties are def less than half correct though. I agree that both sides are bullshit. More time is spent fighting the other "side" than actually looking at the problem and coming to a real and sensible solution.
 
Absolutely. Stubborness as a result of a narrow-mindedness in both parties platforms paired with the politicians need for party identity in order to win the vote and get reelected. Basically, selfishness. The root of all evil and an inherent quality of man. We need politicians who fight for the common good of man, not just themselves.
 
As far as churches being accepting, meh. Been to plenty of them. If you come from a crazy background that you've completely changed from and are all for the whole deal then yes.

And I think you misunderstood me on the second thing. I wasn't saying you don't research things ever. I was saying that if you believe something is the ultimate truth, your mind closes to a certain point right there.

As far as the next thing. " I would much rather believe of some cool guy in the sky then some theory that has a ton of holes that noone can explain" That's a pretty terrible reason to believe something. But I'm guessing you're simply making light of your reasons for it. You were def on your jump to conclusions mat when you assumed that I believe in the big bang theory and that I'm and atheist. "(please stay away from a argument over the big bang, they never go anywhere)" Keep jumpin.

"I wont try to guilt you into believing or anything, and I will never judge you for being atheist."

Glad you don't plan on coming to my door. I'm not an atheist.

"All that I ask of anyone is to research both sides of the argument, be open minded about people's beliefs, and in the end notice that we are all in this thing together.. "

I've researched both sides of it. Read probably the whole bible or damn close to it, possibly more than once. As far as the both sides thing, there are far more than two sides on this issue. I agree that we're all in it together, that's why I'm kind and respectful to people, even random strangers.

"All that I ask of anyone is to research both sides of the argument, be open minded about people's beliefs, and in the end notice that we are all in this thing together.. "

Well my problem with both those sides, is that many people on either feel they know the definite answers and try to push their beliefs on others.

 
I am against gay marriage, I think it is morally wrong. I don't however, see any legal justification, in this country, to deny two consenting homosexuals the rights and responsibilities that come with a legal marriage at the federal level, call it what you will. It is a state issue. (10th). The State of California has decided that gay marriage is illegal, and the State of New York has decided that it is legal. Don't like the California ruling, move to NY. Don't like the NY ruling, move to California.

Marriage, is however a deeply religious tradition. Religion is huge in the country, and this is a Christian country. Our country was founded on Judo-Christian (primarily Anglican) beliefs, by predominantly Christians. It does provide protection from LEGAL discrimination based on personal religious practices, but it is still a Christian country, people need to accept that. I DO NOT see how a law prohibiting gay marriage infringes on practicing any religion. If you know of a religion where a law against gay marriage would inhibit believers practicing their religion please post it in a reply (with sources obviously).
 
This is def not a christian country.

Yes many people that founded america were christians. And they came over here to escape persecution. At the same time, they also set up the country to have freedoms for all. The church wasn't the government.

If the word is that big of an issue that people will cry about, call it whatever. Civil union, domestic partnership. Legalize that in all states. There isn't a good reason for that not to happen. Honestly I feel that a good amount of straight couples would say fuck marriage and get one as well if everything was the same except the name. Marriage can stay affiliated with the church, who cares.

Are you saying that protection from legal discrimination is reserved for situations involving a religious conflict?

Anyone who thinks that being gay is a choice is ignorant.
 
I am saying that a law against gay marriage neither prohibits someone from practicing their religion, nor does it force someone to practice a religion. The argument about separation of church and state does not apply in the context of the legality of gay marriage.

Yes, this is a Christian country, the beliefs echoed in the Constitution, are Judo-Christian in nature, particularly Anglican. A Christian belief in God, can be seen in many current and original American laws, traditions, and patriotic (about the Country) media (I.E. songs). This country's population is predominantly Christian, and votes Christian.
 
"I am saying that a law against gay marriage neither prohibits someone from practicing their religion" which is exactly what you said originally, was trying to get more of an explanation.

and meh, sort of. Just because some things are in the bible, doesn't mean they originated there.

It was built on some christian principles, and many people were christian, but it was intended to be a free place.
 
That sentence works out pretty well without the 'but,' or 'some':

[The United States] was built on Christian principles, and many people were Christian, it was intended to be a free place.

Further explanation:

The Constitution does not prohibit enacting laws that are religious in origin, or justification, so long as those laws neither force someone to practice a religion, or inhibit them from practicing a religion of their choice.

 
Yeah but try to let two people of the same sex marry and they'll shit their robes on the sopt.

You can't cry for equality and acceptance while pushing judgement and assimilation. It just can't happen. I'm not knocking religion by any stretch of the imagination, I'm just saying it's not accepting of other points of view, homosexuality least of all.

The acts you speak of are pretty commonplace. A church will turn a person around who was a crackhead/pimp/drug dealer before they converted and go around talking about how badass they used to be, etc. and how it was the wrong path, etc. They have the same kind of peeps at my parents church, because they regularly work with work release programs at the jail and such. Guys with machete scars on their heads. Guys who used to be pimps, porn stars and drug dealers all over the place. The emphasis is on leaving that behind and moving forward- which is not possible when dealing with the "sin" of being gay. The only way to be accepted into the church as a gay person is to denounce it- and that's not acceptance. Not even close.

I am all about people changing to be better people, but telling someone they have to deny what they feel and telling them who and how to love is not changing them to be better people. I wish it were different, but it's not.
 
No they don't. There's supposed to be a separation of church and state, and I think it's crap that people's everyday lives and laws are governed by religious influences. I understand the importance of things such as "Thou shall not kill" but not "thou shall not make love in an icky fashion".

So basically gays would have to come up with their own religion in order to justify the ability to be married in the eyes of the country, because that's the only way the govt. wouldn't be able to stop them. That's a pretty bullshitty loophole if you ask me.

You honestly don't see any rights being infringed upon by not allowing gays to marry? That's kind of sad man.
 
I think religious arguments against "gay marriage" are particularly weak ones. Religion is a choice. If you don't like it, don't practice it. That's where the choice factor comes in.
We're not talking about allowing two men to marry each other here. Proponents of this are trying to force their new, redefined and socially engineered form of "marriage" onto the greater population. They use phrases like "equal love" to make it seem ridiculous that two men or two women can't spend the rest of their lives together in a loving relationship. Newsflash....no one is stopping them. The argument here is about the term "marriage" which is explicitly defined as the union between a man and a woman for varying reasons.
Marriage is not defined by "love". Sure love helps, I won't deny that. I even think its vital for a successful marriage. If marriage were defined by love only then on what basis could we refuse the marriage of 2 men and 3 women, or a man and his horse, or a mother and her son? These might sound like extreme examples but think about it for a second. We already regulate marriage quite closely and for very good reasons. One is to prevent plainly weird relationships, but mostly we have a vested interest in the ongoing health of the human race. Its not "unhealthy" to be gay. But it is unhealthy to grow up without varied influences from people who wish to socially engineer the day's youth according to the prevailing and fashionable beliefs of the time. If two men could marry then on what basis could we refuse their request to adopt a child and raise him or her according to their beliefs? That would be true discrimination...drawing differences between married couples.
The reality is that a married couple has expectations and responsibilities regarding the health and balance of the children they raise. Am I suggesting that the primary reason for marriage is procreation? Yes and no. The structure of the traditional family resonates throughout society and maintains an orderly structure. When the institution of marriage lost its importance in the Roman Empire, the entire society collapsed. Men would go off and claim land indiscriminately rather than taking care of their families and raising their children to be productive members of society. In other words, the children left behind weren't given a balanced view of the world. A balanced view is part female (care, compassion, emotion) and part male (strength, leadership, courage, hard work). Does this mean that a man cannot teach a child compassion and emotion and vice versa? No, of course not. But the two genders each have an absolute advantage in passing on these skills to their young. Thousands of years of evolution proves it. That's where the point about social engineering comes in. The push for gay marriage isn't about equality or freedom. Its about socially engineering a point of view with complete ignorance of thousands of years of successful procreation and, more importantly, human development.
This isn't an attack on gay people. If you want to have a relationship and live together and buy a house and share your superannuation then go ahead. The reforms in 2005 in my country made this possible. But marriage is an institution with a much older and more important meaning. If we gave into every social reform pushed by the fashionable agenda of the day where would the world be?
 
For the record I'm equally horrified by the demise of the institution of the family by parents who choose to beat their children and take drugs and fail to look out for others in general. This isn't an argument for further weakening the institution of the family by artificially inflating the concept of marriage. Its an argument for further protecting the institutions of the family and marriage to try to repair the damage already done to society by selfish individuals who have chosen to marry and failed to take on the responsibility that it brings.
 
coming up with their own religion in order to justify gay marriage to exploit that loophole actually isn't the worst idea ive heard...
 
That's the other problem with this debate....so much anger. Are you suggesting that I'm ill-informed? or that I haven't carefully considered my position?
That, and the failure of gay marriage proponents to understand that their idea of 'marriage' is a very new one.
 
Why's that?

If they got together and came up with a religion, then said it's their religious right to marry the govt could not stop them. Total bullshit, but it would work. I'm not saying it's cool, I'm saying it's a loophole with which to use others' religious bullshit against them.

It would be fighting fire with fire to say the least.
 
Well even though you think it's dumb, and it is, it's almost truth. There isn't much separation from church and government, even though it's toned down since the 1950's, it's still there..
 
"I think religious arguments against "gay marriage" are particularly weak ones. Religion is a choice. If you don't like it, don't practice it. That's where the choice factor comes in."

That seems to go completely against the rest of your post.

"We're not talking about allowing two men to marry each other here. Proponents of this are trying to force their new, redefined and socially engineered form of "marriage" onto the greater population. They use phrases like "equal love" to make it seem ridiculous that two men or two women can't spend the rest of their lives together in a loving relationship. Newsflash....no one is stopping them. The argument here is about the term "marriage" which is explicitly defined as the union between a man and a woman for varying reasons."

First, you can't even get a union/partnership everywhere. And if you actually get one, it's not recognized as much of anything, and you don't receive shit for benefits that you would receive if it was a marriage. Newsflash....people are stopping them. If it's simply about the term, why not offer a civil union or partnership that contains equal rights. Honestly wouldn't be surprised if a lot of straight people do it as well, cause they don't give a fuck about marriage, if the religious want to hold onto it and it's "sanctity"

"One is to prevent plainly weird relationships, but mostly we have a vested interest in the ongoing health of the human race. Its not "unhealthy" to be gay. But it is unhealthy to grow up without varied influences from people who wish to socially engineer the day's youth according to the prevailing and fashionable beliefs of the time. If two men could marry then on what basis could we refuse their request to adopt a child and raise him or her according to their beliefs? That would be true discrimination...drawing differences between married couples. "

The first part is simply a retarded argument. If gay people can get married then people can marry robots and donkeys. Stupid argument. Then we get into the second part.... Are you fucking serious? It's perfectly healthy for a child to be raised with a single crack addict mother but it's terribly unhealthy for a child to be adopted and raised by two loving men with good jobs? ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS? The fucking world would end if a gay couple raised a child. Honestly they would probably end up a lot more open minded and less ignorant than the current population.

"The reality is that a married couple has expectations and responsibilities regarding the health and balance of the children they raise. Am I suggesting that the primary reason for marriage is procreation? Yes and no. The structure of the traditional family resonates throughout society and maintains an orderly structure. When the institution of marriage lost its importance in the Roman Empire, the entire society collapsed. Men would go off and claim land indiscriminately rather than taking care of their families and raising their children to be productive members of society. In other words, the children left behind weren't given a balanced view of the world. A balanced view is part female (care, compassion, emotion) and part male (strength, leadership, courage, hard work). Does this mean that a man cannot teach a child compassion and emotion and vice versa? No, of course not. But the two genders each have an absolute advantage in passing on these skills to their young. Thousands of years of evolution proves it. That's where the point about social engineering comes in. The push for gay marriage isn't about equality or freedom. Its about socially engineering a point of view with complete ignorance of thousands of years of successful procreation and, more importantly, human development."

Why the fuck do we need more kids running around this earth? How many structural families do you see these days? People with one dad, one mom, living with grandparents, aunts and uncles, all kinds of different family structures. Your comparison to rome is dumb. so single parents should have their children removed since they can't provide a good environment for raising children right? The push for gay marriage isn't about equality or freedom? That's a fucking brilliant statement right there. And again back to procreation, because we have such a shortage of people on this earth.

"This isn't an attack on gay people. If you want to have a relationship and live together and buy a house and share your superannuation then go ahead. The reforms in 2005 in my country made this possible. But marriage is an institution with a much older and more important meaning. If we gave into every social reform pushed by the fashionable agenda of the day where would the world be?"

Again you don't get any of the benefits right now if it's not marriage. Marriage doesn't have shit for a meaning unless you're talking religious meaning, and your op said that religion was a poor reason regarding the issue. It isn't a fashionable agenda. You make it sound like gay people are going to disappear. Being gay isn't a fad.

If this wasn't a joke, I pity you. I feel like it wasn't considering some of the shit I've read already in this thread.
 
Not angry, just wondering what you were thinking when you wrote that. I don't get mad on the internet. I just honestly am amazed that that post was serious

 
Can't we all agree that no matter what you think is right for yourself, someone else should be allowed to do it as long as they're not hurting someone else? If you don't like gay marriage, don't be gay. And although I am completely unreligious, I was raised in a Catholic family and can actually make some points against these freaks. The christian argument is invalid because although their religion states that gay marriage is wrong, it also states that we have free will, an even bigger part of Christianity. So basically the religious nuts should have the same opinion as the rational ones on this, that people should have the free will to sin. I in no way agree with their standpoint as religion is retarded in general in my opinion, but that should be something every bible-thumping protesting person should know. Equality people. Equality.
 
well states can pass any law they want but if the feds over rule that state law with a federal law. the state law isnt in affect anymore becuase it is being over ruled.

for example. if my state of newhampshire passes a law that says gay marriage is legal. then the federal government passes a law that says that its illegal to marry gay then the whole country isnt allowed to hav gay marriage.

but the federal gov doesnt really want to get in the way of peoples views right now cuz some states are like 80% against it some states are like 80% for it so the federal government will probbaly leave it up to the states to do something about for the next 20 or so years
 
Maybe the US is lagging behind the rest of the world then. Much of my argument presupposes Australia's de facto relationship laws. It essentially means that gay couples can have all the rights of married couples such as superannuation, hospital visits, combining back accounts etc without having to call their relationship a marriage.
As far as equality is concerned I fully support these initiatives. Why shouldn't two men be able to live together? Its the redefinition of the institution of marriage that I don't agree with.
Oh, and all the arguments about completely disfunction families raising kids....I agree with you. Its pretty screwed up.
 
So you agree with that, but you are against gay people having kids? That's dumb.

We should start calling black people "more free than they used to be" instead of americans. As long as they have equal rights whats the problem.
 
I could care less if gays get married.

The only problem I have is that they will now have more benefits, and gay people are already in a higher economic bracket. They have no kids which allows them to bank.
 
"anyone who thinks that being gay is a choice is ignorant", please give a little more fact behind that.. Theres actually a lot of evidence saying that being gay is not hereditary (and yes there is a lot that says it is as well). Now im not saying that it isnt always a choice, you obviously cannot control how you were raised or the life experiences that shaped your psychi but if you are saying that anyone who does not believe homosexuality is hereditary is ignorant, then you are wrong, they are simply informed
 
This is how I feel. The whole argument about christianity meaning free will is dead on. I dont hate gay people at all, even though I disagree with homosexuality in some aspects. Its just like someone that is a habitual lier, I may disagree with the fact that they lie so much, but that doesnt mean I should hate them or that they are going to burn in hell
 
No, it's because people who don't agree still seem to feel like pushing whats right/wrong to them on others when it has nothing to do with them.

You have no right to dictate what other can/can't do regardless of how it makes you feel. Something, be it religion, a sense of riteousness or whatever, has instilled in you what you feel to be the ability or authority to decide what shoud and shouldn't be allowed in others lives, and yes- that is fucking sad.

If you don't agree with homosexuality, don't fuck guys. Simple as that. No matter what you have locked away inside you that tells you should be able to decide what goes on in the world, you seriously have got to look yourself in the mirror and recognize your opinion is one of BILLIONS and holds no more weight than any other.

Judge people not by whose privates they want to taste, but by the content of their character.
 
they should have the right to do it everywhere thats the point. either way if someone wants to come to ontario to do it they have a place with me, i love how legal that stuff is here :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top