Marriage and sexuality

[sojourner]

Passing on a dwarfism:

dwarf tossing, banned in the UK, but still alive in Europe

The fundagelicals could hold gay tossing events as fund raisers to start spiritual counseling programs for poor, confused homosexuals.

 

[Mr Cheese]

I just don't know why this scares people so much???

bigotry tends to go hand in hand with fear, and except in a very few rare occaisons...stupidity

does it not?:sarcastic

 

[sojourner]

Guess my parents aren´t married after all then .

But they probably have a State-sanctioned union...

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

dude, we've been over this

he's scared of SS marriage because:

It will lower the GDP of America

Less babies will result, which as it lowers the GDP,

we will also have less people, less "ideas".... If SS couple are allowed to marry, humanity may die, as SS couples do NOT contribute to the survival of the human race, due to their insistance on NOT PUTTING PENISES IN VAGINAS....

I think thats covered his "wonderful precious and well thought out argument"

OH OH, and the GDP will be lowered as it takes money to convince people that homosexuals (as genetically flawed beings, although in one breath he concludes homosexuality is not inherited by the genes, while stating garbage such as this in another breath)are "ok"....


In essence he has no argument

As I said before to Mr. Hatter, I don't think that allowing the relatively few homosexuals in the world to marry will have an adverse effect on the 6 Billion and growing world population.

But then he never replied to that one either.

 

[Kerr]

But they probably have a State-sanctioned union...

Which in my country is called a "secular marriage". As I said, it is just a play with words.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

bigotry tends to go hand in hand with fear, and except in a very few rare occaisons...stupidity

does it not?:sarcastic

After following this particular thread I believe I have to concur.

 

[Autodidact]

So you agree that sexual urges, even homosexual ones can be controlled. Thanks

Of course! Duh. The question isn't whether they can, but whether they should. And since there is no good reason to do so, merely because they're toward another person of the same sex, the entire discussion is irrelevant.

 

[Autodidact]

Why not? They are expected to be controlled everywhere else. why are homosexuals the exception?

No, no, no. It's not that gay people are an exception. We control, and should control, our sexuality, to the same degree and with as much success as heterosexuals. There is no reason to suppress desire, merely because it is toward someone of the same sex.

Of course, when we fail, we don't have babies we're not able to take care of as a result.

 

[Autodidact]

No. In fact, heterosexual couples who got married outside of religion wouldn't be "married," either. They, too, would be in a civil union."
In fact, there wouldn't be another step, because all the gov't. does is recognize legally what the Church has done, in the case of a church wedding. What I attempt to do is to take the religious stigma out of the civil process. Those who don't get married in churches don't care if God sanctions the union or not, so why does nomenclature matter?

The sticker is that some churches do marry same sex couples. But the gov't. doesn't largely recognize them. It's really more important at this point for the gov't to recognize the union than it is for the Church, so why not just let the churches do what they do, and let the gov't advocate for full rights by granting the same "status" that it already grants to church-married hetero couples?

This is not a problem, not a controversy, not under discussion. No matter what you call it, every church gets to do what it wants about it, just as now.

 

[Perfect Circle]

No. In fact, heterosexual couples who got married outside of religion wouldn't be "married," either. They, too, would be in a civil union."
In fact, there wouldn't be another step, because all the gov't. does is recognize legally what the Church has done, in the case of a church wedding. What I attempt to do is to take the religious stigma out of the civil process. Those who don't get married in churches don't care if God sanctions the union or not, so why does nomenclature matter?

At first glance, it's a good idea. Basically, everyone who is currently "married" will change their status to that of a "civil union". This way, SS couples won't feel as though their "civil unions" are somehow lower in status than hetero couples "marriages".

The problem I see with the idea is that there is a massive legal foundation for what defines marriage. Changing the secular definition of "marriage" is quite simply a whole lot of work. Thousands of laws and precedents would have to be changed, and in the turn-over, things would be looked over, and loopholes within the law would be exposed. Where-as, if we just kept the terminology the same, we could fore-go all this needless legal hoop-la, and simply say "homosexual couples are legal".

I understand that you see marriage as a religious institution, but the fact of the matter is that it is a secular one as well. It's been this way a long, long time, and to totally re-work the legal bed-rock it's built upon would only delay the equal rights that are due to SS couples even longer.

Do you see what I'm saying?

 

[Autodidact]

Again you are equating homosexuality to ethnicity.

What are you talking about? Is this another of your hallucinations? The post says nothing even remotely suggesting that.

They have absolutely nothing in common which i have proven earlier.

Actually they have a lot in common. They're both victims of prejudice. They both suffered from marital prohibitions. They both deserve equality. The Mormon Church was on the same wrong side of both of those struggles, and will lost this one too.

Homosexuality is behavioral and not inheritable.

Yes and no. Having a same-sex orientation is not behavioral. Gay sex is behavioral.

Ethnicity is not behavioral and is 100% inheritable.

The latter is true. But the case is not about ethnicity. It's about miscegenation, which is 100% behavioral.

 

[Autodidact]

The problem is that they won't stop until they get the title of marriage.

Referendum 71 in Washington. they said it was not about marriage, that it was about protecting domestic partnerships. However, when advocates for Ref. 71 were interviewed after it passed, they said, "Now that it has passed we'll talk can about same sex marriage."

Of course--would you?

 

[Autodidact]

Sooo... homosexuality automatically implies promiscuity???

By the way, I wonder how many married couples are unfaithful?

About 60% of men and 40% of women--that admit to it, at least. (It does make one wonder who the other 20% of the men are being unfaithful with, though.)

 

[Kilgore Trout]

About 60% of men and 40% of women--that admit to it, at least. (It does make one wonder who the other 20% of the men are being unfaithful with, though.)

A good percentage are on the DL I'm sure.

 

[sojourner]

At first glance, it's a good idea. Basically, everyone who is currently "married" will change their status to that of a "civil union". This way, SS couples won't feel as though their "civil unions" are somehow lower in status than hetero couples "marriages".

The problem I see with the idea is that there is a massive legal foundation for what defines marriage. Changing the secular definition of "marriage" is quite simply a whole lot of work. Thousands of laws and precedents would have to be changed, and in the turn-over, things would be looked over, and loopholes within the law would be exposed. Where-as, if we just kept the terminology the same, we could fore-go all this needless legal hoop-la, and simply say "homosexual couples are legal".

I understand that you see marriage as a religious institution, but the fact of the matter is that it is a secular one as well. It's been this way a long, long time, and to totally re-work the legal bed-rock it's built upon would only delay the equal rights that are due to SS couples even longer.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Yes. I do see what you're saying. And I agree with everything, except for your last sentence. And it's the problem I have with same-sex "marriage" (as opposed to same-sex "union.") For me, marriage has nothing to do with the State. For me, marriage is all about a God-thing. It's not a human right. It's a call from God. I'm not sure God calls homosexual couples to be "married." I'm not at all sure that God doesn't call homosexual couples to be "married," either! I'm really, really theologically split on that issue.

However, I'm astute enough to understand a couple of other things. First, not all folks ascribe to Deity as I do, so they wouldn't buy the whole "God-called" thing. Second, not all religious people carry the same theology about marriage that I do.
The trick is, we live in a country that has been hugely influenced by a lot of religious history. I believe that, like it or not, we are, in many, many ways, inseparable from the Church, because our culture is so woven with it. Therefore, whatever religious mores have found their way into our civil laws are most likely Christian ones.

My stand is an attempt to completely take the religion out of the issue. I understand that it's very, very difficult. I also call for the Church (as a whole) to come up with a theological stand on just what constitutes marriage. Maybe humanity has outgrown the need for "marriage." I don't know.

 

[madhatter85]

My question to you is why are you so scared of gay marriage its not like it will have any effect on your personal life in any way?

I have already stated, the national debate has the potential to affect religious freedoms. So, it is very much important to me.

 

[madhatter85]

No one here is saying homosexuals should be allowed to do what they want where ever they want.

In fact homosexuals aren't asking for anything more than what heterosexual couples are given if they decide to get married.

I just don't know why this scares people so much???

You claim it is out of fear erroniously. It is out of concern.

 

[darkendless]

I have already stated, the national debate has the potential to affect religious freedoms. So, it is very much important to me.

Religious freedom should be ignored when bigots apply their religion to block common decency.

 

[Alceste]

I have already stated, the national debate has the potential to affect religious freedoms. So, it is very much important to me.

Demanding that the state denies equal civil rights to a minority group you happen to hate is not a religious freedom. The state is not a religious institution. If your church wants to discriminate against minorities, go nuts. Anyone who doesn't like it can simply decline to join your nutty little cult. The citizens of your nation, however, do not have that luxury, so the state needs to consider more than your twisted ideology or chaos will ensue.

 

[Kerr]

I have already stated, the national debate has the potential to affect religious freedoms. So, it is very much important to me.

Does this include secual marriages that gives the exact same rights and benifits as religious ones? Because there is no excuse for secular ones not to allow two people of the same sex to marry.