Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Gay Marriage


  • Please log in to reply
179 replies to this topic

#51 Euphoria

Euphoria
  • 2,559 posts

Posted 21 April 2009 - 11:03 PM

Are you just thick, or are you conveniently forgetting that the country you live in was founded on Christian values?

#52 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 April 2009 - 11:17 PM

QUOTE (Bryan @ Apr 22 2009, 02:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Why the translation and not the original text? Why should we base 'the ultimate view' on what someone else thought was said.

I don't watch media for the point that it's biased. But yes, I could easily see both sides of the story. Will I know both sides? No.


Well original text, but rationality will point towards what I'm saying.


QUOTE (Nick @ Apr 22 2009, 04:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Please let me know when the right of heterosexuals to marry is put on the ballots, I'll be sure to vote 'no.'


Sorry, won't be one. We're normal.

#53 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4,107 posts

Posted 22 April 2009 - 12:24 AM

QUOTE (Frizzle @ Apr 22 2009, 12:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well original text, but rationality will point towards what I'm saying.

Rationality without all variables is just simple logic that cannot be fully regarded as truth.

Rationally, the statement below will make sense:

I am thirsty.
I want to be satiated.
If I drink Gatorade my thirst will be satiated.
Therefore I will drink Gatorade.

However, after inducing variables such as the ingredients of Gatorade and the way the human body functions, Gatorade does nothing more than make you even more thirsty. It's a rational explanation but does it solve the problem?

Just because a thought is rational does not mean it should be held absolute.

QUOTE (Euphoria @ Apr 22 2009, 12:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Are you just thick, or are you conveniently forgetting that the country you live in was founded on Christian values?

I thought the founding fathers were just Freemason tenets and deists?

Edited by Bryan, 22 April 2009 - 12:18 AM.


#54 Nick

Nick
  • <img src="http://i29.tinypic.com/9iwl5w.jpg">

  • 6,051 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 April 2009 - 12:54 AM

QUOTE (Euphoria @ Apr 22 2009, 03:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Are you just thick, or are you conveniently forgetting that the country you live in was founded on Christian values?


Australia was originally a island for prisoners, what's your point?

QUOTE (Frizzle @ Apr 22 2009, 03:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Sorry, won't be one. We're normal.


You're the majority. "Normal" clearly does not hold the same definition for all people so use it sparingly.

QUOTE (Bryan @ Apr 21 2009, 06:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."


I'm not sure where you're getting the second half of that verse as most bibles translate it to, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Anyway, I have a few things to say about this particular verse, as it's easily the most popular one for denouncing homosexuality. First and foremost, there are very few sections of the Bible which can be interpreted correctly in only one way, so take that into consideration when jumping to the conclusion that it is a condemnation of homosexuality. It could, as Bryan said, have been their way of explaining the scientific fact that men cannot reproduce with men. It has also been argued that it was an instruction for men to have sex for the purpose of reproduction, not for pleasure. The point is that there is no certain definition.

Second, take note of where this phrase is located in the bible, as it sits nestled discretely among verses which condemn acts as mundane as consuming seafood. What many historians agree on is that these passages in Leviticus were mostly likely guidelines for living a safe and healthy life a few thousand years ago. The seafood verse could have been a result of knowing that seafood contained toxins which caused illness. Today, we have discovered ways of screening for any dangerous seafood, and therefore it has made its way to most peoples' regular diet. It's safe to say that the majority of the bible cannot be applied to modern lifestyle as we have evolved as a species far beyond the limitations that were in place thousands of years ago.

Finally, religion need not play a part in marriage, as it is the federal government who issues marriage licenses.

#55 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4,107 posts

Posted 22 April 2009 - 01:27 AM

QUOTE (Nick @ Apr 22 2009, 01:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Finally, religion need not play a part in marriage, as it is the federal government who issues marriage licenses.

Civil union and marriage are two different things.

Marriage is a relationship acknowledged by the religious figures and by the government.

I think the point being is that it's unclear what the bible states, so there will always be dissent on marriage. However, I see no reason as to why interpersonal relationships can't be represented by the state.


#56 Euphoria

Euphoria
  • 2,559 posts

Posted 22 April 2009 - 03:18 AM

What is wrong with a civil union, seriously?

You'll never get same-sex marriages. The entire concept of marriage is intrinsically linked to religion - and there's not a single mainstream one that I can think of that openly accepts homosexuality. That you will have to accept.





#57 Nick

Nick
  • <img src="http://i29.tinypic.com/9iwl5w.jpg">

  • 6,051 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 April 2009 - 04:00 AM

QUOTE (Euphoria @ Apr 22 2009, 07:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
What is wrong with a civil union, seriously?


Really? It's an equality issue. Black school children were given schools, but they weren't allowed to attend the "white" school. Civil Unions are like a "separate but equal" compensation package; I'm not interested in compensation.

QUOTE (Euphoria @ Apr 22 2009, 07:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You'll never get same-sex marriages. The entire concept of marriage is intrinsically linked to religion - and there's not a single mainstream one that I can think of that openly accepts homosexuality. That you will have to accept.


I'm fairly certain Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa currently recognize same-sex marriage, as well as a number of countries across the globe; furthermore, more states are making strides to "accommodate" same-sex couples in the interim (IE. New York, where I live now, recognizes out of state same-sex marriages as legal), so we have seen it, and we will continue to see it.

The concept of marriage predates written history, so I'm not exactly sure how you arrived at your second statement; however, bear in mind that marriage existed long before monotheistic religion say, for example, in Ancient Greece where they held polytheistic beliefs as well as very free sexual expression, which often included homosexual encounters and acts.

Edited by Nick, 22 April 2009 - 04:03 AM.


#58 Euphoria

Euphoria
  • 2,559 posts

Posted 22 April 2009 - 05:25 AM

And where are the Ancient Greeks now?

#59 brandonxan

brandonxan
  • 114 posts

Posted 22 April 2009 - 06:44 AM

QUOTE (Euphoria @ Apr 22 2009, 05:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And where are the Ancient Greeks now?

Unless you can prove that the Ancient Greeks are non-existant because of their homosexual acceptance, that had no relevance.

#60 Nick

Nick
  • <img src="http://i29.tinypic.com/9iwl5w.jpg">

  • 6,051 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 April 2009 - 07:48 AM

QUOTE (Euphoria @ Apr 22 2009, 09:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And where are the Ancient Greeks now?


They were conquered by the Romans, which has absolutely nothing to do with homosexual practices. Regardless, homosexuality was equal if not greater in abundance in the Ancient Roman civilization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome).

Now, Mesopotamia as an entirety also has historical records of homosexual behavior and practices; furthermore only the Assyrian Empire eventually outlawed homosexuality, yet other empires such as the Hittites, who are thought to have "formed" in 1700 BCE, welcomed the practices.

And, as a general note, Mesopotamian society began around 5,000 BCE, which, as far as I know, is about three times the duration which Christianity has enjoyed thus far.

Edited by Nick, 22 April 2009 - 07:48 AM.


#61 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 April 2009 - 08:19 AM

QUOTE (Nick @ Apr 22 2009, 01:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Really? It's an equality issue. Black school children were given schools, but they weren't allowed to attend the "white" school. Civil Unions are like a "separate but equal" compensation package; I'm not interested in compensation.


Bear in mind you will never be equal in the eyes of some and unless a pink tryanny was introduced, gay marriage is unlikely to be accepted.

#62 Nick

Nick
  • <img src="http://i29.tinypic.com/9iwl5w.jpg">

  • 6,051 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 April 2009 - 08:44 AM

QUOTE (Frizzle @ Apr 22 2009, 12:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Bear in mind you will never be equal in the eyes of some and unless a pink tryanny was introduced, gay marriage is unlikely to be accepted.


I'm not on a mission to eliminate homophobia from the world, Lee. Equality in the eyes of the law will do just fine.

#63 Fatal

Fatal
  • 3,615 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 April 2009 - 09:56 AM

QUOTE (Nick @ Apr 22 2009, 01:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You're the majority. "Normal" clearly does not hold the same definition for all people so use it sparingly.

It's quite obvious man was made to reproduce with a woman. Other is considered not normal.

I say no because I do not support AIDS. People seem to like to ignore the statistics. Much more AIDS in homo's over hetero's.

Edited by Fatal, 22 April 2009 - 09:56 AM.


#64 Tetiel

Tetiel
  • 11,532 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 April 2009 - 10:02 AM

QUOTE (Fatal @ Apr 22 2009, 01:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It's quite obvious man was made to reproduce with a woman. Other is considered not normal.

I say no because I do not support AIDS. People seem to like to ignore the statistics. Much more AIDS in homo's over hetero's.

Okay, then let's have females marry other females. No problem there, right?

#65 Fatal

Fatal
  • 3,615 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 April 2009 - 10:12 AM

QUOTE (Tetiel @ Apr 22 2009, 10:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Okay, then let's have females marry other females. No problem there, right?

I'd say correct, no problem there, ONLY BECAUSE I like going by the statistics wink.gif. AIDS in female/female is not bad compared to male/male. Also I'd say most likely many of those AIDS females got it from a homosexual male. The male's are highly promiscuous compared to the female's.

It wouldn't go like that though because it'd be too sexist to pass legislature probably. Therefore by default, illegal gay marriage in general would be the best idea that would be "accepted"

Edited by Fatal, 22 April 2009 - 10:16 AM.


#66 Tetiel

Tetiel
  • 11,532 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 April 2009 - 10:21 AM

QUOTE (Fatal @ Apr 22 2009, 02:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'd say correct, no problem there, ONLY BECAUSE I like going by the statistics wink.gif. AIDS in female/female is not bad compared to male/male. Also I'd say most likely many of those AIDS females got it from a homosexual male. The male's are highly promiscuous compared to the female's.

It wouldn't go like that though because it'd be too sexist to pass legislature probably. Therefore by default, illegal gay marriage in general would be the best idea that would be "accepted"

I suppose what I don't understand about your argument is that gay males are attempting to create a relationship that is exclusive and they will not be having sex with other gay males and therefore even if they have the disease it will be contained. How does gay marriage promote AIDS? I just don't get it.

#67 Nick

Nick
  • <img src="http://i29.tinypic.com/9iwl5w.jpg">

  • 6,051 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 April 2009 - 11:11 AM

QUOTE (Fatal @ Apr 22 2009, 01:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I say no because I do not support AIDS. People seem to like to ignore the statistics. Much more AIDS in homo's over hetero's.


I'm going to ignore how gravely insulting it is that you find it okay to deny someone the right to marry because of a disease, and for a second, I will pretend that you have even a tiny morsel of a conscience.

Men are promiscuous by nature; if there are a greater number of monogamous marriages then, guess what, fewer promiscuous single gay guys to spread AIDs.

#68 brandonxan

brandonxan
  • 114 posts

Posted 22 April 2009 - 12:35 PM

QUOTE (Fatal @ Apr 22 2009, 09:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It's quite obvious man was made to reproduce with a woman. Other is considered not normal.

I say no because I do not support AIDS. People seem to like to ignore the statistics. Much more AIDS in homo's over hetero's.


Men are going to fuck regardless of whether or not gay marriage is legal. So what's your point lol...

#69 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4,107 posts

Posted 22 April 2009 - 01:54 PM

I just read a statistic that said that unless you're black, gay or share needles, you only have a .01% chance to get AIDS. Thought that was interesting.

Really, I don't understand what's wrong with a civil union? It's the exact same thing as a marriage on paper, but it doesn't incorporate religion. I don't see why it's an issue of 'equality' when atheists garner civil unions as well. Marriage does not predate written history, because marriage must harbor the support of the deity and of the state. It has nothing to do with segregation, because segregation doesn't involve religion, which is the dominating force behind non-homosexual marriage. You can't compare segregation because it's only very loosely similar. In fact, the only thing that's similar is group X was allowed to do something whilst group Y couldn't. There's a lot more factors to look in to.

Also, if you're going to compare marriage in Ancient Greece to marriage in current times, you're going to encounter some problems. Homosexuality was so rampant because only men were allowed to be soldiers, therefore, when going on a year long march to battle someone, that's the only way you can get some form of pleasure. Keep in mind also that woman weren't allowed to hold any jobs, nor any spot in counsel. The greeks did that, so why do we not practice that currently? Things that worked for ancient civilization will NOT work in modern times without some form of change. You're making a moot point saying that the Greeks did it.

#70 brandonxan

brandonxan
  • 114 posts

Posted 22 April 2009 - 04:19 PM

QUOTE
Really, I don't understand what's wrong with a civil union? It's the exact same thing as a marriage on paper, but it doesn't incorporate religion


Seperate but equal.
Blacks had a water fountain, it was the same as white people's water fountain so what's wrong with that?

Giving someone something that isn't exactly the same as what your peers around you are getting, however similar it may be, will always make you feel lesser of a person.

#71 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4,107 posts

Posted 22 April 2009 - 05:50 PM

QUOTE (brandonxan @ Apr 22 2009, 05:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Seperate but equal.
Blacks had a water fountain, it was the same as white people's water fountain so what's wrong with that?

Giving someone something that isn't exactly the same as what your peers around you are getting, however similar it may be, will always make you feel lesser of a person.

You're thick. Quit comparing gays to race, it's not nor never will be the same. Guess what? I let homos drink out of my water fountain.

You shouldn't feel lesser if it's a religious reason, that's just fucking stupid.

Marriage is a RELIGIOUS AND CIVIL THING! They can't control the religion, so what's wrong with them controlling the civil aspect and giving you the right to do so.

#72 ericcc

ericcc
  • 205 posts

Posted 22 April 2009 - 05:55 PM

not like my opinion matters but
love is love
who are we to stop them from getting legally married and having the benefits of a straight couple?

#73 brandonxan

brandonxan
  • 114 posts

Posted 22 April 2009 - 06:58 PM

QUOTE (Bryan @ Apr 22 2009, 06:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You're thick. Quit comparing gays to race, it's not nor never will be the same. Guess what? I let homos drink out of my water fountain.

You shouldn't feel lesser if it's a religious reason, that's just fucking stupid.

Marriage is a RELIGIOUS AND CIVIL THING! They can't control the religion, so what's wrong with them controlling the civil aspect and giving you the right to do so.


No it is absolutely the same.
Lemme break it down to something simple for you to grasp.
Black people didn't choose to be black just as gays didn't choose to be gay.
So it is discrimination based upon uncontrollable factors.
AKA Duhhhhhhh!

And if marriage is so utterly and completely religious then how come so many atheists get married? wink.gif

#74 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4,107 posts

Posted 22 April 2009 - 07:57 PM

QUOTE (brandonxan @ Apr 22 2009, 07:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No it is absolutely the same.
Lemme break it down to something simple for you to grasp.
Black people didn't choose to be black just as gays didn't choose to be gay.
So it is discrimination based upon uncontrollable factors.
AKA Duhhhhhhh!

And if marriage is so utterly and completely religious then how come so many atheists get married? wink.gif

No, it's not absolutely the same. The only correlation is that you say it's an 'uncontrollable' factor. Guess what, you can bleach your skin if you're black. If you want to change your sexual tendencies, it's easy. All you have to say is 'I'm not attracted to men'.

You're stupid, read my arguments. Marriage is religious AND political. AND means both, not one. Atheists don't get married, they get civilly married. No atheist will practice a traditional christian marriage, because they don't believe in it. I don't understand how that's a hard fact to understand.

Guess what, I was born liking my penis in a vagina. However, if I start not liking that, I can choose to fuck assholes. I don't see how that's anything like being black?

#75 Euphoria

Euphoria
  • 2,559 posts

Posted 23 April 2009 - 01:57 AM

QUOTE (brandonxan @ Apr 23 2009, 02:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No it is absolutely the same.
Lemme break it down to something simple for you to grasp.
Black people didn't choose to be black just as gays didn't choose to be gay.
So it is discrimination based upon uncontrollable factors.
AKA Duhhhhhhh!

And if marriage is so utterly and completely religious then how come so many atheists get married? wink.gif


So if a cure was offered for homosexuality, would you take it?


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users