179 replies to this topic

[brandonxan]

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?

No Atheists do get married in the same manner. I know tons that have. The "preacher" marrying two people at the ceremony is tradition and I have yet to see any wedding (including between atheists) without one. Other than that what's the christian part? Certainly not the wedding dress, the tuxedos, the wedding cake, the reception...

And like you said, "if I start not liking that..."
"IF."
You won't. Because that is how you were born.

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

Absolutely. The discrimination itself is at time intolerable. And it's hard having feelings for boys, because it's like they only want to fuck you. Most of the time I feel like no one even cares about me truly.

Edited by brandonxan, 23 April 2009 - 05:59 AM.

[Waser Lave]

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.

Marriage has actually only been linked to religion in the last few hundred years, for thousands of years before that it was just an agreement between two people/families. You don't have to believe in a god to get married and having a ceremony somewhere other than a church doesn't mean you're any less married, they're one and the same.

[414de7fe6]

Absolutely. The discrimination itself is at time intolerable. And it's hard having feelings for boys, because it's like they only want to fuck you. Most of the time I feel like no one even cares about me truly.

Then try and dull the physical aspect of your emotional drive and try looking for a man/woman based on who they actually are, instead of what they look like?

You're probably thinking 'holy shit, way to go captain obvious' and I can understand that - but from my perspective, it's pretty simple to switch what the physical aspect of me wants and what the emotional aspect of me wants. This is me, and not you - mind, I have no idea how your mind works and how you rationalize your actions and all that jazz.

The discrimination is pretty stupid, but humans will be humans. All about segregation and stigma.

[Bryan]

No Atheists do get married in the same manner. I know tons that have. The "preacher" marrying two people at the ceremony is tradition and I have yet to see any wedding (including between atheists) without one. Other than that what's the christian part? Certainly not the wedding dress, the tuxedos, the wedding cake, the reception...

You haven't been to many weddings have you?

Ever been to a Muslim wedding? What about a Jewish one? How about Sikh wedding? You're making assumptions that a 'traditional' marriage is the only one.

And like you said, "if I start not liking that..."
"IF."
You won't. Because that is how you were born.

That again is an ignorant statement.

Michael Jackson didn't like being black. Guess what, he's not no more. Same thing goes for gays. If you don't like it, and you truly don't want it, you can change it.

Absolutely. The discrimination itself is at time intolerable. And it's hard having feelings for boys, because it's like they only want to fuck you. Most of the time I feel like no one even cares about me truly.

Quit going for looks then. It shouldn't matter if the other is male or female if it makes you truly happy.

Marriage has actually only been linked to religion in the last few hundred years, for thousands of years before that it was just an agreement between two people/families. You don't have to believe in a god to get married and having a ceremony somewhere other than a church doesn't mean you're any less married, they're one and the same.

When was it linked? Never read about that.

Most people see marriage as a religious and civil union. Getting married without recognition from a deity is just a civil union. That's why I don't understand what is so wrong with a civil union, it's the same fucking thing as marriage minus the religious factor.

[brandonxan]

That again is an ignorant statement.

Michael Jackson didn't like being black. Guess what, he's not no more. Same thing goes for gays. If you don't like it, and you truly don't want it, you can change it.

Changing a physical aspect is completely different from an emotional one. Yea I can cut my arm off if I don't want it.
But you can't change your emotional needs and attraction.
Could you force yourself to be gay? No. You could pretend for a while but you couldn't force your body to not be disgusted by someone of the same sex doing something sexual to you.

[Waser Lave]

When was it linked? Never read about that.

Most people see marriage as a religious and civil union. Getting married without recognition from a deity is just a civil union. That's why I don't understand what is so wrong with a civil union, it's the same fucking thing as marriage minus the religious factor.

I can't remember where I read it but just from the first page of google:

http://uktv.co.uk/ye...item/aid/581541

In European nations, marriage was traditionally considered a civil institution. Around 5AD great Christian theologians such as Augustine wrote about marriage and the Christian Church started taking an interest in the ceremony.

It was at this point that Christians began to have their marriages conducted by ministers in Christian gatherings, but it was in the 12th century that the Roman Catholic Church formally defined marriage as a sacrament, sanctioned by God.

I don't really see the point in having 'marriage' and 'civil union' as separate terms for the same thing personally. Marriage pre-dates established organised religion so having it witnessed by your favourite particular flavour of deity shouldn't make a difference.

[Bryan]

Changing a physical aspect is completely different from an emotional one. Yea I can cut my arm off if I don't want it.
But you can't change your emotional needs and attraction.
Could you force yourself to be gay? No. You could pretend for a while but you couldn't force your body to not be disgusted by someone of the same sex doing something sexual to you.

Being gay is both a physical and emotional commitment though. The only reason that you are gay is because you're a man and you like men, not because you have thoughts for a man. (Using you as an all inclusive term for homosexuals, not you as a person).

You focus on only one bit of your argument, saying that a person cannot change if they're gay. If a man gets a sex change operation, is he still gay? You can completely force yourself to fall in love with someone of the same sex (i use force here meaning that you can't control who you're not attracted to). It just doesn't make sense to me why people say that they can't choose if they're gay or not. That they're 'born gay'. You're not born gay, you're born with physical attraction to certain anatomies of a human body. To say that you're born gay is a bit facetious. You're only gay because the language has deemed you such.

Honestly, I could completely find myself in love with a guy. I don't consider myself gay though, far from to be honest. I've never even once considered kissing a guy without a look of disgust. However, if my one 'soulmate' (if you believe in that) so happens to be in a males body, than that's how it is.

I can't remember where I read it but just from the first page of google:

http://uktv.co.uk/ye...item/aid/581541



I don't really see the point in having 'marriage' and 'civil union' as separate terms for the same thing personally. Marriage pre-dates established organised religion so having it witnessed by your favourite particular flavour of deity shouldn't make a difference.

You may not see the point in them being separate terms, but because of the church's influence, modern day marriage are held to be recognized by both a religious and authoritative figure. That's societies current view, and that's what I'm arguing on. It's wrong to cite history because there's a reason that it's no longer current. I could cite history left and right about why I think slavery is a great practice. I mean, after all, they did it back in the Greco-Roman era. However, it's illegal now. So why should we use that same premise to argue for homosexual 'marriage'?

I think you guys are misunderstanding me. I'm all for allowing homosexuals the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple. I just don't believe it's possible to intertwine the two completely because there are factors out of legislative control.

[Waser Lave]

You may not see the point in them being separate terms, but because of the church's influence, modern day marriage are held to be recognized by both a religious and authoritative figure. That's societies current view, and that's what I'm arguing on. It's wrong to cite history because there's a reason that it's no longer current. I could cite history left and right about why I think slavery is a great practice. I mean, after all, they did it back in the Greco-Roman era. However, it's illegal now. So why should we use that same premise to argue for homosexual 'marriage'?

I think you guys are misunderstanding me. I'm all for allowing homosexuals the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple. I just don't believe it's possible to intertwine the two completely because there are factors out of legislative control.

I'm not talking about gay marriage alone, I'd guess most marriages in the world don't have any ceremonies in churches but you wouldn't say that a couple were 'civilly unioned' just because they chose not to have a church ceremony. Perhaps it's different in America, I wouldn't really know about that.

[Bryan]

I'm not talking about gay marriage alone, I'd guess most marriages in the world don't have any ceremonies in churches but you wouldn't say that a couple were 'civilly unioned' just because they chose not to have a church ceremony. Perhaps it's different in America, I wouldn't really know about that.

Unfortunately it seems that the majority of people choose to misconstrue that word. Just like if someone calls another gay, does not necessarily mean they're homosexual, it's also used as an insult.

If they weren't married in a church, then it should be civilly joined, because that's what they are.

[414de7fe6]

And around we go again - what is wrong with a civil union?

[brandonxan]

Being gay is both a physical and emotional commitment though. The only reason that you are gay is because you're a man and you like men, not because you have thoughts for a man. (Using you as an all inclusive term for homosexuals, not you as a person).

You focus on only one bit of your argument, saying that a person cannot change if they're gay. If a man gets a sex change operation, is he still gay? You can completely force yourself to fall in love with someone of the same sex (i use force here meaning that you can't control who you're not attracted to). It just doesn't make sense to me why people say that they can't choose if they're gay or not. That they're 'born gay'. You're not born gay, you're born with physical attraction to certain anatomies of a human body. To say that you're born gay is a bit facetious. You're only gay because the language has deemed you such.

Honestly, I could completely find myself in love with a guy. I don't consider myself gay though, far from to be honest. I've never even once considered kissing a guy without a look of disgust. However, if my one 'soulmate' (if you believe in that) so happens to be in a males body, than that's how it is.

The word "gay" is what is used to define attraction towards same-sex. So yes if you're only physical attraction is toward the same-sex then you are born gay.
And about your last paragraph...I really do see something there. I guess we can fall in love with anyone. But if you aren't physically attracted to girls then why would you even try to pursue them to see if you fall in love? But then again if you don't then I guess you are admitting to lust.
Interesting.

[Sida]

Lol I didn't even know I posted in this topic. Man I was chatting some shit.

[Nick]

And around we go again - what is wrong with a civil union?

It's a compensation package; basically a tool which the political right instated in the hopes of making the gay community "happy" without actually making them equal to the heterosexual population. It also makes the somewhat offensive gesture that all homosexuals are atheists, which is not true.

[pyke]

It's a compensation package; basically a tool which the political right instated in the hopes of making the gay community "happy" without actually making them equal to the heterosexual population. It also makes the somewhat offensive gesture that all homosexuals are atheists, which is not true.

You do agree that it's the churches decision whether they'll marry gay couples, right?

[brandonxan]

You do agree that it's the churches decision whether they'll marry gay couples, right?

You are married once you sign the certificate in a courthouse. Having a ceremony at a church is completely optional and up to a person's individual beliefs.
Gays aren't asking for churches to hold ceremonies, they are asking for the government to recognize a gay marriage.

[Bryan]

You are married once you sign the certificate in a courthouse. Having a ceremony at a church is completely optional and up to a person's individual beliefs.
Gays aren't asking for churches to hold ceremonies, they are asking for the government to recognize a gay marriage.

No you are not married once you sign the certificate. You're joined by the state.

Government recognizing marriage is a civil union. That little certificate is a union that the state holds valid. You can't have a complete marriage without involvement of the church. I'm straight, if I 'get married' in a nice beachfront wedding, it's called a civil union. It's not a compensation package, it's all they can control. I wouldn't get 'married' in a church because I'm an agnostic. Just like (because of the beliefs of a good chunk) a homosexual shouldn't get joined in a church.

Asking for a complete marriage is asking the church to hold ceremonies. Regardless of your own beliefs, modern day terminology has marriage defined as a recognition of union by the government and by the religious figures. A civil union is all that the government can control, you can't ask the government to recognize gay marriage when they only control one aspect of it.

[Nick]

You do agree that it's the churches decision whether they'll marry gay couples, right?

Yes, but bear in mind that one church does not speak for them all. I happen to attend a church where gay marriage is accepted on the same level that heterosexual marriage is.

[nox]

No you are not married once you sign the certificate. You're joined by the state.

Government recognizing marriage is a civil union. That little certificate is a union that the state holds valid. You can't have a complete marriage without involvement of the church. I'm straight, if I 'get married' in a nice beachfront wedding, it's called a civil union. It's not a compensation package, it's all they can control. I wouldn't get 'married' in a church because I'm an agnostic. Just like (because of the beliefs of a good chunk) a homosexual shouldn't get joined in a church.

Asking for a complete marriage is asking the church to hold ceremonies. Regardless of your own beliefs, modern day terminology has marriage defined as a recognition of union by the government and by the religious figures. A civil union is all that the government can control, you can't ask the government to recognize gay marriage when they only control one aspect of it.

brian what are you talking about? you are seriously misinformed

people are married once they sign the marriage license. regardless of the "modern terminology", US law defines marriage as a legal kinship not a religious one. the government controls every aspect of marriage; you have the right to celebrate signing the document in whichever way you'd like but thats about it. according to your logic every married couple that wasn't wed in a church does not have a marriage but a civil union... this logic is flawed for a number of reasons: marriage isn't exclusive to christians.... and civil unions are exclusive to same sex couples.

the federal government does not recognize civil unions either btw, they're only recognized on the state level by the few states that have passed same sex marriage laws

http://en.wikipedia....of_Marriage_Act

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse':

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.[3]

Edited by nox, 27 April 2009 - 01:24 AM.

[Bryan]

brian what are you talking about? you are seriously misinformed

people are married once they sign the marriage license. regardless of the "modern terminology", US law defines marriage as a legal kinship not a religious one. the government controls every aspect of marriage; you have the right to celebrate signing the document in whichever way you'd like but thats about it. according to your logic every married couple that wasn't wed in a church does not have a marriage but a civil union... this logic is flawed for a number of reasons: marriage isn't exclusive to christians.... and civil unions are exclusive to same sex couples.

the federal government does not recognize civil unions either btw, they're only recognized on the state level by the few states that have passed same sex marriage laws

http://en.wikipedia....of_Marriage_Act

Like I said, I play the Devil's Advocate. I was waiting for someone to post that =]

You're right, by the logic I posted, than any married couple that isn't recognized by a religious deity is only civilly joined.

Look in Merriam-Webster at the definition for marriage, then again at the definition for union. Would not a marriage (minus the spiritual recognition) count as a only a partnership recognized by the state (or a 'civil union' in other terms).

Legally, you're right. The terms for marriage by law are what you put, but what, however, about the terminology that we follow?

By law, you're right (which is why I was hoping Kitsune would've joined the topic). But think about how we as society have formed those words to be. A civil union should be nothing more than a partnership acknowledged by the government. Irregardless of sex, that's what it is and should be.

I'm arguing for a true civil union, being that the only difference is that it's up to the church (or whatever else) to decide whether or not they want to endorse the marriage. Irregardless of sex.

I'm a bit faded at the moment, so sorry if my response seems a bit incomprehensible and poorly backed.

[Waser Lave]

No you are not married once you sign the certificate. You're joined by the state.

Government recognizing marriage is a civil union. That little certificate is a union that the state holds valid. You can't have a complete marriage without involvement of the church. I'm straight, if I 'get married' in a nice beachfront wedding, it's called a civil union. It's not a compensation package, it's all they can control. I wouldn't get 'married' in a church because I'm an agnostic. Just like (because of the beliefs of a good chunk) a homosexual shouldn't get joined in a church.

Asking for a complete marriage is asking the church to hold ceremonies. Regardless of your own beliefs, modern day terminology has marriage defined as a recognition of union by the government and by the religious figures. A civil union is all that the government can control, you can't ask the government to recognize gay marriage when they only control one aspect of it.

Must be a bitch for all the people who were married before the church became established and marriage registrations took place. Marriage really has nothing to do with either the church or the state but it's become so mutated that people now think it's the sole preserve of one or the other.

[brandonxan]

No you are not married once you sign the certificate. You're joined by the state.

Government recognizing marriage is a civil union. That little certificate is a union that the state holds valid. You can't have a complete marriage without involvement of the church. I'm straight, if I 'get married' in a nice beachfront wedding, it's called a civil union. It's not a compensation package, it's all they can control. I wouldn't get 'married' in a church because I'm an agnostic. Just like (because of the beliefs of a good chunk) a homosexual shouldn't get joined in a church.

Asking for a complete marriage is asking the church to hold ceremonies. Regardless of your own beliefs, modern day terminology has marriage defined as a recognition of union by the government and by the religious figures. A civil union is all that the government can control, you can't ask the government to recognize gay marriage when they only control one aspect of it.

What the fuck are you talking about?
Yes you are married once you sign that paper...there is a reason it says "CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE" on it LOL!

Like I said, I play the Devil's Advocate. I was waiting for someone to post that =]

No you were just wrong.

[Nick]

Like I said, I play the Devil's Advocate. I was waiting for someone to post that =]

Nox just reiterated (perhaps more cohesively) what I said about marriage predating organized monotheistic religion, and therefore the term isn't the property of Christianity. I, too, noted that a marriage license is the legal document which makes a partnership official.

Your "devil's advocate" business is a white flag in disguise. If you were wrong, say you were wrong.

By law, you're right (which is why I was hoping Kitsune would've joined the topic). But think about how we as society have formed those words to be. A civil union should be nothing more than a partnership acknowledged by the government. Irregardless of sex, that's what it is and should be.

I agree that it should exist as a means for the non-religious couples to officially declare their kinship; however, it's currently instated as a booby prize for same-sex couples.

[quote name='Bryan' date='Apr 27 2009, 06:12 AM' post='1189721']I'm arguing for a true civil union, being that the only difference is that it's up to the church (or whatever else) to decide whether or not they want to endorse the marriage. Irregardless of sex.[/quote

Endorse meaning to have a ceremony/wedding? The church does not have the legal right, at least in the United States, to refuse to endorse any legal marital contract or document.

Just for the record, irregardless isn't a real word.

[Bryan]

Must be a bitch for all the people who were married before the church became established and marriage registrations took place. Marriage really has nothing to do with either the church or the state but it's become so mutated that people now think it's the sole preserve of one or the other.

Again I stated my side using the modern term for marriage. You just said it's become mutated. That's the 'evolution' of the word throughout our society up to its current definition.

What the fuck are you talking about?
Yes you are married once you sign that paper...there is a reason it says "CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE" on it LOL!

You don't understand, I was saying that because of the definition of marriage (as defined in the dictionary, not legally), that a union withholding the religious recognition is nothing more than a union that is civilly recognized.

No you were just wrong.

You don't understand, I was saying that because of the definition of marriage (as defined in the dictionary, not legally), that a union withholding the religious recognition is nothing more than a union that is civilly recognized.

Nox just reiterated (perhaps more cohesively) what I said about marriage predating organized monotheistic religion, and therefore the term isn't the property of Christianity. I, too, noted that a marriage license is the legal document which makes a partnership official.

Your "devil's advocate" business is a white flag in disguise. If you were wrong, say you were wrong.



I agree that it should exist as a means for the non-religious couples to officially declare their kinship; however, it's currently instated as a booby prize for same-sex couples.

I'm arguing for a true civil union, being that the only difference is that it's up to the church (or whatever else) to decide whether or not they want to endorse the marriage. Irregardless of sex.

Endorse meaning to have a ceremony/wedding? The church does not have the legal right, at least in the United States, to refuse to endorse any legal marital contract or document.

Just for the record, irregardless isn't a real word.

I know that marriage predates monotheistic religion. But because of the churches involvement, it has evolved to form the modern day definition that we have now.

I've already stated I was playing Devils Advocate in this topic, before I even started the debate.

Endorse meaning recognize. For instance, there should be no debates on whether they're not civilly joined, rather the 'spiritual' recognition they seek chooses not to acknowledge their kinship (as it's already instated for heterosexual couples).

[Waser Lave]

Again I stated my side using the modern term for marriage. You just said it's become mutated. That's the 'evolution' of the word throughout our society up to its current definition.

Just because people use a word wrongly doesn't mean that the meaning is changed, people also use the word 'bad' in place of 'good' but it doesn't change the meaning of it.

[Sweeney]

Dictionary definition =! legal definition.