Gay Marriage page 95

3420 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

So like so much in the human sexual systems, it is very likely a sliding scale,with different individuals at different points.

Would defiantly agree with that and I’d suggest that trying to categorise is a waste of time as it is, as you say, a sliding scale not set integrals.

I’m amazed how surprised many comments in the topic have sounded at the suggestion of a functional poly relationship. I have experimented with alot of different dynamics and, to bring this round to the original topic, I would suggest that being gay and where you land on that ‘scale’ are not choices. I have chosen to take different roles in my experimentation but I would suggest, for me at least, that there is a resting point on the scale that you will always move back towards and for a perfect relationship you and your partner should both sit on that point in your respective scales.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by dd790:
For a perfect relationship you and your partner should sit on that point in both your scales.

Agreed. At the end of the day, it is your happiness and theirs that matters. If you’re not happy with your circumstances, then its time to get out. That’s generally when abuse happens, when one partner tries to force another who is not happy where they are, to conform to a particular ideal that is not innate to them.

 
Flag Post

i am all AGAINST homosexual marriage (gay is the incorrect word for homosexual). it isnt natural….and for those who say its been observed in nature, look closely….when there arent any of the opposite sex around THEN they turn to homosexuality……take prison for example…..case rested. its a CHOICE (and a poor one at that) not a CONDITION.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ikeelyou10:

i am all AGAINST homosexual marriage (gay is the incorrect word for homosexual). it isnt natural….

A quick one: what is your definition of natural?
And a bonus question: why should something be illegal if it is unnatural (based on your definition of the word)?

and for those who say its been observed in nature, look closely….when there arent any of the opposite sex around THEN they turn to homosexuality……

Oh really?
Case rested, eh?

its a CHOICE (and a poor one at that) not a CONDITION.

And that justifies making it illegal how?
Also, proof?


You know, when you make an argument you usually try to find evidence and give a reason for your decision. All you did is:
HOMOSEXUALITY IS BAD BECAUSE IT IS!!!”
You gave no reasons for that argument, didn’t present any evidence that would justify making/keeping homosexual marriage illegal, nothing! And for the one point that you tried to give evidence for it took me literally seconds to find sources that completely annihilate your example.
That is not very convincing.

 
Flag Post

Religion isn’t natural (no other animal performs these complex rituals we have, or believe in gods). Religion is a choice as well.

Should religious people now be disallowed from marriage?

 
Flag Post

If you will, tell me about this Chariot wheel found at the bottom of the Red Sea. Could this be some of that evidence atheists crave for?

Chariot Wheels Discovered in the Red Sea!
http://www.discoverynews.us/DISCOVERY%20MUSEUM/BibleLandsDisplay/Red_Sea_Chariot_Wheels/Red_Sea_Chariot_Wheels_3.html

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Religion isn’t natural (no other animal performs these complex rituals we have, or believe in gods). Religion is a choice as well.

Should religious people now be disallowed from marriage?

Religion is innately natural to humans and has been for millenia. While humans may be classified as animals you do realize that there are major differences, it’s just common sense. Your definition of “natural” is if animals do it, it should be natural for humans do to it as well, correct? So if a lion eats their newborn, humans should do the same? Because it’s “natural?”

Marriage is the one institution that bonds one man and one woman and has been that way for thousands of years following religion and tradition. We need to address the problems of persons born out of wedlock. Studies have shown when the child grows up without a father or mother, this increases the chance for crime. You could see this happening in the black community today.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

If you will, tell me about this Chariot wheel found at the bottom of the Red Sea. Could this be some of that evidence atheists crave for?

Chariot Wheels Discovered in the Red Sea!
http://www.discoverynews.us/DISCOVERY%20MUSEUM/BibleLandsDisplay/Red_Sea_Chariot_Wheels/Red_Sea_Chariot_Wheels_3.html

Very interesting; I had seen that somewhere before too.

Originally posted by Darear:
We need to address the problems of persons born out of wedlock. Studies have shown when the child grows up without a father or mother, this increases the chance for crime. You could see this happening in the black community today.

Wait, what? This is certainly not just a black people problem, if it’s a problem at all. How do you feel about the black kids with both parents around?

I think the biggest deciding factor for children’s success is not whether both parents are around, but the quality of the parent (or parents) who are raising them. Some people in a two parent family are really crappy parents (like child molestors) and need to go.

 
Flag Post
Wait, what? This is certainly not just a black people problem, if it’s a problem at all. How do you feel about the black kids with both parents around?

I think the biggest deciding factor for children’s success is not whether both parents are around, but the quality of the parent (or parents) who are raising them. Some people in a two parent family are really crappy parents (like child molestors) and need to go.

This certainly is prevalently a black problem. Why are you asking how I feel about the black kids with both parents around? Do not try to paint me out as a racist. Facts aren’t racist. The problem with liberals is that whenever a conservative tries to address problems facing the black community, they are immediately expelled as racist and the problem is never solved.

Here’s a very liberal source, MSNBC liberal. This is part of the reason why blacks have such a high crime rate. Isn’t it odd that after the 1964 civil rights act was passed, blacks born out of wedlock increased and crime increased as well?

The child molester parents is a pretty obvious problem though…

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39993685/ns/health-womens_health/t/blacks-struggle-percent-unwed-mothers-rate/

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darear:
The problem with liberals is that whenever a conservative tries to address problems facing the black community, they are immediately expelled as racist and the problem is never solved.

No, don’t start in with the labeling. It sounded like you were attributing a bunch of problems in parenting to the black community exclusively. I’ve seen horrible parenting in both the black and white community. Where I came from it was mostly black family problems; where I am now it’s a bunch of white trash problems. I don’t think it’s just a black problem.

I was asking you about a black child with both parents around because I really wanted to know—do you feel that family unit is up to snuff? I can think of one black family with children right now that are doing pretty well. Just curious.

 
Flag Post

While the study does not determine causal relationships in various parenting settings, it certainly defends the common knowledge that Intact Biological Families perform the task of child rearing in a much more consistent manner than other arrangements.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/06/5640/

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by Darear:
The problem with liberals is that whenever a conservative tries to address problems facing the black community, they are immediately expelled as racist and the problem is never solved.

No, don’t start in with the labeling. It sounded like you were attributing a bunch of problems in parenting to the black community exclusively. I’ve seen horrible parenting in both the black and white community. Where I came from it was mostly black family problems; where I am now it’s a bunch of white trash problems. I don’t think it’s just a black problem.

I was asking you about a black child with both parents around because I really wanted to know—do you feel that family unit is up to snuff? I can think of one black family with children right now that are doing pretty well. Just curious.

That’s fair. I’m just cautious because I’ve been called a racist for using the word “illegal” by a user around here… I was using this as an example of why marriage should only be between one man and one woman. This issue obviously is not only defined in black relations but white as well.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

If you will, tell me about this Chariot wheel found at the bottom of the Red Sea. Could this be some of that evidence atheists crave for?

Chariot Wheels Discovered in the Red Sea!
http://www.discoverynews.us/DISCOVERY%20MUSEUM/BibleLandsDisplay/Red_Sea_Chariot_Wheels/Red_Sea_Chariot_Wheels_3.html

Evidence for what?


Originally posted by Darear:
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Religion isn’t natural (no other animal performs these complex rituals we have, or believe in gods). Religion is a choice as well.

Should religious people now be disallowed from marriage?

Religion is innately natural to humans and has been for millenia. While humans may be classified as animals you do realize that there are major differences, it’s just common sense. Your definition of “natural” is if animals do it, it should be natural for humans do to it as well, correct? So if a lion eats their newborn, humans should do the same? Because it’s “natural?”

See, that’s the problem with people like you, who bring up the natural argument. You think that the term natural implies that something should be done. Actually, natural is a purely descriptive term. It does not imply any course of action.

 
Flag Post

To people who say its a religious ceremony, you couldn’t be more wrong. It is a government action that two people who love each other take to embrace life together. If you think a person like Kim kardashian or britney spears can get married and get divorced instantly is legal but two people of the same gender cannot get married who are actually in love is inhumane and you are ignorant. I think the irony of people who hate gays is that they use a computer which was made by a gay atheist. Its just ironic

 
Flag Post
See, that’s the problem with people like you, who bring up the natural argument. You think that the term natural implies that something should be done. Actually, natural is a purely descriptive term. It does not imply any course of action.

I didn’t bring up the natural argument to begin with and secondly, the problem with people like you is that you’re hypocritical. You just contradicted yourself in that post. You said “natural is a purely descriptive term” but later with a caveat said “it does not imply any course of action.” Yet we as humans inspect what is the norm or what is natural by the behaviors persons show.

Originally posted by 1badCompany1:

To people who say its a religious ceremony, you couldn’t be more wrong. It is a government action that two people who love each other take to embrace life together. If you think a person like Kim kardashian or britney spears can get married and get divorced instantly is legal but two people of the same gender cannot get married who are actually in love is inhumane and you are ignorant. I think the irony of people who hate gays is that they use a computer which was made by a gay atheist. Its just ironic

It is a religious ceremony. How do you think people got married before government was involved in all the litigation? Also gay couples can have the same legal rights and monetary privileges by civil unions.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darear:
See, that’s the problem with people like you, who bring up the natural argument. You think that the term natural implies that something should be done. Actually, natural is a purely descriptive term. It does not imply any course of action.

I didn’t bring up the natural argument to begin with and secondly, the problem with people like you is that you’re hypocritical. You just contradicted yourself in that post. You said “natural is a purely descriptive term” but later with a caveat said “it does not imply any course of action.” Yet we as humans inspect what is the norm or what is natural by the behaviors persons show.

Where in my post did I contradict myself? I said that natural (btw. normal as well) is a descriptive term. Descriptive terms do not imply a course of action. They only describe. Just because people do take actions based on that does not mean that these terms imply them, and much less that arguments based on such misinterpretations are valid in a legal context.
Legal terms are examples of terms that do imply a course of action.


Originally posted by Darear:

It is a religious ceremony. How do you think people got married before government was involved in all the litigation? Also gay couples can have the same legal rights and monetary privileges by civil unions.

How do you think people got married before Christianity or other religions came up with their own regulations?
Marriage is a religious ceremony. But it is much more a cultural ceremony. And don’t forget that there are different religions; some of them even allow gay marriages.
Religion does not own the term.
And lastly, civil unions do not provide the same privileges a legal marriage offers. And a big reason for that is that some politicians are having problems with keeping legal and religious marriage (i.e. the definition of religious marriage used by their respective religion) apart.

 
Flag Post

It is a religious ceremony. How do you think people got married before government was involved in all the litigation? Also gay couples can have the same legal rights and monetary privileges by civil unions.

No it is not. It is a civil law institution. Here’s a wikipedia article about marriage which is locked so its all fact-based. And government has always been around, even before religion was around. You are just uneducated and you should do some research before you start a debate you are not ready for.

 
Flag Post

It is a religious ceremony. How do you think people got married before government was involved in all the litigation?

What makes you think the separation of church and state was a thing way back when? The government was the religion, vice verca, the laws were God’s laws, ritual and legality were one in the same and ultimately answered to the same authority. But the thing is, there was no one religion. Marriages have been going on, all over, in thousands of different aspects, across every culture since the dawn of recorded history.

But you suggest it has legitimacy a priori on account of it being a “religious ceremony”. I assume, then, that you believe in all religious ceremonies? There are a lot of them, but being so important I trust you do your best to follow them all? Sure, they contradict each other, well a lot, but a religious ceremony is a religious ceremony, better do what it says. Or, maybe, this line of thinking is a little disingenous. You have no real interest in preserving the integrity of religious ceremonies. Merely Your Religious Ceremonies. Your Culture, Your Traditions, Your Way. It would be far more honest merely to say “It’s Mine. You can’t have it” without all this other nonsense. But, few do.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darear:
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Religion isn’t natural (no other animal performs these complex rituals we have, or believe in gods). Religion is a choice as well.

Should religious people now be disallowed from marriage?

Religion is innately natural to humans and has been for millenia. While humans may be classified as animals you do realize that there are major differences, it’s just common sense. Your definition of “natural” is if animals do it, it should be natural for humans do to it as well, correct? So if a lion eats their newborn, humans should do the same? Because it’s “natural?”

I love the bit about lions, it’s great. Does that mean that to be natural all animals have to eat newborns? If we can’t apply ‘natural’ labels to humans because we don’t eat newborns and lions do then I am guessing you don’t think the many many species that don’t practice infanticide are natural, if “eating your newborn” is a measure for being ‘natural’.

The irony is that the poster you quoted was replying to someone who based their anti-gay marriage views on the idea that “homosexuality is unnatural”, as alot of anti-gay marriage posters do, but if the term ‘natural’ cannot apply to humans then that whole line of debate is moot and the only anti-gay marriage reason left is the one on religious grounds.

This thread is very Christian based and marriage isn’t really a Christian, or even religious practice. Tribes in remote areas of the world practice ‘marriage’ even though they have no religion and never heard of Christianity, just because the history of our countries is Christian does not mean that Christianity is the creator of marriage, or that Christianity is under attack from people wanting to change marriage rules. ‘Marriage’ is not a religious practice, it is a practice that religion has hijacked and taken for it’s own.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by 1badCompany1:

It is a religious ceremony. How do you think people got married before government was involved in all the litigation? Also gay couples can have the same legal rights and monetary privileges by civil unions.

No it is not. It is a civil law institution. Here’s a wikipedia article about marriage which is locked so its all fact-based. And government has always been around, even before religion was around. You are just uneducated and you should do some research before you start a debate you are not ready for.

Again more insults. Grow up really. You’re uneducated. You don’t even know proper grammar. You wrote “its” when it is “it’s.” The problem with people like you is that when someone has a different opinion you immediately resort to petty insults. You’re the one who should follow your own advice and research this.

I was making the argument that for millenia, marriage has been a religious and traditional institution between one man and one woman. You’re asserting I’m wrong for saying religious/traditional marriage came before government. You conveniently ignore that quote right when EPR89 took a step back further and asked ‘How did people get married before religion.’ Religion predated government. Religion is a fundamental belief of moral values. How can you say that people from the dawn of time had established government before they had these beliefs? You’re clearly in the wrong.

Again, drop the insults or I will insult right back.

 
Flag Post
I love the bit about lions, it’s great. Does that mean that to be natural all animals have to eat newborns? If we can’t apply ‘natural’ labels to humans because we don’t eat newborns and lions do then I am guessing you don’t think the many many species that don’t practice infanticide are natural, if “eating your newborn” is a measure for being ‘natural’.

The irony is that the poster you quoted was replying to someone who based their anti-gay marriage views on the idea that “homosexuality is unnatural”, as alot of anti-gay marriage posters do, but if the term ‘natural’ cannot apply to humans then that whole line of debate is moot and the only anti-gay marriage reason left is the one on religious grounds.

This thread is very Christian based and marriage isn’t really a Christian, or even religious practice. Tribes in remote areas of the world practice ‘marriage’ even though they have no religion and never heard of Christianity, just because the history of our countries is Christian does not mean that Christianity is the creator of marriage, or that Christianity is under attack from people wanting to change marriage rules. ‘Marriage’ is not a religious practice, it is a practice that religion has hijacked and taken for it’s own.

Well I was applying his logic of what seems to be natural. He stated that if animals do it, it’s inherently natural for humans to do it as well. You took my one example and acted as if I defined natural by those outlandish terms. Pretty unfair argument, considering I was just applying his definition of “natural.” Humans and animals are obviously different and have different ethics.

I’ll base it off majority view. We are genetically programmed to like the opposing sex not the same sex. Most people in the world are heterosexual and not homosexual. One could say that homosexuality therefore is unnatural. I know a person who was gay and had changed to become straight. Contrary to what gay activists have said, he is happy and does not want to turn back. Homosexuality is a learned method of behavior.

I am not anti-gay no matter how many times people attach this label on me for having a different belief. I didn’t say Christianity was the creator of marriage, I was saying that Christianity as it influenced large populaces did add a religious connotation to the word marriage and influenced it’s practice. Marriage in contemporary times and even thousands of years ago was primarily religious.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darear:
Religion predated government. Religion is a fundamental belief of moral values. How can you say that people from the dawn of time had established government before they had these beliefs? You’re clearly in the wrong.

Again, drop the insults or I will insult right back.

Are you implying that religion predated social structures?
Are you implying that religion predated culture?
Are you implying that religion is the source of morality?



This is getting kind of ridiculous, so I am simply going to ask you a simple question: how do you define “natural”?
In the last post you defined it as “normal” and at the same time “desirable”. I mean, sure, you can do that. For yourself. The actual meaning of natural is “occurring in nature”, though. Like I said, it’s a descriptive term, no matter what you try to make it.
But maybe I am wrong. Enlighten me. Why should it not be a descriptive term?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darear:

I’ll base it off majority view. We are genetically programmed to like the opposing sex not the same sex. Most people in the world are heterosexual and not homosexual. One could say that homosexuality therefore is unnatural.

N O
They could say it is not mainstream, the majority, typical, usually, for the most part, etc.
What YOU are doing is using “loaded words” to skew YOUR negative attitude towards a very simple issue. That being: Gays have a right to be “married”…in the eyes of the govt. (such as the govt. is able to see such things.).

I know a person who was gay and had changed to become straight.

Okay. How “well” do ya know him? Could it not have been possible that he wasn’t “really Gay”?….that he “fell into” a particular behavior because of one (or more?) of a host of complex psychological influences? Are YOU some kind of “mind-doctor” that is qualified to make these kind of assessments?

OR, do ya really expect us to “buy” some bullshit about: "I know this guy….and therefore my whole argument about homosexuality being a CHOICE “wins” regardless of the huge mountain of contrary EVIDENCE."

Contrary to what gay activists have said, he is happy and does not want to turn back. Homosexuality is a learned method of behavior.

OOOooooppps. My bad….see above. “Learned method of behavior”….LMAO@U.
I am not anti-gay no matter how many times people attach this label on me for having a different belief.

Hmmmmm….silly ppl. Shame on them for calling YOU “anti-Gay” when all YOU are doing is being against Gays. Oooopppps, I mean normal ppl who CHOOSE to be “unnatural”.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by Darear:
Religion predated government. Religion is a fundamental belief of moral values. How can you say that people from the dawn of time had established government before they had these beliefs? You’re clearly in the wrong.

Again, drop the insults or I will insult right back.

Are you implying that religion predated culture?
Are you implying that religion is the source of morality?



This is getting kind of ridiculous, so I am simply going to ask you a simple question: how do you define “natural”?
In the last post you defined it as “normal” and at the same time “desirable”. I mean, sure, you can do that. For yourself. The actual meaning of natural is “occurring in nature”, though. Like I said, it’s a descriptive term, no matter what you try to make it.
But maybe I am wrong. Enlighten me. Why should it not be a descriptive term?

Yes, religion is a belief system. Of course religion predated culture and is a source of morality. Are you referring to organized religion or just a belief system?

I’d define natural as the norm of what is perceived to be proper behavior. Not saying it shouldn’t be a descriptive term, I’m just saying 1badCompany1 pinned me down to a set definition while at the same time allowing for open interpretation of it if it suits his stance on gay marriage.

 
Flag Post

Religion predates culture… Good one.
Religion is a product of culture. It may be a source for morals, but definitely not the source for morals. religion is the textbook example of products of culture: in a population there are certain rules for social interaction and beliefs regarding the environment. These parts become subject to cultural over-accentuation and what you end up is something like a religion. Clothes are another example. First they are only there for protection. But through cultural over-accentuation they become status symbols or decoration.

And why do you need to use the expression “natural” when really all you want to do is say “desirable without any evidence to suggests why it should be called that”?