Do you approve of bans on same-sex marriages?

[Bastet]

I think gay people should be able to marry each other, and they should be able to do so while smoking pot and carrying concealed handguns.

Well...that's not quite how I picture my wedding day...

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I think gay people should be able to marry each other, and they should be able to do so while smoking pot and carrying concealed handguns.

Well...that's not quite how I picture my wedding day...

In Kentucky, we have shotgun weddings all the time! I'd be willing to bet that at least some of them are conducted with some of the participants as high as a kite.
C'mon Bastet - Crack Open a Mind!!

TVOR

 

[Ardhanariswar]

humor, im quite familiar with it.

i dunno. id like my wedding to be a traditional hindu one (though traditional doesnt really have two guys marrying...).

hmm. whatever. i guess its up to the person. i cant imagine how one would go to las vegas and get married by an elvis look a like, but whatever foats your boat!

 

[michel]

I answered this one yesterday, saying I couldnt see anything against them; When I told my wife, she said I was wrong.
Therefore I am wrong.

The king is dead, long live the king!

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I answered this one yesterday, saying I couldnt see anything against them; When I told my wife, she said I was wrong.
Therefore I am wrong.

The king is dead, long live the king!

Spoken like a married man. I feel your pain, michel, I feel your pain.

TVOR

PS - Just curious - what made you think you should form an opinion, or make a decision without due guidance?

 

[scorpio1029]

huajiro, I'm not sure how to respond to the planet's population question. Do I think it's over populated? No. And I wouldn't blame the earth's population number for the worlds poverty issues. My comments about many homosexuals living as a whole was pure speculation. I was trying to imagine something like a nation of all homosexuals in comparision to one with all heterosexual. I do not think they are equal relationships.

Define "relationship" for me, and please explain how a heterosexual relationship, by your definition, is superior to a homosexual relationship as you imply?

Thanks,
Tien-Lung Fu

 

[anders]

It's kinda hard to jump into a thread after 100+ posts, and in the middle of the nigth to boot (1 AM) but anyway, now that I've fixed my computer and connections:

I would probably approve bans on same-sex marriage and I would desire increased privilages for male and female marriages but I'm in favor of totally revamping the institution of marriage and adding lesser civil contracts among citizens. For instance two consenting people could enter "friendship contracts", "lover contracts", etc.. with benefits. I fail to see how honoring a male and female marriage violates homosexuals. The bond between a male and female has brought about many generations. A homosexual bond has never produced another lifeform and will never have the same honor and glory as the male and female bond. Put 10,000 homosexuals together and how will they provide a new generation?​

​

is rather immediately countered by

What is the difference between a homosexual couple getting married and a heterosexual couple who cannot produce offspring? Society and the Church seem to have a problem with the homosexual union, even though neither can produce children, and most people's point has centered around reproduction. Can a heterosexual couple who cannot have children get married? If so, why?

I don't see the trueblood quote as one of the worst, but never the less I feel very offended by hints that couples who don't produce offspring are less natural, normal, useful or contributing as those who multiply. I and a number of partners of the oppostite sex (aka female) have tried, sometimes rather intensely and with help from the medical profession, and/or have from the outset been unable to get children. The one woman I'd want to spend the rest of my life together with has had a hysterectomy. Shouldn't we be allowed to be married?

Holly wrote,

This forum is composed primarily of people of the Liberal persuasion? I honestly have no idea!

Well, where I live, I'm about as conservative as we go.

2 men and 2 women can now produce offspring (or will very soon) through different techniques of egg fusion and a method involving flushing the DNA out of an egg and inputing the DNA from one of the men into the egg which is then fertilised by the others sperm. Neither is yet legal for humans, I believe, but your statement that a homosexual bond has never produced a lifeform is wrong anyway: An adopted child raised by a homosexual couple is more the work of this couple than the genetic parents.

It doesn't have to be that complicated. In a famous (not unique) case in Sweden, two married men arranged with friends, a female married couple, to have a baby. I honestly think that the resulting boy being brought up with two (four?) parents will be extremely well cared for, considering that his parents must have considered all possibilities and consequences very thoroughly, not like the chance product of a one-time coupling between more or less drunk teens at a party, and their kid will in all probability be brought up in respect for his fellow citizens' views. Who could possibly argue against that?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Who could possibly argue against that?

A closed minded bigot?

TVOR

 

[Scott1]

A closed minded bigot?

TVOR

Hmmmm.... do I resemble that remark, my friend?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Scott-- I thought that although you view gay marriage as immoral, you did not believe it should be illegal. After all, as long as a married gay couple don't infringe on anyone's rights, our government has no business telling them they can't be married...surely you don't think denying Christ's divinity--a much more serious sin than having a monogomous homosexual partner--should be outlawed as well? Render unto God what is God's, right?

 

[Scott1]

To clarify Spinks.... I don't view gay marriage (or gay people) as immoral....sex without the possiblity of procreation (gay, straight, married)is immoral.

I was responding to TVOR's claim that to argue against the above case in Sweden would make me a "close minded bigot".

My argument about this case stems from the introduction of a life into this world in contradiction to my own personal morality. I never claim this should be law, or that anyone should give a rat's butt what I think.... but I think I should be able to argue against it without being called a "close minded bigot."

Don't you agree?

 

[anders]

I don't view gay marriage (or gay people) as immoral....sex without the possiblity of procreation (gay, straight, married)is immoral.

Let's say we have a married couple, A and C. They want children, so they have sex, but there is no offspring. Is this immoral if doctors find no medical fault? If some fault is found with either of them, were they immoral before that find? You seem to think that if a medical condition is found, sex will be immoral for them from the time it is diagnosed. Or from the time they get the bad news? Great, so they should tell the doc not to tell them, and everything will be fine to you.

You are cruel, SOGFPP. If A (now divorced) marries B, who has had a hysterectomy, you want to deny them sex.

Fortunately, A doesn't believe in your moral rules, and B doesn't either. So, as long as they don't tell you, nobody will be offended from their acting according to nature's laws.

 

[Faminedynasty]

The purpose of the constitution cannot be to eliminate rights. And, how can one argue that homosexuality or sex without the intent of procreation is immoral, besides through religious teachings? I suppose that aside from that the most common arguments I see are the ones which were used to argue in favor of enforcing segregation (It's not natural, it will destroy the natural order etc.) And then there are those who simply hate homosexuals.

Now, I do not object to someone holding fast to religious teachings, and if one wants to hate a group of people, there is very little I can do to prevent that. But those people who fall under those descriptions should realize that their religious teachings and hatred respectively have no relevance to the law, and no right to corrupt our constitution.

 

[Scott1]

Wow anders..... be careful up there, you might slip off that horse!

First thing to remember is that I clearly stated that my morality is my own... and I don't want to make it a law or impose it on you or your hypothetical married couple.... I also clearly stated that it should be my right to argue against this (or anything, for that matter) in a civilized manner without being called a bigot.... I will now add to my list "cruel".
Now, let me answer your uneducated-about-my-faith questions:

Let's say we have a married couple, A and C. They want children, so they have sex, but there is no offspring. Is this immoral if doctors find no medical fault?

Nope..... get your facts correct next time.

If some fault is found with either of them, were they immoral before that find?

Again.... no..... at least your consistant.

You seem to think that if a medical condition is found, sex will be immoral for them from the time it is diagnosed. Or from the time they get the bad news? Great, so they should tell the doc not to tell them, and everything will be fine to you.

Again wrong...... 3 for three..... and still going strong..... now let's get indignant and toss out some personal attacks:

You are cruel, SOGFPP. If A (now divorced) marries B, who has had a hysterectomy, you want to deny them sex.

Not for one second...... you really don't have a clue about my faith.... and I hope you enjoyed your little personal rant here.... it tells everyone a lot about you anders.

You'll be in my prayers,
Scott

 

[Mr Spinkles]

My argument about this case stems from the introduction of a life into this world in contradiction to my own personal morality. I never claim this should be law, or that anyone should give a rat's butt what I think.... but I think I should be able to argue against it without being called a "close minded bigot."

Don't you agree?

Absolutely!

 

[anders]

First thing to remember is that I clearly stated that my morality is my own... and I don't want to make it a law or impose it on you or your hypothetical married couple <snip> You'll be in my prayers,
Scott

I apologize for overreacting. Thank you for correcting me in such a kind manner.

A