Marriage and sexuality

[Autodidact]

The problem here is that the stipulations for marriage, even in a culture in which there is clear separation of Church and State, are imbedded and grounded in a moral awareness that has been fostered by Christian thought. That's why all arguments pertaining to the definition of marriage ultimately end up with "That's what the Bible says," (even though there are lots of people who don't ascribe to the Bible).

If the government stopped trying to foist an opinion upon "marriage," (which *edit* off the fundagelicals) and created a whole new paradigm called "civil union" -- which has nothing whatsoever to do with "marriage," the whole problem could be averted. The State could recognize the fundamental human right of individuals to live together as they please, and the Church could protect it's definition of "marriage."

The State could continue to recognize the civil legality of "marriage" -- as it has always done, and also recognize the civil legality of a "civil union." The Church could protect it's sacrament from governmental tampering, and everyone would be happy except for those religious and church-going homosexuals who want the Church's sanction. But that's a whole different ball game, IMO.

Actually, it's the Christians who are impinging on a purely social and governmental function. The church didn't get involved in marrying people till quite far along, and some still don't.

Doing this confuses the issue, because it's not about what churches do, it's about what the government does. There are already plenty of churches happy to marry same-sex couples, which is great. But they can't give us Social Security Survivor's Benefits, which is the sort of thing we're trying to get.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Actually, it's the Christians who are impinging on a purely social and governmental function. The church didn't get involved in marrying people till quite far along, and some still don't.

Doing this confuses the issue, because it's not about what churches do, it's about what the government does. There are already plenty of churches happy to marry same-sex couples, which is great. But they can't give us Social Security Survivor's Benefits, which is the sort of thing we're trying to get.

exactly:sarcastic

 

[LittleNipper]

The problem here is that the stipulations for marriage, even in a culture in which there is clear separation of Church and State, are imbedded and grounded in a moral awareness that has been fostered by Christian thought. That's why all arguments pertaining to the definition of marriage ultimately end up with "That's what the Bible says," (even though there are lots of people who don't ascribe to the Bible).

If the government stopped trying to foist an opinion upon "marriage," (which *edit* off the fundagelicals) and created a whole new paradigm called "civil union" -- which has nothing whatsoever to do with "marriage," the whole problem could be averted. The State could recognize the fundamental human right of individuals to live together as they please, and the Church could protect it's definition of "marriage."

The State could continue to recognize the civil legality of "marriage" -- as it has always done, and also recognize the civil legality of a "civil union." The Church could protect it's sacrament from governmental tampering, and everyone would be happy except for those religious and church-going homosexuals who want the Church's sanction. But that's a whole different ball game, IMO.

I believe that you would find that the culture we like to ascribe as American would soon change into something most people would come to hate... While I do not believe that Norman Rockwell's paintings were an exact portrayal of what was once Americanism, I do feel that everyone could relate to those ideals.

Those ideals tended to embrace Joe Average and not try to uplift every sort of oddball behavior. This is why 1950 and early 60's TV shows were so funny. People didn't fret over taking everything and everyone so seriously. People could agree and disagree but everyone found something to laugh out loud at.

And yet society then had very rigid unwritten codes of conduct that everyone seemed to understand. Society existed for the children. Father knew best, or at least his family eventually seemed to bring out the best in him. Andy of Mayberry, really was not just some ignorant policeman. Puppets said the funniest things but it was all for a good clean laugh.

All that mattered was that the children were protected and happy. The rights of families come before the whims of individuals, publically. Privately, that was always a different matter.

Even though race was still an issue, the lost little black boy crying in the department store for his mommy as just as likely to get a sympathetic ear as was the toe head tot.

But in the past each generation grew up and carried the torch. But then one generation decided it wanted to remain the center of attention for life. They became spoiled and arrogant ---- seekers of fun. The last generation to try this faced merely The Depression and a terrible World War. I hate to think what we are headed for...

 

[Mr Cheese]

Those ideals tended to embrace Joe Average and not try to uplift every sort of oddball behavior. This is why 1950 and early 60's TV shows were so funny. People didn't fret over taking everything and everyone so seriously. People could agree and disagree but everyone found something to laugh out loud at.

And yet society then had very rigid unwritten codes of conduct that everyone seemed to understand. Society existed for the children. Father knew best, or at least his family eventually seemed to bring out the best in him. Andy of Mayberry, really was not just some ignorant policeman. Puppets said the funniest things but it was all for a good clean laugh.

Yes, all the while we had good clean fun...

we had in the closet hypocrits.... like the Hoover the transvestite

thats where bigots would like things, in the closet, closed up, repressed
so people are psychologically damaged and not acknowledged by society, so they dont need rights...because they "dont exist" as people.....

get in the closet homo, it would be better

:sarcastic

 

[madhatter85]

Yes, all the while we had good clean fun...

we had in the closet hypocrits.... like the Hoover the transvestite

thats where bigots would like things, in the closet, closed up, repressed
so people are psychologically damaged and not acknowledged by society, so they dont need rights...because they "dont exist" as people.....

get in the closet homo, it would be better

:sarcastic

The same could be said for any behavior though. You would rather us be like animals running around humping whoever we feel like at the time without the thought of consequence. (and yes there are physical consequences i am sure you are aware of)You confuse repressing with suppressing. Suppressing desires is something all humans have to do every day of our lives. If we did not suppress every little whim, we would be no better than animals.

 

[Mindful]

When you say "allowed to" , who is it that allows you to do what you are proposing? We are all born free. Our rights come from God, not the government. God gives you the ability to do all sorts of things, both acceptable and unacceptable. If you believe you should be "allowed" to do something and you aren't sure if it is acceptable to God, why not ask? If you are worried about some law that's on the books that prevents you from doing something, there are probably ways around it if you think it's worth it.

 

[Mr Cheese]

The same could be said for any behavior though. You would rather us be like animals running around humping whoever we feel like at the time without the thought of consequence. (and yes there are physical consequences i am sure you are aware of)You confuse repressing with suppressing. Suppressing desires is something all humans have to do every day of our lives. If we did not suppress every little whim, we would be no better than animals.

You would prefer that men marry women all the while knowing they arent sexually atttracted to them... so much so they go forth and have sex with other men

Or the same for women....

We have already explored this...

We already know you would PREFER a dysfunctional society full of liars
Where we can repress ourselves.... be miserable or have affairs because we simply arent happy....

Yes, I know lots of women would prefer that their men carry on lying, go sleep with male prostitutes as they simply cant bring themselves to like female genitals....:sarcastic yes I know you'd prefer it for those nice sweet hetero women, able to breed, be subjected to lies, and disease....all because its better if we repress things



When you actually post a well thought out coherrant argument, please let me know



(removed rape elements, due to lack of good taste)

but instead I'll add,

Before 1900, women didnt have orgasms (officially)

they were controlled.... and lobotomised if they crossed the line

....

oh those happy days...

 

[Kerr]

But then you could debate values all day long, because not everyone is on the same moral high-ground. In order to debate this properly you have to remove all emotion, morals, and values to it and stick directly to the facts.

Which no one, including you, has done so far.

Tolerance does not necessitate providing special benefits to those who behave contrary to the fundamental existence and survival of the species.

This is where values come in, you know.

And we are not talking about special benifits, we are talking about gender not being an issue when it comes to marriage no matter their sexuality.

 

[Mr Cheese]

The same could be said for any behavior though. You would rather us be like animals running around humping whoever we feel like at the time without the thought of consequence.

Once again comparing homosexuals to animals....

:sarcastic as I've said before, bigots tend to not even see same sex couples as homosapiens....

much like how americans treated "black and asian" people

and ultimatly the reason why people were put in ovens to die during the holocaust...

:sarcastic

homosexuals are homosapeins they hump other homosapiens

If you really think hetero sexuals never have questionable sexual morals....you're living in a bubble, but frankly I think you may be

 

[Perfect Circle]

...But in the past each generation grew up and carried the torch. But then one generation decided it wanted to remain the center of attention for life. They became spoiled and arrogant ---- seekers of fun. The last generation to try this faced merely The Depression and a terrible World War. I hate to think what we are headed for...

Do you ever have ANY idea what you're talking about?
:biglaugh:

 

[enchanted_one1975]

When you say "allowed to" , who is it that allows you to do what you are proposing? We are all born free. Our rights come from God, not the government. God gives you the ability to do all sorts of things, both acceptable and unacceptable. If you believe you should be "allowed" to do something and you aren't sure if it is acceptable to God, why not ask? If you are worried about some law that's on the books that prevents you from doing something, there are probably ways around it if you think it's worth it.

My Gods and Goddesses say that there is nothing wrong homosexual acts, so by your reasoning the only place that this should be an issue is for people married in churches that revolve around an Abrahamic religion. The problem is that if a state (or the federal government) allows homosexual marriage and a church refuses to marry a gay/lesbian couple because they are the same sex they could lose their non-profit tax exemption which would be very very very costly. That is the only reason some churches care what the government thinks about this issue. Please not that I said they "could" lose their tax exempt status, but that they "would" lose it. There is your issue for the courtroom.

 

[Perfect Circle]

Of course it is. (Which, I think, is debatable, but I'll address that later).
So why would they discriminate, based upon religious principle, which is obviously what they're doing, and then couching their argument in sociological camouflage.
Don't assume. It can get ugly when you do that.
Actually, I'm all for gay civil unions. I think the govt. should advocate for it, just as they advocate for the full rights of other minority groups.

But, at least for me, "marriage" implies something sanctioned by a religion. I really don't know how I feel about that at this point. I'm just not so sure that homosexuals can be "married," at least by the standards of the Christian Church. Since it is the Church that sanctions marriage, then, from the perspective of those who attend that Church, marriage is not a right, but a call. And the marriage, being something that is called into existence by God, is not something that is "up to the couple," but, ultimately, up to the Church, as the Body of Christ, speaking on God's behalf.

That being said, the Church needs to define "marriage" for its own purposes, before such can be entered into. Does "marriage" include homosexuals, or not? I don't know.

Until such time as that issue is given frank and honest attention in the Church, I feel that homosexual couples ought to be able to obtain a "legal union" from the State, and that the Church ought to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's (that is, honor the union without judgment), whether or not it believes God sanctions "marriage" for that couple.
I care, as well as a whole lot of conscientious Christians who advocate for homosexuals.
As far as Xy is concerned (and, as far as I'm aware, this is a religious debate), "marriage" constitutes a whole lot more than "tab A goes in slot B."
Mad's gonna have to come up with a much, much better reason than that, for it to fly on a religious forum -- and he's gonna have to provide a much, much more authoritative answer than "God said it, I believe it, that settles it."
I think we would all be better off if we didn't do that. Since the argument is, at its heart, a religious one, why not make "marriage" the purview of religion and let the religions duke it out amongst themselves? That way, the gov't would be free and clear to sanction same-sex unions, regardless of what the mindless fundagelicals think.
IMO, that's where they missed the mark. If they'd made a distinction between the right of people to a State-sanctioned union, they'd have avoided the argument altogether.

Plus the fact that Mad's just plain wrong in his religious opinion of the matter. marriage isn't a "right," nor is it a "privilege." It's a call, placed upon us by God. Our responsibility is to answer that call.

Good post soj. However, the problem most SSM advocates would have with this is that you are simply adding one more step to the process of attaining equal rights, which only makes it more difficult. Why should the terminology be changed to "civil union" instead of "marriage"? Would there be any differences between the benefits of the two?

 

[Kerr]

I think we would all be better off if we didn't do that. Since the argument is, at its heart, a religious one, why not make "marriage" the purview of religion and let the religions duke it out amongst themselves? That way, the gov't would be free and clear to sanction same-sex unions, regardless of what the mindless fundagelicals think.

Then I take it you do not think all those people who has done a secular marriage, as in not in civil unions but in real secular marriages, are actually married?

 

[madhatter85]

If you really think hetero sexuals never have questionable sexual morals....you're living in a bubble, but frankly I think you may be

Oh I think heterosexuals are just as susceptible to sexual irresponsibility as anyone else. It's called controlling it.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Oh I think heterosexuals are just as susceptible to sexual irresponsibility as anyone else. It's called controlling it.

Yet its ok for them to marry



again, when you can come up with a well thought out argument, please let me know

 

[enchanted_one1975]

Yet its ok for them to marry



again, when you can come up with a well thought out argument, please let me know

He is a genius in his own mind. :biglaugh:

 

[madhatter85]

Yet its ok for them to marry

Based on the supreme court ruling that marriage is fundamental to our very existence and survival.

Sexual indiscretions are legal grounds for divorce. Marriage implies monogamy.

 

[Autodidact]

I believe that you would find that the culture we like to ascribe as American would soon change into something most people would come to hate... While I do not believe that Norman Rockwell's paintings were an exact portrayal of what was once Americanism, I do feel that everyone could relate to those ideals.

Those ideals tended to embrace Joe Average and not try to uplift every sort of oddball behavior. This is why 1950 and early 60's TV shows were so funny. People didn't fret over taking everything and everyone so seriously. People could agree and disagree but everyone found something to laugh out loud at.

And yet society then had very rigid unwritten codes of conduct that everyone seemed to understand. Society existed for the children. Father knew best, or at least his family eventually seemed to bring out the best in him. Andy of Mayberry, really was not just some ignorant policeman. Puppets said the funniest things but it was all for a good clean laugh.

All that mattered was that the children were protected and happy. The rights of families come before the whims of individuals, publically. Privately, that was always a different matter.

Even though race was still an issue, the lost little black boy crying in the department store for his mommy as just as likely to get a sympathetic ear as was the toe head tot.

But in the past each generation grew up and carried the torch. But then one generation decided it wanted to remain the center of attention for life. They became spoiled and arrogant ---- seekers of fun. The last generation to try this faced merely The Depression and a terrible World War. I hate to think what we are headed for...

Actually, the values our forefathers fought and died for, the rights that make America so valuable and important, is the protection of every sort of oddball behavior, including but not limited to Joe Average. Denying rights to people who don't fit into your imaginary vision of Mayberry is not only un-American, it's anti-American.

American values do not mean everyone has to bow down to Jesus Christ; they mean everyone has the right to worship or not worship as they believe best. It doesn't mean everyone has to enjoy Sesame Street; it means freedom of speech and of the press.

Oh, and some little black boys didn't get a sympathetic ear; they got lynched. But don't let me disturb your idyll with ugly reality.

 

[Autodidact]

The same could be said for any behavior though. You would rather us be like animals running around humping whoever we feel like at the time without the thought of consequence. (and yes there are physical consequences i am sure you are aware of)You confuse repressing with suppressing. Suppressing desires is something all humans have to do every day of our lives. If we did not suppress every little whim, we would be no better than animals.

You're the one espousing animalistic reproduction as the be-all and end-all of human relationships. We're the ones arguing in favor of caring for children and providing stable families.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

Based on the supreme court ruling that marriage is fundamental to our very existence and survival.

Sexual indiscretions are legal grounds for divorce. Marriage implies monogamy.

You sound like a broken record. Are you implying that homosexual couples all sleep around and are not faithful to each other? I got news for you...you are wrong again! Most homosexual couples that want to be married will be as committed or more committed than the heterosexual counterparts. Why? They know what they want and they are going after it. They are not living a lie, wishing they had something else.