38 replies to this topic

[Ives]

More like a follow up to the Friz and Freak and what they had to say, because I feel the discussion is worthy of continuation, just minus the "flames" or whatever.

Again, I still firmly believe that is a religion's right to decide what they believe in. Just like the Cub Scouts they can ban homosexuals or not marry them in their house of worship because it's a firm religious belief. Majority rules.

I think if the boy scouts wants to kick out the gays, lock and load. Thats their choice. But if they wish to do so, they should also cut off their absurd public funding from the government if they wish to implement such discriminatory policies. It's fine to discriminate if nessecary (IE an acting job, music job, etc.) though I believe some extent of the civil rights act was just, especially when it comes to holding public positions or going into something with public funding.

We're not talking about either the bill of rights or the constitution here, we're talking in general since most goverments aren't stupid enough to right down every right and law in their power.

But a government has to rule by the people and if the people should get what the people want.

I disagree, for it makes for too unstable a government. I'm conservative like you, so I agree with a lot of what you do say, but I believe if you want to have a government, it should be how Milton Friedman described it: That is, one who's sole purpose is for economic glue and the security of freedoms. When you do what the people ask, you end up disregarding the minority, which is a voice that shouldn't be so easily disregarded. If most shit is legal, then you have a pretty good accomodation. Gays can get married, Bobby Priesthood doesn't have to recognize it, and not have to hire gays in his church.

I'm talking about the government. American citizens in general are liberal, but the government is incredibly conservative.

Oh, I can't argue with that. I would go on about it, but yeah, we agree on that, not much to talk about.

[pyke]

If you can consider the churches a private institution, than they probably should have the right to decide for themselves. I don't think you should even change the term even, but the church would have the right to not recognize it themselves.

[Frizzle]

I completely agree with other than then the fact an unwritten constituion is unstable. The British have had an unwritten constituion for hundreds of years and is still the most stable and strongest forms of goverment aswell being quick and effective compared to the US.

[Will]

Do we have the right to change the definition of a word? That's like changing Nazi to loving Jews because of it's discriminatory definition. (I'm referring to changing the definition of Marriage to include homosexuals and lesbians)

I think your example is a little faulty. Changing "marriage" to include gays and lesbians is more like changing the phrase "music player" to include "Ipods". Before 2001, if people were talking about a music player they were probably referring to a CD player. Once the Ipod came out nobody really debated that it deserved the title of music player just because it wasn't exactly like the old ones.

And in response to your first question: I think words are changing all the time. English is a pretty dynamic language.

[pyke]

Couldn't it be argued that the definition, or idea behind marriage has been altered since the beginning of divorce? I mean, divorce is entirely legal, but I'm sure it goes against the original definiton/idea behind marriage.

[Sweeney]

Couldn't it be argued that the definition, or idea behind marriage has been altered since the beginning of divorce? I mean, divorce is entirely legal, but I'm sure it goes against the original definiton/idea behind marriage.

Good ol' Henry VIII.

[pyke]

Bonded in holy matrimony, till death do you part?

[DudeOnline]

There is not one set definition for Marriage. Marriage between a man and a woman is only PART of the definition for most people, for instance someone may only consider marriage between a man and woman in a CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Or only with one woman. or with many women. or with many men.

my point is, if the second part of the definition of marriage can change, why not the first? between woman and woman, between man and man. how about between human and human?

if the existence of marriage were ONLY to procreate, then by all means, limit it between a man and a woman. and what if a man were sterile, or a woman barren? would they not be allowed to be married?

marriage through the years has become much more than procreation. For some its about love, for some its about money, for some its about convenience. Just like there is not one set definition of Marriage, neither is there a set reason. Sure, there is very common reasons, but the majority is not always the rule.

so, with this argument, why can a man and a man not marry? why can a woman and a woman not marry? because the BIBLE said so? because the church says so? because the congressmen say so?

To me the question of this issue answers itself.

[Frizzle]

Most Western democracies have deep christian roots which many stick, which is why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married in christian church.

[pyke]

Even still, it doesn't make much sense how divorce changed the definition of marriage. Marriage is still "till death do you part", divorce did not change any of that. It simply provided a means to end Marriage. Despite it contradicting "till death do you part", the actual definition of marriage is still intact.

It changed the whole IDEA of marriage, which I think is much more important than the definition. I thought the idea of marriage was to be bonded with someone for the rest of your lives. Not to be bonded until one of you gets fed up or bored. Not that I'm against divorce or anything, but if the whole concept of marriage can be negated, than what's the big deal with a one/two word addition to the current definition of it?

I mean, the church should have its rights to do as it will. The government however, should act in accordance to what people want.

And yes, we should be able to change the definition of words.

What Lee is saying sounds reasonable to me.

[DudeOnline]

Most Western democracies have deep christian roots which many stick, which is why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married in christian church.

in a Christan church? ok. by all means, thats a Christan church's prerogative.

Regional laws (I.E. State, City, County, etc...) should not be influenced by the views of any church or religion. you should be able to get married without the influence or "blessings" of the "church"

[Frizzle]

Well if you're getting married in their church, of course you need their blessings. That would be ignorant and arrogant to assume you wouldn't.

And the church is just another pressure group within the country that is essiential to the running of day to day politics, so yes Religion should get a view in when making decision within legisilation, otherwise other groups (such as the BAR, AMA, NRA and etc) shouldn't get their views within congress.

[Waser Lave]

I agree with that, if Homosexuals and Lesbians want to form their own kind of marriage (NOT by changing the definition of marriage) outside of the church that is perfectly reasonable to me. Homosexuals/Lesbians getting married in Church is like spitting in God's eye.

Marriage doesn't have to take place in a church. I don't think they should (and they probably don't) expect to be able to marry in a church considering that churches are only quasi-public buildings.

To me marriage is just a union between 2 people who love each other and want their love to be recognised publicly and in law. If they aren't doing it in church (or being performed by a church minister) I don't see why it should be a problem to call it marriage.

[Sweeney]

Why don't we call it marrij, instead?
Then everyone's happy.

[Waser Lave]

Because many people consider marriage to be God's method for uniting man and woman. He created marriage between man and woman only. Therefor when Liberals come in and try to change what's been true for thousands of years, many people like me get offended. I know that us getting offended doesn't account for anything in this country, but it's a valid point as to why people like me don't support changing the definition of marriage.

Like I said, I'm perfectly okay if they do it outside the church and not in the name of marriage because I could honestly care less if they wish to condone that nature outside of church.

Marriage is a civil process, not just a religious one. If we go by what you're saying then people who don't believe in your god couldn't be married either.

If there is a religious meaning behind the process then it shouldn't matter what the word that's being used is (especially considering that the word 'marriage' isn't really that old anyway).

Edited by Laser Wave, 16 March 2008 - 03:20 PM.

[Nanny State]

Why don't we call it marrij, instead?
Then everyone's happy.

I love how regardless of the topic or how heated a debate gets you can simply smile and try and sort things out with wit.

I think that a a statement of love such as a ceremony along the lines of marriage, with the legal aspects included should be fine for gay marriage. But not within a church, it is selfish to go against beliefs that many people have held dear their whole lives for the sake of political correctness.

[Ives]

I completely agree with other than then the fact an unwritten constituion is unstable. The British have had an unwritten constituion for hundreds of years and is still the most stable and strongest forms of goverment aswell being quick and effective compared to the US.

An unstable constitution does do worse than no constitution in many instances, so I can't really argue there. Stable constitutions seem to do pretty good too, albeit that finding a perfect record hasn't happened yet.

Most Western democracies have deep christian roots which many stick, which is why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married in christian church.

Christianity is nonetheless divided into thousands of different sections, which is one of the reasons Christianity, I believe, has been so successful in surviving as long as it has. This decentralization makes it near impossible to regulate all churches, so I think if a Christian church is A-OK with marrying gays and another isn't, that's perfectly fine. Religion and philosophy are bound to evolve over time.

Do we have the right to change the definition of a word? That's like changing Nazi to loving Jews because of it's discriminatory definition. (I'm referring to changing the definition of Marriage to include homosexuals and lesbians)

That's not a logical comparison, unfortunately, because the Nazi's who remain today (through neo nazis or otherwise) haven't changed their philosophy to loving jews. Gay love, on the other hand, has existed for thousands of years and there is reasonable proof to show two things: 1) Gays are capable of building long term relationships associated with the word marriage, union, etc. and 2) it's not the governments business to handle what two people want to define their association as. That's their dialect. It may be marriage to them, or marriage to me. It could be a civil union to you or other Christians concerned with the definition of marriage. You can call your friend your CENSORED, but your dad doesn't have to say he's your CENSORED. Understand where I'm going with this? That's why people may say that the idea of limiting the use of a word to describe an association based on what not everyone thinks can be seen as unconstitutional.

[Ives]

I understand your point and agree that homosexuals are perfectly capable of creating long-term loving relationships. I have absolutely no bias towards homosexuals or lesbians at all. The point of my original statement is that why are we changing what has been for over thousands of years and that will end up offending tens of thousands of people across the country when we could just create a different union for them? It's not biased at all, it's logical. Marriage is between a man and woman, so if a man and a man gets together it would be illogical to call that marriage (and trying to change that is changing something that is holy to the church and would cause a huge upset and moreover most likely cross the line of separation of church and state). I don't want to go into this post-modern bull crap with "well marriage to me is...". Marriage is simply between a man and woman, it has been that way for centuries.

It's not a question of bias. The fact is everyone is biased. I'm biased in many ways, and so is everyone in this great nation. We're biased as fuck, but that's what makes us great. We're able to have different opinions but also live in relatively good harmony. I think if we want to create the situation which gives us the most freedom for this beautiful bias, we should redefine what is current marriage, straight or gay, legally as civil unions. It's logical to Christians to do this idea because the name marriage has been shat upon by the rates of divorce in America, and that way they get the freedom to decide who they want to be recognized as married. At the same time, gays and lesbians will get the same rights and be able to call it whatever the hell they want. There will be offended people because they want legislation on the word marriage, but there are always gonna be people who are uncomfortable with certain ideas. In this situation, they'd be given more comfort than they would be if marriage was defined by the constitution as explicilty between a man and a woman.

[Ives]

I'm not asking to change the definition of marriage according to how they define it. It's not one of those things that has to nessecarily be clearly defined by government. Murder, theft, rape, robbery, etc. are much more important and logical to deal with. Religious institutions can deal with certain things better than government, and marriage is one of them.

Again, I'm not saying redefine marriage. I'm saying remove the regulation of marriage from the government and don't call anything the government currently recognizes as a marriage to be a marriage. Just call it a civil union. Otherwise you have to deal with seperate but equal stuff, something that many reasonable churches have certainly not been a proponent of in the past.

Edited by Athean, 17 March 2008 - 10:03 PM.

[Shadiel]

Think about it though, it's essentially the state and gays/lesbians versus the church and those who are simply against editing the definition of marriage.

That is not what it is.
It is the homosexuals versus the state.
This isn't a debate as to whether or not a homosexual should be allowed to be married in a church, especially one that condemns homosexuality. It's the debate as to whether or not homosexuals should be legally represented as married.

On the side of the gays/lesbians we have them simply 'wanting' be to recognized under marriage. On the side of those not wanting marriage redefined is protecting what has been for centuries, preserving marriage in church, and keeping what has been right/holy to them for their entire life.

Any debate saying "Marriage is a Christian thing" is horribly incorrect, as marriages have existed prior to and in cultures without Christianity.

Maybe I'm just missing the argument of why gays/lesbians even need to be recognized under marriage in the first place. What's the point in changing the definition of marriage? What exactly does it accomplish that a different union wouldn't accomplish? Is there some kind of catastrophic difference between the two that would require legislative action to forcibly edit the definition of marriage? I think this is my issue tongue.gif

Again, marriage is not written into stone as solely a Christian/Jewish/Muslim tradition.
Who has the right to specify that which is not fully defined?
I think you're just to set on the idea that a marriage must occur in some form of church and must be 'Holy' when it can in fact be the opposite. It all has to do with the status of having a spouse, not whether your wed in your god's eyes.

[slwbe]

just wanted to contribute my two cents.

there are some christian churches that acknowledge homosexuality as not a sin and there are some that even do marriages. I know of an episcipalian (i can't spell) minister who's gay. tons of different versions of christianity and it's up to them what they decide to do. personally i think it's the governments choice to allow gay marriage because they are the ones who grant the rights to married people.

also, it seems that a lot of people here would be for a gay marriage that is called something else. a sort of union that grants the same rights as straight people only it's not called marriage. reminds me a bunch of the whole "separate but equal" stance on integration... if you didn't know, that didn't turn out so well.

[Shadiel]

Despite that the majority of them occur in a church.

Edited by Shadiel, 19 March 2008 - 02:48 AM.

[Frank274]

I also just wanted to add my word.

People say that marriage is, and should only be, between a man and a women, as said in the Bible.

However, how I see it:

If that's how God wanted it to be, why did he create people with the choice of being gay or not? It makes no sense, really.

Love is love to me, no matter how it is. If it's a man with a man, a woman with a woman, a man with a woman, it's still the exact same thing under it all. If it makes them happy, then let them do it. Has anyone ever thought to see how they see it? Maybe they see man and woman as a disgrace? No one cares to ask them how THEY feel. They only add their feelings to the equation.

So, in the end, love is love. Let whoever be with whoever, no matter the gender. That's my stand

[Nick]

Regardless of whether or not you approve, the definition has already begun its transformation. Individual states have already legally redefined the word marriage to include same-sex couples. Furthermore, Wikipedia defines it as a "personal union of individuals," and the Merriam-Webster Dictionary's latest edition includes a definition acknowledging same-sex marriage. If your goal is to prevent it from occurring, you're too late.

I'd like to take a look at my least favorite opposing group, the "devout" Christians. Some of you may be wondering why I've placed "devout" in those lovely quotation marks - well, it's to indicate bullshit. Christians who oppose homosexuality tend to reference the classic biblical verse from Leviticus, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination," or something to that extent. There are two problems with relying on this phrase as grounds for the ridiculous claim that gay marriage offends Christianity. One, the book of Leviticus is found early in the Old Testament, and no one is for certain of what was intended by each passage. If this was intended to reference homosexuality as an abomination why does it not say the same of woman lying with womankind?

Second, the Christians who use this line from Leviticus as a moral fallback tend to pick and choose what parts of the Bible they want to follow. Why do I say that? Well, a few chapters earlier in the book of Leviticus this appears, "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you." Seeing as that was a little worthy, the direct translation basically says that you can't eat shellfish. Well, I'm willing to bet that a good number of Christians referencing the passage about "homosexuality" have had a shrimp cocktail or two in their time.

If you are opposed to the notion of same-sex marriage and you do not define yourself as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, then your opinion is unimportant. Other than perhaps bruising your already pathetic morality (cry cry), two men getting married and trying to live a normal life doesn't affect you. Hey, if you don't like just tell your kids we're going to hell, but don't forget to tell them you'll be there with us due to that lobster dinner you enjoyed last weekend.

Edited by Urban, 12 June 2008 - 09:14 PM.

[Nick]

Why did He give people the choice of being gay? That's like asking why did He give the people the choice to murder? He gave people the choice to murder, but He said it was wrong. He gave people the choice to be gay, but He said it was wrong.

I cannot believe how much this needs to be reiterated, but being gay is not a choice. It has been scientifically proven that it is not a choice. There are differences in the neurological components of homosexual brains compared to heterosexual brains.