Gay Marriages

Yummy, lesbians! What channel was that on? :lol:

Heartfelt and sincere, I can appreciate that. Part of me is frothing to write up a reply - I see quite a few contradictions/fallacies in your reasoning.

The other part of me thinks it will be a waste of time, and that was a long post. :wink:

If this opinion of yours was not so concretely grounded in religious dogma so as to be unassailible, I might give it a shot. As it stands, I think I would just be wasting our time.

So…

Good luck, sir!

~cheers

K-Ration - it is easy to throw around the word “dogma” and reduce a man’s beliefs and values to a pile of something that no one should care about, or even revile, isn’t it . . . .

Jeff - very sould searching. I agree that there is something wrong with the idea of a “priest” (i.e. man of God) endorsing a wedding between two people of the same gender.

I agree with some of the points you made with regards to “free speach” and the idea that people who once espoused open-mindedness (i.e. liberals) now have closed minds to anyone who thinks or practices differently than they do - particuarly if i t has anything to do with their own values. Then all of a sudden “well, free speach should not apply there” or “that’s just dogma - no point to having an open mind with regards to his beliefs”. It’s kind of stupid how the pendulum has swung . . . .

Thanks for the courteous reply, K-Ration. I can only hope any further ones are half that respectful. As you can see, I’m up way too late tonight.

I wouldn’t propose for a moment that my many, many points are without numerous flaws. But when you speak from the heart, it often doesn’t have a proofreader. I don’t give a cracked iron quid if anybody agrees with me, I just want people to respect my opinions, and I will respect theirs.

As I said, some opinions are formed with the head; others with the heart. This was one of the latter.

As for you, Cystic Crypt, don’t bash “dogma”; I really enjoyed that movie. :D But thank you for getting my point about the media condemning the views of those who don’t agree to the liberal opinion; I was afraid that much of that would get lost in my near-endless ranting and some opinions that many would consider “hate speech.”

I tip my hat to you, gentlesirs, and I invite any future nitpicking, should you wish to spare the time. Thanks for taking the time to read my posts. I think I may love arguing even more than I love redheads and British Ale (God that’s sad).

Geoff

I’m not sure what you mean by dogma, but the dogma I know has no negative connotations. I’m just describing what he admitted to.

Authoritative tenet. Doctrine proclaimed by the church. Call it what you will. He said himself it comes mainly from the heart, and not the head.

You gain no points here, sir. I have much better ways to reduce and devalue someone than that.

:wink:

~cheers

Geoff:

Since you seem like a nice guy who likes to debate, I will take it upon myself to write up a rebuttal as it were. It will probably be Wed or Thur, as that is my weekend.

Just out of curiosity I would like to pose this question: If I were to point out flaws in your argument, why would that not matter? Obviously reasons are important to you, or your post would have been something like ‘Hi, I’m Geoff and God says gay men are sinners bye’. :wink:

You seem to try to justify your beliefs with more than just ‘I feel this way’
and it honestly makes me quite sad that someone could recognize a false belief (or support for such) and not care. Not that any of yours are false at this point, we are still being hypothetical. =p

That said, here’s hoping I open your eyes or you open mine.

Guerrilla Guy: I’m not sure if you were joking or not, but I would have no problems abolishing marriage. 8)

~cheers

@K-Ration:

Guerrilla Guy: I’m not sure if you were joking or not, but I would have no problems abolishing marriage. 8)

~cheers

no that wsn’t a joke it was a legit question…. I’m trying to figure out if your answer was a joke…

K-Ration:

It wouldn’t matter in the sense that even if you point out factual inaccuracies in my arguments, it wouldn’t change my opinion on this issue. I am sure there are many factual errors and logical flaws in my essay, but I wrote a lot of this largely from memory and gut instinct, without doing any real research. Some issues are mostly logical ones, like tax law reform, where one can look at figures and numbers and projections and then decide what revisions benefit the most people. Some opinions are made in the heart and the soul, and this is one of them, at least for me. Having the flaws in my arguments pointed out will certainly set me thinking and thus make me a wiser and better person, so I invite them, but they won’t change my opinion, either. I do know that in your case, K-Ration, you aren’t trying to change my mind, you’re just trying to inpsire open and honest debate, and that being as it is, I look forward to your reply.

As an example, if I may… If you asked some random person how he felt about abortion, and he replied “It’s awful; killing unborn children is simply wrong”, you could present him with all the evidence in the world of how much money is saved by all these unwanted children not coming into the world, the quality of life to be expected for a child who is coming into a family who isn’t ready for him financialy or emotionally, the probability of an unwanted child “slipping through the cracks” of society and acting as a source of social entropy, and so forth, but it wouldn’t change the fact that to this person the killing of unborn children is just immoral, and he doesn’t need figures to justify that one way or the other. To this man, it’s a decision made without logical thought. For me, on this issue, it’s the same thing. I made notes of my more “logical” reasonings for two primary reasons: The first reason being to inspire some serious thought in people who happened to read them, and to let people see some of the ideas and beliefs that fly around in my admittedly disturbed mind, that in part led to me feeling the way I feel.

It’s been my observation that a lot of people do not object to gay marriage because they take the attitude of “Well, it doesn’t hurt me, so I guess it’s okay.” I don’t work that way, and I think that’s a common and depressing theme in American society. Also, I think it’s a very apathetic, cowardly, and reprehensible way to live. Too many people take a very lukewarm stance on controversial issues because they either fear social ostracism from people who disagree with them, or they simply don’t care to care, basically. On any issue, this just bothers me. I am reminded of two quotes:

“He who stands in the middle of the road gets hit with traffic from both sides.”

and

“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who stand silent in the midst of controversy.”

Unfortunately, I cannot remember the author of either of these; I am a big fan of pithy quotations, but I have a terrible memory for names. :-?

The point being that some decisions are just “gut” decisions, and are made, as I said earlier, with the heart and soul and not the head. As an exceedingly logical person, this is hard for me sometimes. Even if some of my arguments are flawed, that doesn’t change how I feel. If homosexual people can’t “choose” their lifestyle, then I can’t “choose” how I feel on how they “choose” to live thier lives, among other issues. I have often said that if jerking your hand back from a hot stove is a reflex of the body, then emotions are the reflex of the soul. If watching a few seconds of a lesbian “wedding” makes me feel sick inside, then that’s just my inner self telling me in no uncertain terms how I really feel, deep down, about this.

We can hide how we feel and what we think from other people, and we can alter what we say and what we do to support that illusion, but what we really feel, inside, is simply the truest extension of who we are as people, and while one can go a long way to hide that from the outside world, you can’t truly hide that from yourself.

Geoff

In my opinion, opinions are irrelevant. . . .I heard a chuckle. Someone gets the irony. Wow, tough crowd.

Person A says Gay Marriage is wrong.

Person B says Gay Marriage is right.

It is certainly our right to form an opinion and certainly our freedom to express it on a Board Game Forum.

But arguing right and wrong is missing the target. The issue is : Are all human beings equal? Do all human beings have the same rights?

Well that gets complicated. Certainly no one here would argue that homosexuals do not deserve the same rights as heterosexuals. Or if they do then debate any further is pointless atleast as far as I’m concerned.

The issue is then divided into marriage as it pertains to government and law and marriage as it pertains to religion and church.

If we need to debate homosexual marriage under the law then we are even further behind than I thought. But I think we can all agree that as far as the government is concerned all human beings have the same rights. Unconditionally. Equal. Unequivocally. Period.

Therefore “Marriages” or “Civil Unions” or whatever term makes you sleep better at night is 100% “right” as far as civil law is concerned and as long as homosexual marriages enjoy the EXACT SAME rights and privileges as heterosexuals. There is no arguement to this. These are the principles our country is based on.

As far as religion is concerned I’m afraid that’s a different story. AND THIS IS WHERE THE ARGUEMENT IS. This is where opinions are at last relevant.

And here’s mine.

Judgement is unfortunately one of the cornerstones of Christianity. I’m sure that’s gonna spark some debate (And one I would love to get into) but for the purpose of this there is no ignoring it. It’s what Christians do. They make rules. If you do not follow those rules they condemn you.
They define reality with right and wrong and with do’s and don’ts.

But here’s where the arguement gets tricky.

Christians, “in my opinion”, not only have every right to decide if homosexual marriage is “right” for them, but they MUST. It’s what they do, it’s how they define themselves. It’s how they exist.

The point. If Christians don’t like the idea of a church sponsered Gay Marriage then that’s WONDERFUL. It’s just peachy. It’s their right. It’s what they do.

If Christians decide that the idea of church sponsered Gay Marriages is okay then that too is WONDERFUL. It’s their right. It’s what they do.

As for me, as long as all humans are equal and enjoy the same rights,
I say its up to you individually to choose to like it or not like it.

@November:

In my opinion, opinions are irrelevant. . . .I heard a chuckle. Someone gets the irony. Wow, tough crowd.

Person A says Gay Marriage is wrong.

Person B says Gay Marriage is right.

It is certainly our right to form an opinion and certainly our freedom to express it on a Board Game Forum.

But arguing right and wrong is missing the target. The issue is : Are all human beings equal? Do all human beings have the same rights?

Well that gets complicated. Certainly no one here would argue that homosexuals do not deserve the same rights as heterosexuals. Or if they do then debate any further is pointless atleast as far as I’m concerned.

The issue is then divided into marriage as it pertains to government and law and marriage as it pertains to religion and church.

If we need to debate homosexual marriage under the law then we are even further behind than I thought.  But I think we can all agree that as far as the government is concerned all human beings have the same rights. Unconditionally. Equal. Unequivocally. Period.

Therefore “Marriages” or “Civil Unions” or whatever term makes you sleep better at night is 100% “right” as far as civil law is concerned and as long as homosexual marriages enjoy the EXACT SAME rights and privileges as heterosexuals. There is no arguement to this. These are the principles our country is based on.

As far as religion is concerned I’m afraid that’s a different story. AND THIS IS WHERE THE ARGUEMENT IS. This is where opinions are at last relevant.

And here’s mine.

Judgement is unfortunately one of the cornerstones of Christianity. I’m sure that’s gonna spark some debate (And one I would love to get into) but for the purpose of this there is no ignoring it. It’s what Christians do. They make rules. If you do not follow those rules they condemn you.
They define reality with right and wrong and with do’s and don’ts.

But here’s where the arguement gets tricky.

Christians, “in my opinion”, not only have every right to decide if homosexual marriage is “right” for them, but they MUST. It’s what they do, it’s how they define themselves. It’s how they exist.

The point. If Christians don’t like the idea of a church sponsered Gay Marriage then that’s WONDERFUL. It’s just peachy. It’s their right. It’s what they do.

If Christians decide that the idea of church sponsered Gay Marriages is okay then that too is WONDERFUL.  It’s their right. It’s what they do.

As for me, as long as all humans are equal and enjoy the same rights,  
I say its up to you individually to choose to like it or not like it.

That is one of the most intelligent statements I have read so far. Now here’s is the dilemma (at least for me).  I see no wrong in gay marrages. What should I do with that? Should I keep my opinion to myself or should I leave the Christian faith do to the fact that they would label me as a gay sympathizer?

Well, this may be too exaggerated being that I don’t go to church anymore. Yet, it would be still something to ponder over.

I really like the sentiment that Christians are defined by condemning people <sarcasm>. I certainly want to be identified as a person who speaks ill of things and casts people to Hell, rather than a person who takes his theological beliefs and uses them to make himself a better person, and, in a small way, making the world a better place. I define myself both religiously and just plain personally by how I conduct myself and how I relate to my loved ones, as well as how I try to be fair to people around me. That’s why I am still decent to people I know to be gay; I don’t approve of their behavior in the least, but because one of the main tenets of my faith is “loving thy fellow man”, I treat these people with the same consideration and human decency that I would any other people. However, I reserve the right to dissolve my association with these people because they live their lives in a way I consider immoral; just like I might stop being friends with someone for selling drugs or cheating on his spouse, because I also think those things are immoral as well. It’s very left wing to characterize Christians by the fact that they “condemn” things; I could equally “condemn” liberals by the fact that they’re only real beliefe is not restricting anyone from doing anything; they seem to believe everything should be tolerated but intolerance. Criticizing Christians as those who are defined by the fact that they condemn everything from their holy pedestals because they are against certain things is like bashing Jewish people as those defined by their condemnation of pork products and foreskin. Religions are in many ways philosophies with deities attached, and both religions and philosophies are guides for how to act to the people who believe in and embrace them. I don’t approve of anyone, of any religious affiliation or none, who goes around damning to hell anybody who disagrees with them. I don’t do that because I’m secure in my own beliefs; not everyone is. I also would like to think that God wouldn’t want me to act that way. Christians aren’t defined by what they disapprove of any more than anybody else. It’s simply a school of thought and belief that endorses some behaviors and restricts others. Yes, Christian doctrine says “don’t kill, don’t steal” and so on, but it also says “honor thy father and thy mother”. It endorses certain behaviors thought of as “good” just as it prohibits certain behaviors thought of as “bad”, just as any individual person’s own code of ethics tells that person what is right and wrong, whether or not he has any religious beliefs or not.

Defining a group by what they say people shouldn’t do is patently unfair. It’s that whole bloody liberal sentiment of treating someone like an idiot just because he has the bollocks to disapprove of something. Religion is just one of many factors that shapes how people think, feel, and act, and it’s no more fair to characterize all Christians as “close-minded” because they disapprove of some things than it is for me to characterize you as a bad person with no morals because you disagree with me on this one issue. I don’t think that of you, and you shouldn’t think that of me, any other Christian, or the whole Christian community in general.

All “rights” are constructions of man, and specifically, in this case, the US Declaration of Independance and/or Constitution. Certain countries, like the US of A, have supposedly unlimited freedom of speech. On the other side of the globe, in China, I just read an article about how the government was trying to track down some people who said derogatory things about the government on a message board not unlike this one. This practice would be anathema to America. This just shows that rights are not universal, and the existance or lack of them is a creation of the powers that be. There is no “right” to marry; it is a construct of the government with certain advantages and disadvantages and is a priviliege granted to adults that they may or may not take advantage of. Different rights apply to different people, by the definition of law. For example, a man and woman who are not both of legal age cannot legally wed; I think the age is 18 (I’ve never tried to get married). Is this interfering with their supposed “right” to marry? That’s debatable. The fact is that the government created the legal institution of marriage, and at some point and they decided at some point that 18 is the age to marry (it should be older, if you ask me, but you didn’t), and nobody seems to dispute that overly much. They are putting restrictions on the “right” to marry. If they someday put the restriction on that same “right” that only a man and woman can partake of it, how is it any different? It’s also law that a person can only be married to one other person at the same time… isn’t this also restricting that “right”? I fail to see the difference between these restrictions and the possible restriction of marriage being to one man and one woman. If restricting people the right to marry based on gender is against the founding ideas of this country, then restricting their right to marry based on other criteria is also “unconstitutional” or whatever you want to call it, and those restrictions have to be removed. Some people talk about eliminating the legal institution of marriage altogether, and I am not totally opposed to that. Whether the institution exists or not when I myself marry, it will still be to me a mostly religious thing. I will still have my wedding in a church with a vicar performing the ceremony, scripture will be read, and our children will eventually be baptised. The signing of the marriage license is mostly meaningless to me. But that’s me, and if non-religious people marry at city hall and it’s a totally civil ceremony, then that’s great too. I just hope that they marry responsibly and for love, and are very happy together for many years. If at some point the government completely dissolved the insitution of marriage, is that infringing on that right? No, because it’s not a right. It’s a construct of the government, and they have the ability to change the parameters of that construct when they see need.

Even the basic rights held so dear in the Declaration of Independance and Constitution are constantly restricted and legislated, so even if marriage is a fundamental right, it’s not inviolate against legislative restrictions. For example, people aren’t allowed to use certain “profane” words on television shows. Is this restricting their free speech? Seems like it to me. We supposedly have freedom of press, but if you print naughty stories or pictures of naked women, they can only be sold in certain places, they are often not allowed to be displayed openly, and you have to be a certain age to buy them. There’s supposed to be freedom of religion, but if you put a nativity scene on public property, it’s breaking the law. I could go on and on.

The point is that all of the basic rights that America so cherishes, as well as legal constructs and privileges such as the civil institution of marriage, are subject to legislative restrictions They have always been and always will be, and are sure to be legislated more in the future. Even amendments to the Constituion, the most fundamental document of America, have been changed a few dozen times. Every legal institution under the sun has been legislated, modified, and restricted, often to public agreement. Some people were awfully happy about prohibition; many more were not, and it didn’t last. Restricting marriage more, whether to make it man-woman only, or to make the legal age 21, or to make it so you can only get married on the weekends, or whatever, is nothing that hasn’t been done a million times in thousands of other situations. Restricting certain people from marrying based on specific criteria isn’t any more heinous than restricting someone on the TV show “Friends” from saying “fuck”, but Dennis Miller could say it on HBO every 2 seconds and there’s no legal repercussions to it at all.

As for you, Stuka, you raise a good point. I no longer attend church either. Partially because I’m an ocean away from the church I grew up in, and I doubt I would go anyway. I became very disillusioned with the hypocrisy of many people in the church. It can ruin your regard for man’s religious constructs when you find out that people who act so pious are doing horrible things behind the scenes. Finding out that our vicar was cheating on his wife was a heavy blow <sigh>. Though overall I live a very, very upright life that adheres quite closely to church doctrine, I have strayed a few times myself. I don’t think I’m supposed to work on Sunday, but I have before and I will again. I’m not going to condemn (there’s that word again) you for your opinion, because it would be rather hypocritical of me. No member of any religion is totally perfect… not you, not I, not anybody.

Geoff</sigh></sarcasm>

First, November: Your analysis is fantastic, and i agree with the conclusions just the same. It’s good to have someone here with a strong(er) philosophical background.

@JustJeff:

…I define myself both religiously and just plain personally by how I conduct myself and how I relate to my loved ones, as well as how I try to be fair to people around me. That’s why I am still decent to people I know to be gay; I don’t approve of their behavior in the least, but because one of the main tenets of my faith is “loving thy fellow man”, I treat these people with the same consideration and human decency that I would any other people. …

Wait…
you treat them decent on the outside because of the faith, but inside you disgust them them becasue of your faith. And for your definition “plain personally” you are concerned about the “main tenets of your faith”. Can’t you distinguish these two things and handle them seperatedly?

See:

However, I reserve the right to dissolve my association with these people because they live their lives in a way I consider immoral; just like I might stop being friends with someone for selling drugs or cheating on his spouse, because I also think those things are immoral as well.

What about a gay drug dealer who cheats on his partner?
What about gay priests?
There is a term called “morality club” in german: great tool to stop any sensible discussion.

Criticizing Christians as those who are defined by the fact that they condemn everything from their holy pedestals because they are against certain things is like bashing Jewish people as those defined by their condemnation of pork products and foreskin.

I do come to the conclusion that “pork products and foreskin” are equivalent to “everything” to you. Funny thought.

Religions are in many ways philosophies with deities attached, and both religions and philosophies are guides for how to act to the people who believe in and embrace them.

I guess that is how a religious person wants to see philosphy. As “just some kind of religion”.
Philosophy is more about asking questions, and the ways of thinking of an answer. It is not at all about having the ultimate answers.

It’s simply a school of thought and belief that endorses some behaviors and restricts others.

Famous restrictions was “the earth revolves around the sun”… some other interesting dogmatic questions, for the catholics here: Was Mary a virgin when she died, as put forth as a dogma by some pope some time ago? If yes: then JC is a bastard as the marriage with Joseph was never actually “performed”. If no: Then of course the pope is fallable in his dogmas.
Wasn’t is someone somewhere here on this forum who said that it is really important to christianity and a defining factor to accept that JC is the son of God ?

It’s that whole bloody liberal sentiment of treating someone like an idiot just because he has the bollocks to disapprove of something.

A standardized but still wrong arguement:
Liberals have the bollocks of disapproving with conservative and over-religious points of view all the time.

and it’s no more fair to characterize all Christians as “close-minded” because they disapprove of some things than it is for me to characterize you as a bad person with no morals because you disagree with me on this one issue.

But … it is of course ok to “characterize all” liberals, gays, heretics, witches.

All “rights” are constructions of man, and specifically, in this case, the US Declaration of Independance and/or Constitution.

showing off that you don’t know many philosophers ?

…and after talk about the perceived -and taken as real- non-universality of rights i must admit i stopped.

F_alk: I think his point is he holds nothing against the man But only against the sin which unfortanetely hasn’t been shown on your News medium in the last few weeks…
(btw November I went to the Statehouse in Ma. on the 11 of March and it was exactly as you described in signs like “prepare to meet your maker” and fire burning under it… You felt ashamed a little to be a Christian because that is not what Christ would have done…)

Also thank God Jesus was a Bastard because then technically all people who do judge a illegitimate child because he or she is one has no right to say so…

Okay, I’ll grant you that my line about “pork products and foreskin” wasn’t the best. I hope I didn’t offend any Jewish people, and if I did, I’m sorry. What I was trying to point out is that it’s not very fair to identify a religion simply by what it restricts. That just goes to cast religions as codes of hate and intolerance and religious people as intolerant hatemongers.

When I equated philosophy with religion, I was using philosophy not so much in the classical sense but in the sense of a philosophy as perhaps a way of thinking and relating to the world and all the things and people in it. I have a personal philosophy, in this sense, as do you. My religious beliefs have a great impact on my philosophy, but they don’t affect some things. For example, my religious beliefs don’t affect how I think about affirmative action. They might for some, but not for me. How I feel one way or the other about that issue is part of my own personal philosophy; philosophy being my code of ethics, morals, values, and behaviors. In this sense, yes, religion and philosophy share many traits. If I wrote down a long book on my personal “philosophy” and some people read it and started to follow it, I wouldn’t call it a religion, because I’m not a deity, but it would seem like one to some people. I think our debate here is semantics.

Yes, I did take some generalized shots at liberals, and that wasn’t necessarily fair. However, what gets me is that a group of people, and I am assigning labels here to all people who would call themselves “liberals”, who seem to embrace the concepts of open-mindedness mock those who disagree with them on some things. I’ve seen this all the time on television, and I’ve seen cases where liberal-minded people have essentially laughed at conservative and sometimes also religious beliefs on this matter, catagorizing those conservative/religious people as closed-minded and hatemongers because labeling them as so trivializes their position on the issues at hand, helps shift negative regard in their direction, and undermines the integrity of the conservative argument, thus giving the liberals a leg up on furthering their own agendas and positions. Decrediting your oppositions position is an ages old tactic in politics; nothing new here. If they were really the open-minded people they claim to be, they would simply accept the conservative opinion and then continue to try and bolster their own opinions without mocking and deriding the opposition. There is a distinct difference between derision and disagreement. The example being if I say “I disagree with your opinion” as opposed to “I can’t believe you think that; what kind of idiot are you?” Yes, I know conservatives take shots at liberal opinions all the time, but in many circles conservatives are thought of as “closed-minded.” That doesn’t excuse it just because conservatives do it, but it’s even more ironic when done by a group of people who are supposedly open minded. My whole belief is that you respect the opinions of your opponents, though you may disagree with them very strongly, and do what you can to add weight to your own opinions.

And, no, I don’t know many philosophers. I explained my use of the word philosophy already. I was trying to make a point in a purely legal sense, and we are talking about the legality or lack thereof of same-sex “marriage” in America, so naturally I would talk about the fundamental documents of America itself. My whole point is that even the most fundamental rights that all Americans are privileged to have that are espoused in the Declaration are subject to restrictions by the law of the land, and I gave examples. These rights were put down in this most formative of documents, and are held very dear, but they are not universal to all people, or everyone in the world would have them too. These “rights” were written down in the nation’s most formative days by some very well-meaning and clever men, and that’s why we have them. If they had never said anything about freedom of speech, would we have much greater restrictions on what we can say in the modern day? Almost certainly. Furthermore, they are not totally inviolate against any governmental restriction because they have been restricted many times in the past, will certainly be edited more in the future, and few people will disagree that these changes are a good and necessary thing. November says that all people have the same rights, but we know that these rights are restricted in many ways and not fully applicable to all people in all situations. I think the fact that two 16 year old children cannot marry is a good example of this. The founding fathers wrote down a few of the most essential rights of Americans, and over the course of decades other legislative people tweaked and adjusted these rights as they saw fit for the good of the nation.

If we need to debate homosexual marriage under the law then we are even further behind than I thought. But I think we can all agree that as far as the government is concerned all human beings have the same rights. Unconditionally. Equal. Unequivocally. Period.

No, they don’t. This is obvious. The most basic rights in the Declaration of Independance are restricted and modified in some situations, and marriage is not listed along with freedom of speech, press, religion, and so on. If all these rights were unconditional, the government wouldn’t have put conditions on them, would they? That tells me that marriage is a legal and man-made institution, and subject to legal restrictions and the whim of certain men. There are certain conditions placed in the law that give or deny certain people the right to marry, just as there are conditions placed upon the rights of people to do many other things in other situations. This institution was created by law, and over time the restrictions towards who can enter into this institution were ironed out, and the benefits of being in this institution were adjusted as well. In the early days of the nation, people didn’t live nearly as long as they do now and mortality was much higher, so it was in the best interests of people to get married and start having children sooner. Later, the government decided that it was a good idea to put an age restriction on marriage, and they did. A restriction that excluded certain people from being able to marry was placed on the law books where no restriction was before, and nobody seems to mind that you have to be a legal adult to marry. Also, at some point it became law that you can only have one spouse at a time. This is a good indication of the influence of Christian doctrine on law, because Christianity proposes monogamy, while other religions do not. If at some point in the future the law says that only a man and woman can marry, then this is hardly anything new. If this is a violation of people’s rights, then so are all the other restrictions on marriage, and those need to be abolished as well. If denying homosexuals the right to legal marriage is not showing equality, then keeping 17 year olds from marrying is also violating their fair share of equality, and that restriction has to go as well.

Finally, Guerrilla Guy got my point precisely. I don’t approve of what many Christian extremists do to show their distaste on this issue, and I won’t be lumped into a group with them. The fact that I am much more calm and rational about this than some others shows the inherent flaws of human behavior and interpretation as it pertains to church doctrine. But all people have things they disapprove of, and in some cases those dislikes are shaped by religious beliefs. I don’t think that gay people are inherently bad, but their behavior is, in my eyes. You can be gay and still do many other wonderful and beneficial things for the world, but that one behavior is not moral in my opinion. If I don’t wish to associate with someone because he is gay and I think that’s morally wrong, then it’s no different in my eyes than you or anyone else no longer associating with a former friend because he is a drug dealer (for example). In either case, you and I both stopped associating with someone because he does something we consider wrong. Because my decision is based on religious beliefs and yours might be more secular is neither here nor there. We separated ourselves from someone who does things we think are wrong; everybody does it, all the time. Some people separate themselves from friends and colleagues who do things they consider wrong, and some choose to continue the relationship. That is each person’s prerogative.

Geoff

I didn’t lump you or consider you one… just wanted to clarify…

I killed Mufasa I really hope that since you’re from Cambridge you’re a catholic or else I’m going to have a real bone to pick with you here.

First of all, marriage is not a sacred union unless you are catholic. In the break from the Church of Rome during the reformation the protestant churches dropped most of the sacraments including marriage. The two main sacred acts kept were communion and baptism. This means that even according to most church doctrines marriage is not sacred. Additionally, the push to ban gay marriage has not been led by Catholics but rather conservatives ‘evangelical’ christian movements. This is a curious fact since their rhetoric says marriage is a sacred union and yet they don’t acknowledge it as a sacrament. So what’s the deal? The deal is these groups are trying to blur the distinction between church and state so they can force us through legislation to accept their version of christianity. I’d prefer religious freedom instead.

To November, judgmentalism is not a cornerstone of Christianity just evangelicalism. Catholicism treats sin as natural, and also condems hetro sex outside of marriage. Actually, just about everything is a sin to Catholics including defication. The key is that in Catholism sin does not makes you evil, unjust or wicked, but that sin forces you to atone before your maker. Even most mainstrem protestant branches agree with that distinction, but the evangelicals take sin to iequal moral decadence.

ok if a guy wants to marry a guy…let him, if a girl wants to marry girl … let her, and if a guy and a girl want to marry each other…let them. It is that simple.

It is just sick and wrong. :evil: I am a repulican!!! :P :D

marriage is legally nothing more than a contract. one which gays are equally qualified to enter into. religiously, it takes on different significance, depending on your faith, but no one is arguing for religions to allow gay marriage, simply the government. whether or not the church allows them is their own decision.

You’ve got it right Janus. Keep religion and state seperate.

Awesome wrap up, Janus.

JustJeff, you have passion about what you believe in and that is a wonderful thing. You might try debating more on a rational side and less on an emotional one. And no matter what you take from Board Game Forums you should definatley read some philosophy. Expanding your mind is never a bad thing. That being said, allow me to respond.

I think you missed the point completely. No one is saying you are a bad person for defining the world the way you see it. Quite the opposite, it is what you do, what you must do as you. Your genetics, your surroundings, the programs running in your brain all make you who you are, and if that is a human being with a Christian view than that is wonderful.

Isn’t it interesting though that you automatically assigned the construct of “wrong” or “bad” to how we view your views even though it was not stated. At least not yet. We’ll get there though, I’m just easing in.

Perhaps you have your own issues with yourself on how you view Gay Marriages . . .

Just Jeff :“That’s why I am still decent to people I know to be gay”

How very big of you. This is not meant as an attack, only as an observation. Take a look at your semantics and you might want to ask why you word things the way you do. Do you harbor hatred towards Homosexuals? Seems that way to me. You certainly don’t want them to have the same rights as you. You might want to ask yourself why.

JustJeff: “Defining a group by what they say people shouldn’t do is patently unfair”

Unfair? You mean like what you are doing to gay people by not giving them equal rights? Defining them by what they say and do. You should apply the “holier than though” ethics to yourself. Oh no, he brought out the “Holier than though” card.

And hey, life’s unfair. People do unfair things all the time. That’s why we have laws to protect people from people like you and me. That’s why we have constitutions and civil rights. Remember slavery? White, Christian, heterosexual men like you and me sat around and debated the same thing about African Americans and guess what, someone said they didn’t deserve the same rights and probably topped it off with something like “That’s why I am still decent to people I know to be black”

Compare your views on homosexuality to slavery? Yep. I just went there. Before you close your mind off, you might want to think about it too. You seem like a smart person. There are a lot of similarities AND differences but the point you seemed to have missed is still the same. ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE EQUAL.

I think at some point in your arguement you went into something about China not having the same rights as we do in the USA and that was supposed to support your statement that there is no such thing as Universal rights. . . . . . . . . . Um, what. Are we to judge human standards by China now? You might want to try a different angle there because you sound stupid and make me loose respect for any intelligence I’m assuming you have. Now that was an attack because, come on. Think about what you write before you write it. For Example:

JustJeff: “There is no ‘right’ to marry; it is a construct of the government with certain advantages and disadvantages . .”

Um, a construct of the government is technically considered a “right” of the people being governed. The “right” of Free Speech is also a construct of the government with certain advantages and disadvantages. Oooh, which is a good lead in to my favorite part:

JustJeff: “For example, a man and woman who are not both of legal age cannot legally wed . . .”

Pay attention, this is crucial . . . . . ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE EQUAL in that they cannot legally wed until they are of legal age (That goes for Jews, Whites, Homosexuals, African Americans)

You use an example of limitations and restrictions of Free Speech to support your logic of no universal rights. You see, everyone has the freedom of speech but there are restrictions on that right, for example yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre is not allowed under law. Uh oh, here it comes again. . . . . .ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE EQUAL in that they have restrictions on their freedom of speech. Jews, Whites, African Americans, men, women, homosexuals all have the same limitations. And why is that? What could possibly be the reason? All are equal under the law.

One more and I swear I’ll stop. But this one is funny so I have to:

JustJeff: “We supposedly have freedom of press, but if you print naughty stories or pictures of naked women, they can only be sold in certain places…”

Bet you can guess it . . . .ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE EQUAL in that they cannot print “naughty stories”.

Alright, alright, I’ve been mean enough. You probably won’t believe me but I am really glad to hear you expressing your views. And what’s worse, is that I would be fighting just as hard for you if someone was trying to put limitations on your rights. I respect that you have your view and I hope you continue to speak it. It is always good to test your views however, and even better to change them in the face of better logic.

In my opinion, Truth is not a constant. It is an ever-changing way of understanding the world around you. Truth is a Maturing of the mind in a way, a Journey.

DAMN am I preachy. Shut up already! I’m going to go look at some “naughty” pictures now . . . . .