• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

I can eat at Chick Fil a again now?

ron4711

ron4711

Member
goatus17 said:
Homosexuals should not have the right to marry because they cannot produce children together.

It's a fairly obvious concept.
Click to expand...

My friends wife had a hysterectomy and cannot become pregnant. Is her marriage void? My aunt who was 80 wanted to marry, should she be allowed to?

Marriage is not about sex or reproduction. It is an agreement between two people, and what they specifically agree upon is also different in many cases. Finally marriage is not a religious event, though many religions coopt it into their practice. Marriage existed long before Christianity.

If a particular religion does not want to accept homosexual marriage as part of their practice, they are perfectly free to do so. They can deny homosexual marriage to their members, but they may not tell others how to lead their lives.
 
ron4711

ron4711

Member
goatus17 said:
Not needed.

Man and woman together symbolise natural parents, whether they procreate or not.

Therfore, a legal hetero marriage is always possible.
Click to expand...

The main reason a father and a mother are considered an optimum parental group is because that is what you see as a majority of parental groups. But there are many cases where there are single parents and the kids turn out ok. Indeed, in cases where the parents are of the same sex, the children turn out ok.

There are many cases where the homosexual parents are better parents than some heterosexual parents. This can be seen in the cases where the children in the heterosexual family were not wanted. You see with heterosexuals children can be a surprise sometimes. In a homosexual family, the child always has to be a consious and deliberate effort (adoption, insemination)

It turns out that the recipie for good parenting is not the gender of the parent, but the love, respect and support present.
 
9Westy9

9Westy9

Sceptic, Libertarian, Egalitarian
Premium Member
goatus17 said:
Homosexuals should not have the right to marry because they cannot produce children together.

It's a fairly obvious concept.
Click to expand...

there are heterosexuals who cannot produce Children together. We better stop all of them getting married too
 
Storm

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
9Westy9 said:
there are heterosexuals who cannot produce Children together. We better stop all of them getting married too
Click to expand...
Oh, no no no! You see, the fact that they LOOK like they could makes it all ok because symbolism!
 
jasonwill2

jasonwill2

Well-Known Member
goatus17 said:
Homosexuals should not have the right to marry because they cannot produce children together.

It's a fairly obvious concept.
Click to expand...

Lots of gay couples adopt. Not letting the parents marry can cause a lot of trouble say if one is in the hospital and needs a family member to make medical decsisons for them because they are out cold or in a coma. Not being married makes this very hard.

Supporting gay marriage helps strengthen gay families and so all families.

If they don't believe the same as you why should the law, which is for everyone, conform to your narrow beliefs? America is a secular government, church and state are separate for a reason.
 
goatus17

goatus17

Member
It doesn't have to only be about religion.

ever heard of evolution?

surely you have - so you will no doubt agree that a sterile SSM is contrary to its laws.

thus, there is no point in it.
 
Storm

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
goatus17 said:
It doesn't have to only be about religion.

ever heard of evolution?

surely you have - so you will no doubt agree that a sterile SSM is contrary to its laws.

thus, there is no point in it.
Click to expand...
Where exactly do you think queers came from? It's built into evolution.
 
jasonwill2

jasonwill2

Well-Known Member
goatus17 said:
since when did gay animals get married?
Click to expand...

I think one of LaVey's 9 Satanic Statements were:

"Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often times worse, because of his supposed "spiritual and intellectual development", has become the most vicious animal of all!"

Man is just another animal, so I would say that gay animals have married through a lot of history, even into Antiquity.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
goatus17 said:
It doesn't have to only be about religion.
ever heard of evolution?
surely you have - so you will no doubt agree that a sterile SSM is contrary to its laws.
thus, there is no point in it.
Click to expand...
Evolutionary laws are phenomena we observe.
They don't dictate our behavior.
But even if they did, what would Darwin be able to do about it?
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
goatus17 said:
It doesn't have to only be about religion.
Click to expand...
It's not about evolution, despite your claim to the contrary. What else is there?

goatus17 said:
ever heard of evolution?

surely you have - so you will no doubt agree that a sterile SSM is contrary to its laws.

thus, there is no point in it.
Click to expand...
Here's the thing about evolution:

If something is actually an evolutionary disadvantage, then natural selection eliminates it. If it doesn't get eliminated, then this suggests that it's not an evolutionary disadvantage.

IOW, either the "problem" will go away on its own so you don't have to do anything, or you're wrong about the thing being an evolutionary "problem", so you shouldn't do anything. Either way, there's no need to do anything.

And at the population level, variation is an advantage anyhow.
 
Amechania

Amechania

Daimona of the Helpless
If you think eating at Chick-Fil-A is an ethical issue, you have more on your plate than just nuggets. People say all sorts of things without thinking. People do all sorts of things without thinking. Everybody deserves a little slack. It's just food, dude.
 
jasonwill2

jasonwill2

Well-Known Member
Amechania said:
If you think eating at Chick-Fil-A is an ethical issue, you have more on your plate than just nuggets. People say all sorts of things without thinking. People do all sorts of things without thinking. Everybody deserves a little slack. It's just food, dude.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the company is actively LOBBYING against gay rights. They are trying to pour money into government representatives to affect how they vote on bills. That's what lobbying is more or less, getting people with money to annoy politicians to cave into their views.

What this means is that by eating there, by extension I am supporting their anti-gay lobbying as a fraction of my money would go to the lobbyists.
 
Storm

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Amechania said:
If you think eating at Chick-Fil-A is an ethical issue, you have more on your plate than just nuggets. People say all sorts of things without thinking. People do all sorts of things without thinking. Everybody deserves a little slack. It's just food, dude.
Click to expand...
Chick Fil A is not a person, it's a corporation. Why on earth should we "cut them slack?" They don't donate large sums to anti-equality organizations accidentally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top