Gay Marriage page 134

3420 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by Kasic:

If he isn’t religious or basing his beliefs on the Christian god, I’ll be quite surprised.

You might have to be surprised then. Christianity is the only traditionally conservative value I have seen him not display and put front and center in his arguments. Gun loving? Check. Small government? Check. Anti gay/women’s/minority rights? Check.

But go ahead and put jhco to the test next time he decides to pop in. Ask the defining questions for that particular topic/value (Do you go to church? Do you believe Jesus Christ was the son of God and died on the cross for your sins?) and see how he answers. I would guess you might get an answer like, “I was raised with Christian values” which is a little different. A lot of people were raised with Christian values who don’t label/identify themselves as “Christian”. And I don’t really think that’s the driving force behind his values, it’s more a conservative, old-school America, “back in my day” type of persuasion that influences that thought process.

Just because jhco hyperboles and combines various ideologies into an easy to understand, idealistic lump doesn’t mean you should do the same.

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Pretty sure I’ve seen no one say that outright unless it was 50 pages ago. I’m also pretty sure that there would be quite a few people who, in the interest of ‘fairness’, would love to see the government force churches to be more progressive.

I never understood the viewpoint of people that would want to force churches to marry them. If a church’s doctrine disagrees with the way they live their life—no matter how bullyish it may seem to them—it would make more sense to seek acceptance elsewhere. I mean, if for instance, a church didn’t want to include me as a member because I was Caucasian (I’m picking out an arbitrary trait I have no control over), I wouldn’t want to have anything to do with them. Even if the church was forced to legally marry a gay couple, they would have the church’s legal recognition, but never their emotional recognition. It kind of defeats the purpose of being part of a church, which is the inherent belief set/docrine. Really, a civil union with full legal benefits ought to be enough.

 
Flag Post

I agree, if a church doesnt want to allow interracial marriage, the government shouldnt force them to!

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Really, a civil union with full legal benefits ought to be enough.

Just as long as marriage isn’t a governmental decree….let solely in the hands of religion. THEN, it is very likely some demonization will bless the CIVIL UNION as a MARRIAGE.

As ya say, Ninja….fuck all those other “religions” that can’t accept Gays as “marrieds”.
Who cares?
Why would Gays (& their friends, family, & others who luv fairness) care what such an organization thinks of them?
No way is a govt. ever going to be able to tell how/what ppl should think.
Nor should it.
That is what we have Rush Limbaugh, et.al. for.
Right, CROW?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by RollerCROWster:

I agree, if a church doesnt want to allow interracial marriage, the government shouldnt force them to!

Every statement you make is extreme to the point that it bears no relevance and in turn makes absolutely no point. There is no point in refuting it because everyone knows that it is too extreme to support the argument, then suddenly your apologists praise your “tongue in cheek” prowess. Am I the only one here who finds that these statements add absolutely nothing to the conversation? Honestly, who would address the statement that I quoted in an argument? It supports nothing and refutes nothing, it is just exists in the ether of the internet, taking up bandwidth.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by sportsmaster19:

Every statement you make is extreme to the point that it bears no relevance and in turn makes absolutely no point.

Well, he’s a troll, it’s not like that’s strange behavior for them.

There is no point in refuting it because everyone knows that it is too extreme to support the argument, then suddenly your apologists praise your “tongue in cheek” prowess.

Then why are you bitching about it?

Am I the only one here who finds that these statements add absolutely nothing to the conversation?

Maybe, but probably not.

Honestly, who would address the statement that I quoted in an argument?

You.

It supports nothing and refutes nothing, it is just exists in the ether of the internet, taking up bandwidth.

Well it’s not his best work, but I usually look at them more like hyperbolic statements used to make X argument sound crazy, often because it is a little.

Do you remember nothing from the last time this happened.

 
Flag Post

Well, he’s a troll, it’s not like that’s strange behavior for them.

If it is common knowledge that he is a troll, then should he not be treated as such?

Then why are you bitching about it?

Because he makes consistent non-arguments and it is deemed acceptable. This chain of comments will probably be deleted because it does not contribute to the discussion, and I don’t see why his irrelevant statements never are any different.

You.

I was speaking in reference to arguments regarding the topic that is titled in the thread. Allow me to rephrase it; Who would address his comments to refute or support a comment?

Well it’s not his best work, but I usually look at them more like hyperbolic statements used to make X argument sound crazy, often because it is a little.

They are far too hyperbolic to be relevant. His last comment offered nothing to support an argument, and is worthless to refute because everyone understands it is ridiculous. It is a retarded, non comment and contributes nothing.

Do you remember nothing from the last time this happened.

I went offline for a few weeks the last time this happened, so I wasn’t able to finish my thought process.

I am not suggesting that his comments should be deleted, but it needs to be acknowledged that they are bullshit and useless.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by sportsmaster19:

If it is common knowledge that he is a troll, then should he not be treated as such?

That’s your prerogative.

Because he makes consistent non-arguments and it is deemed acceptable.

And you’re probably not going to change many mind about it, nor is it harmful, so it’s not something worth getting various undergarments in a twist about.

This chain of comments will probably be deleted because it does not contribute to the discussion, and I don’t see why his irrelevant statements never are any different.

At least his posts relate to the current topic.

I was speaking in reference to arguments regarding the topic that is titled in the thread. Allow me to rephrase it; Who would address his comments to refute or support a comment?

I dunno, I don’t really know who’s thinking what.

They are far too hyperbolic to be relevant.

That’s the point, yet they still are.

His last comment offered nothing to support an argument, and is worthless to refute because everyone understands it is ridiculous.

Which is why I said this one’s not his best attempt, some are more biting than others.

It is a retarded, non comment and contributes nothing.

It’s totally a comment, it’s just not much of an argument. Which I also don’t think it’s supposed to be.

I went offline for a few weeks the last time this happened, so I wasn’t able to finish my thought process.

So, basically, you’re just venting for the sake of venting?

I am not suggesting that his comments should be deleted, but it needs to be acknowledged that they are bullshit and useless.

By whom, Greg or just the majority of people on SD?

inb4 Crow mocks us for taking his posts too seriously.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by sportsmaster19:
Originally posted by RollerCROWster:

I agree, if a church doesnt want to allow interracial marriage, the government shouldnt force them to!

Every statement you make is extreme to the point that it bears no relevance and in turn makes absolutely no point. There is no point in refuting it because everyone knows that it is too extreme to support the argument, then suddenly your apologists praise your “tongue in cheek” prowess. Am I the only one here who finds that these statements add absolutely nothing to the conversation?

I would have to say you are. In this instance, the statement made by Crow isn’t all that extreme. It is more or less in line with my own thoughts on the matter, and Janton referred to this instance where it has already occurred.

Ultimately it’s not up to the law to dictate what church congregations should and should not believe. It is not up to the law to dictate what anyone should believe. If a church does not want interracial mingling, or disallows blacks, or whites, doesn’t allow women on the premises, or does not allow men on the premises, that is ultimately their right.

It doesn’t affect anyone but the patrons of that specific church. There are still plenty of other ways a given couple can get married. The important thing is that it is legally recognised that they can. If a given church refuses, sod ‘em and go somewhere else. They have a right to their beliefs, and they’re not imposing on you unduely by refusing to accomodate something that contradicts their beliefs in one of their own houses of worship.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by sportsmaster19:
Originally posted by RollerCROWster:

I agree, if a church doesnt want to allow interracial marriage, the government shouldnt force them to!

Every statement you make is extreme to the point that it bears no relevance and in turn makes absolutely no point. There is no point in refuting it because everyone knows that it is too extreme to support the argument, then suddenly your apologists praise your “tongue in cheek” prowess. Am I the only one here who finds that these statements add absolutely nothing to the conversation? Honestly, who would address the statement that I quoted in an argument? It supports nothing and refutes nothing, it is just exists in the ether of the internet, taking up bandwidth.

Um… i just took one of the arguments used against gay marriage and replaced “gay marriage” with the previous “nontraditional” marriage, interracial.

If you cant understand my point, allow me to say it in plain english:

The types of people who opposed interracial marriage and gay marriage are the same

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by RollerCROWster:

The types of people who opposed interracial marriage and gay marriage are the same

I am yet to meet a non-religious person opposed to gay-marriage…Maybe someone here has already meet such a person and could explain this person’s reasoning.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

I am yet to meet a non-religious person opposed to gay-marriage…

There are people opposed to marriage in general, but that’s about it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by player_03:
Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

I am yet to meet a non-religious person opposed to gay-marriage…

There are people opposed to marriage in general, but that’s about it.

You are right, but I’m not sure out of those ‘opposed’ to marriage in general would wish to make it illegal for all. I’m guessing that a clear majority would not favour making marriage illegal.

 
Flag Post

I haven’t actually talked to any of them, so I can’t address that myself, but this guy has a possible response.

 
Flag Post

Some of those points are valid, but overall I feel it is beneficial to have at least some government recognition of a couples decision to make a lifetime commitment…whether or not it lasts a lifetime…but this is off-topic…best we continue this on the ‘marriage process’ thread.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:
Originally posted by player_03:
Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

I am yet to meet a non-religious person opposed to gay-marriage…

There are people opposed to marriage in general, but that’s about it.

You are right, but I’m not sure out of those ‘opposed’ to marriage in general would wish to make it illegal for all. I’m guessing that a clear majority would not favour making marriage illegal.

I know for a fact that this isn’t true.
Sure, I think we can agree that “religious” is highly subjective.
And, if we kinda/sorta rule out those ppl who identify w/ the less dramatic venue of “spiritual”, we might have a group that would possibly identify w/ some ilk of A-theism….or, as player seems to mean: not religious.

I ask: of the many atheists, those who profess to be and those who are such by “default”…why do ya think that some of them aren’t opposed to Gay marriage?
Just because you haven’t met any of them isn’t really much of a point for this discussion.

player, the link you gave was very good.
I did, however, find one statement in it not all that meritorious: “But there needs to be a legal framework for tax purposes and immigration and insurance and hospital visitation…”

As I’ve pointed out: legal is not synonymous w/ govt….at least exclusively so.
Yes, but of course, the govt. can make laws (legal) that AFFECT marriage (nah…lets let “the church” have that domain) legal contracts between two or more ppl. But, even though a govt. needs some form of revenue to operate…I think a lot of its taxation can fall very near (if not in up their necks) to one of the greater reasons the colonies in America finally revolted against England….“Stamp Act”.

I deeply believe that taxation should be sensible and based on merits other than: hey, there’s something we should get our money-grubbing hands on. Yeah, I’m a fucking fiscal conservative in that….lol

A govt. entity most certainly has a right to charge a fee to record/store the legal document/contract privately held by a couple (or more) just as any other such private enterprise would. But, at the moment, I’m unable to pull outta my ass any other reason for govt. interference/intrusion into the legal venue of “marriage”.

If ya wanna say: KIDS.
I say: kids happen “outside of marriage”.
Therefore, because of a need for social protection for these minors, there likewise is a very high need for some sort of legal intervention beyond that specified in the private “marriage” contract. I’m talking about govt. here. I think the govt. has the right to require its citizens (the minors) to be educated, to receive due medical care, to not be subjected to overly harsh discipline & living conditions, etc.

And, Flabby….I kinda disagree w/ ya when ya think this opinion of yours is off-topic: “… overall I feel it is beneficial to have at least some government recognition of a couples decision to make a lifetime commitment…whether or not it lasts a lifetime…”

After all, we are discussion how govt. is legally interfacing w/ the concept of Gay unions. I want to know more about your at least SOME govt. recognition. To what extent would this be. Obviously, I believe ya think Gays would be treated equally in this activity. But, I’m highly interested in the degrees/areas this recognition would be.

I wish issendorf would weigh in on this (at least I think it is he who vehemently opposes govt. intrusion into marriage). Now would be a good time for anyone to expose their opinions on it.

 
Flag Post
Just because you haven’t met any of them isn’t really much of a point for this discussion.

And I asked “Maybe someone here has already meet such a person and could explain this person’s reasoning.”…I think maybe you’ve read only what player_03 quoted of me.

why do ya think that some of them aren’t opposed to Gay marriage?

I didn’t say that there aren’t, I merely said that I haven’t meet any, and that is why I would like to hear their reasoning’s against gay-marriage…I can understand a religious person taking issue because of what their holy texts might define as immoral, but what argument does a non-religious person have?

I want to know more about your at least SOME govt. recognition.

The one obvious point that comes to my mind are spouses of different nationalities…I think it’s easy in this situation to see how a government recognising marriage would be very beneficial to the couple when they decide to settle in one or the others country together.

EDIT: Karma…I’ve just come back from the ‘marriage process’ thread…I am still laughing…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:
Just because you haven’t met any of them isn’t really much of a point for this discussion.

And I asked “Maybe someone here has already meet such a person and could explain this person’s reasoning.”…I think maybe you’ve read only what player_03 quoted of me.

Huge OOooppppppppps.
My bad.
The only reason I can offer is: I haven’t yet had my Uncle Ben’s rice pancakes w/ Aunt Jemima’s fine, smooth syrup on them. That is, after all, “brain food”.
.
why do ya think that some of them aren’t opposed to Gay marriage?

I didn’t say that there aren’t, I merely said that I haven’t meet any, and that is why I would like to hear their reasoning’s against gay-marriage…I can understand a religious person taking issue because of what their holy texts might define as immoral, but what argument does a non-religious person have?

I’m w/ ya there.
I’ve asked these particular ppl just that.
And ya know, they pretty much did exactly what this one person (whose name I have promised to stop uttering…lol) who was asked repeatedly for a decent, reasonable objection in regards to Gays in general & Gay marriage in particular…..splutter a fine helping of utter bullshit.

I’m still looking for that honest man that can cite a few rational objections.
.

I want to know more about your at least SOME govt. recognition.

The one obvious point that comes to my mind are spouses of different nationalities…I think it’s easy in this situation to see how a government recognising marriage would be very beneficial to the couple when they decide to settle in one or the others country together.

Yup…a total “winner” when it comes to govt. having a role in “marriage”. Hopefully, this might prime-the-pump to elicit other such valid reasons.
.

EDIT: Karma…I’ve just come back from the ‘marriage process’ thread…I am still laughing…

Ugh….pancake deprivation only leads to depravity.

 
Flag Post

I think we need to protect our kids from the homosexual agenda

according to the priest at my church, if a child is informed about the concept of homosexuality they will instantly become sexual deviants D:

discuss

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by RollerCROWster:

According to the priest at my church, if a child is informed about the concept of homosexuality they will instantly become sexual deviants D:

Expecting a good standard of general education from the priesthood would certainly be a good idea. As so often a community sees it’s preacher as a leader, it really would help if they had enough knowledge to actually know what they are talking about on any subject outside their core doctrine.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by RollerCROWster:

According to the priest at my church, if a child is informed about the concept of homosexuality they will instantly become sexual deviants D:

Expecting a good standard of general education from the priesthood would certainly be a good idea. As so often a community sees it’s preacher as a leader, it really would help if they had enough knowledge to actually know what they are talking about on any subject outside their core doctrine.

Thats impossible because education turns people into dirty atheists, and atheists cant be priests, silly :P

 
Flag Post

One small problem there Crow. I’m highly educated, rather intelligent (modest too) and I’m not an atheist. So much for that being an absolute, eh?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by GameCrazyKid:

I don’t support Gay Marriage, I am strongly against it. One of the biggest reasons for this is that it is a distinct abomination of a Christian belief. Marriage has always been a religious ceremony (unless one was to bring up Roman marriage, but are we really going to take examples from the Roman empires?)

I don’t think there are any real religions that accept homosexuality, I think all of them either reject it or do not comment on it (But not commenting does not mean they support it. Or “it is fine”)

Also, I am a strong believer that homosexuality is unnatural. If we look at it with a scientific view homosexuality literally drains on the survival of the species. (No, I am not saying the human race is in danger of dying out, but the point still stands.)

And lastly, if we legalize Gay Marriage how can we say no to things like Polygamy? Does banning polygamy not bar the beliefs of Mormons? (The main point of this sentence being, where does it end? Where do we draw the line?)

But while I do realize that not everyone believes in my religion and not everyone should be bound by it’s law I feel like legalizing Gay marriage will tread on the beliefs of billions of people.

Honestly, I could care less if they were “legally bonded” or they were “In a partnership” but it is the term. The term “marriage” that I do not want being changed. Because the bible says “Marriage is between a man and a woman for love and procreation, any other definition is an abomination.”

Which is why I believe Gay Marriage should not be legalized (I realize in some places it is being legalized)

Quite frankly it doesn’t bother me, so why does it bother you? You don’t have to make out with a dude if you don’t want to.

 
Flag Post

This is what you don’t understand. You don’t understand the equality of people now a days, and how much religion is even worse than gay marriage itself. Christianity has been distorted through people and their evil doings. We are scraps of sin, all of us. God doesn’t want sexual relationships at all. He wants righteous ones. I am seriously not joking when I say that all of you pro-gay, anti-gay people are all just completely wrong.

Now, let me bring something new into this argument, for once, because I feel like I am the only one in the world actually seeing this problem. For one, let me just get one thing straight. Taking one verse out of the entire bible doesn’t make you right, it actually makes you stupid. There is a lot more to the bible that you don’t know about and just because one verse says, “Marriage is between a man and a women,” doesn’t mean the entire world gets confused about the idea that we are so imperfect to the point where we’re liking the same sex. The bible is truth, but, humans are also truth. People are gay, and that’s not changing. However, the bible does explain a lot about how God wants us to live. He wants us to love him and love others. So really, we’ve all broken the two most important commandments. He also wants righteous relationships with others. My point is, our definition of marriage is no where near God’s definition of marriage. So let me get to the dangerous part. Bear with me…

[Dangerous part]: God neglects straight people just as much as gay people.

Why? Because straight people and gay people do the same thing, regardless of gender. You anti-gay people are so against marriage when you’re forgetting the fact that you’re not just against gay marriage, but against gay people altogether. So really, using the verse, “Marriage is between a man and a women,” completely fails because you’re not just talking about marriage, you’re saying that gay people shouldn’t be gay at all, because you think it’s still sin. But do you honestly think that sex between a man and a women isn’t sin? Do you honestly think that Christians are PRAISING God because they fell in love with Jesus before they had sex with the opposite sex? What do you know about God to be begin with. Not only is it anyone’s fault for being gay, but it’s everyone’s fault for being sinners for the same exact reason. And the reasons that anti-gay people have against gay people goes back to the ultimate lie central: Christianity! A religion that is not different from the sin of any other religion.

I hope I got to some people today.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by YoucantbutICan:

…..

Well wtf was that? Never have I been so stumped on where someone actually stands on an issue. Or maybe I’m just reading it wrong; it’s late and I have a headache.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by YoucantbutICan:

…..

Well wtf was that? Never have I been so stumped on where someone actually stands on an issue. Or maybe I’m just reading it wrong; it’s late and I have a headache.

No, he contradicts himself in every point, then concludes with, “you don’t know but I’m the only one who knows what’s right” and then he never says what he actually thinks.