Gay Marriages

(scampers over to defend Jeff from the evil Liberals :P )
Alright, ill do my best to refute everything that November said, becuase its fun, and im a homophobe who thinks all homosexuals should be banished to an island, becuase i dont want them contaminting my community.
Sarcasm aside, im not in support of gay marriages, and i liked jeff’s rant, so here goes.
Point number One: He is not saying that he habors hatred towards homosexuals, but homosexulaity. There is a big difference. He despises the concept of same sex relations, but, unlike what many people would do, he still treats people who possess those characteristics with decency and respect. Ill get into the same rights thing when you do.
Point number Two: Homosexualtiy and religion are not compatible in that context. Religion encompasses a wide variety of feilds, such as theology, morlaity, law, philiosophy, etc., and is far more complex than just wahat you say someone cant do. Homosexualtiy, on the other hand, is just one thing: Same sex relations. There is no other definition for homosexulas in relation to that characteristic besides that of what thye do, which is not true about religion. Also, ill get into this later, no one has ever said that gay should not have equal rights, and they dont have any rights that heterosexuals have, so the slavery reference does not apply (also, you could argue that homosexuality is a choice of sorts, while race is uncontrollable, but i wont get into that). Bear with me, ill explain in a sec. In reference to the china quote, he was talking about universal rights in the legal sense. he was saying that governments have not set up a law code that every coutnry is forced to obey right (UN tried, failed), and that the rights that governments gove it’s citizens can be changed in a legal sesne, so there are no universal “legal” rights.
Point three: you mentioned the fact that a legal construct is a right, but what Jeff was saying was that it is not a universal, constant right. Like the china refernec, the government could take away those rights, and they would be gone. poof.
Point Four: ok heres the whole equal rights thing, and here is my point: homosexuals AND heterosexuals are not allowed to marry people of the same sex, and homosexuals are allowed to marry poeple of the opposite sex. They all have the same rights, the homosexuals just want more rights for everyone. It isnt a debate of same rights, but more rights. And before you contridict yourslef by saying that those rights favor one gorup over the other, a law that bans marriages for people below 18 favours people above 18, and laws that ban crude language on public television favours those on private networks.
Point five: Same as above

Owning people is fun :D . Seriously, im sure my argument has some holes, look forward to filling them up with your help!

Yarric

@CommissarYarric:

Point number One: He is not saying that he habors hatred towards homosexuals, but homosexulaity. There is a big difference. He despises the concept of same sex relations, but, unlike what many people would do, he still treats people who possess those characteristics with decency and respect.

I think that this behavior is quite strange. I would think that you would more treat people by what they do …. i mean, it is hard to imagine to disgust Anitsemitism, but treat antisemites with decency. Or to despise terrorism, yet treat terrorists with respect.
One usually goes with the other.
Second: treating someone with decency does not say anything wether you would not prefer to see him rotting impaled on a pole. I would call his behavior dishonest at least.

…(also, you could argue that homosexuality is a choice of sorts, while race is uncontrollable, but i wont get into that).

Which is highly arguable anyway. Seems like it is not your choice, but depending on the testosterone level of the mother at a certain time during pregnancy.

he was saying that governments have not set up a law code that every coutnry is forced to obey right (UN tried, failed),

That is too funny. The nations join the UN on their free will. They even don’t have to sign all chartas that the UN has proposed. It takes some work to put up the conjecture “the UN tried to force countries” to anything.
Just a minor “anti-US” rant: it seems like this mindset is more common in the US than anywhere else, that the UN “oppresses” countries.

Point Four: ok heres the whole equal rights thing, and here is my point: homosexuals AND heterosexuals are not allowed to marry people of the same sex,… It isnt a debate of same rights, but more rights.

That is actually a good point. And raises the question: why should that additional right not be granted?

If they called the union between two Homosexuals something other than marrige, I would be a lot happier.

@F_alk:

@CommissarYarric:

Point number One: He is not saying that he habors hatred towards homosexuals, but homosexulaity. There is a big difference. He despises the concept of same sex relations, but, unlike what many people would do, he still treats people who possess those characteristics with decency and respect.

I think that this behavior is quite strange. I would think that you would more treat people by what they do …. i mean, it is hard to imagine to disgust Anitsemitism, but treat antisemites with decency. Or to despise terrorism, yet treat terrorists with respect.
One usually goes with the other.
Second: treating someone with decency does not say anything wether you would not prefer to see him rotting impaled on a pole. I would call his behavior dishonest at least.

not fair, and inaccurate, and flawed. Now as a physician, i must treat all patients equally, and to the utmost of my abilities - regardless of whether they are terrorists, child molesters, or great humanitarians. As a person (and a Christian), my feelings is that having sex within a homosexual relationship (regardless of marital status) is wrong. I believe the same thing about abortion (not because i’m a Christian, but because it is wrong). The fact is that treating these people (people who have homosexual sex, people who have abortions) like crap is wrong:

1. because the Bible tells me so (“love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you etc.” - if i am supposed to love my enemies, then how am i to treat my very conscientious and pleasant hair-dresser because of his lifestyle choice? (yes, he chooses to have sex with men - no one forces him to))
2. It would not say anything about my relationship with God, and might push them away from a belief in something i consider to be important
3. this is not a part of my personality

…(also, you could argue that homosexuality is a choice of sorts, while race is uncontrollable, but i wont get into that).

Which is highly arguable anyway. Seems like it is not your choice, but depending on the testosterone level of the mother at a certain time during pregnancy.

desires and actions are 2 different things - see above.

Point Four: ok heres the whole equal rights thing, and here is my point: homosexuals AND heterosexuals are not allowed to marry people of the same sex,… It isnt a debate of same rights, but more rights.

That is actually a good point. And raises the question: why should that additional right not be granted?

actually, i do not think it’s such a great point. You could flip it the other way and say "heterosexuals are allowed to marry people that they are naturally inclined to fall in love with (i.e. people of the opposite gender) however homosexuals are not allowed to marry people that they are naturally inclined to fall in love with (i.e. people of the same gender). This appears unfair. This is where we discuss the more-than-semantical-argument of marriage vs. civil unions.
The thing about legislating marriage (something my gov’t has done) is it steps all over the historical and traditional rights of religious institutions under who’s pervue this has fallen. I really do not care if a gov’t says "anyone who shacks up together - be they a couple of buddies sharing pizza expenses, a heterosexual union, or a homosexual union - is entitled to benefits x, y, and z under the law. As a single person, i think the whole thing is arbitrary.
At the same time, i do appreciate Bush’s view on the importance of the family and his desire to uphold this at many costs. I am not sure that he is promoting the family the right way, however.

You know, I see way too many people speak out against gay marriages. And 99% of those people use the words God and religion. Wake up. Church stays out of state. The church DOES NOT RULE our country. And by legal right, gays can marry. If it is not a legal right, this is no longer a free country.

If someone wants to make an arguement on why gay marriage is wrong, then, do so without any religious content. Otherwise, there is no arguement.

Just a minor “anti-US” rant: it seems like this mindset is more common in the US than anywhere else, that the UN “oppresses” countries.

from my experience Falk, thats untrue. if anything, people think the UN doesnt do enough. They are weak and ineffective. Ive yet to encounter someone who thinks they are opressive.

desires and actions are 2 different things - see above.

i seriously doubt anyone would CHOOSE to be homosexual. its means a much more difficult life in a number of ways. the fact that so many gays are ashamed of it, or are hidden, try to avoid it, whatever, i just cant see it being a choice. but this point is dead, we cant prove it either way, so lets move on.

Church stays out of state. The church DOES NOT RULE our country.

well, be careful. thats how its supposed to be. while we ostensibly have seperation of church and state, we are a very Christian nation.

@stuka:

You know, I see way too many people speak out against gay marriages. And 99% of those people use the words God and religion. Wake up. Church stays out of state. The church DOES NOT RULE our country. And by legal right, gays can marry. If it is not a legal right, this is no longer a free country.

If someone wants to make an arguement on why gay marriage is wrong, then, do so without any religious content. Otherwise, there is no arguement.

so what happens when a religious group refuses to conduct/sanctify a “marriage”. The unhappy couple take this to court. The court says “well, their right to marriage is upheld under the law, therefore the church must lawfully marry this couple”. The church refuses/gets sued, etc. and is further penalized.
This is pretty gov’t interference-y.
And “if it is not a legal right blah blah blah” - well, you’re wrong. It is already a right (at least in my country) for gays to join in civil unions. This grants them the same benefits as a “marriage”. Why is it necessary for the state to tread on the traditional ground of the Church? Should the Church not have the right to protest this transgression of ITS freedoms? Or is this not a free country?

You are still missing the point. A church has a right to refuse to marry anybody. If that happened for gays, they could hire a person who is licensed to marry. A church cannot, however, interfer with the law.

Cut and dry…… I don’t dispute the fact that gays could get all the same rights out of a civil union. Yet, it reminds me of the days when blacks were granted the same rights as whites but it was followed with dumbass rules like, “you can only drink from your designated water fountain but you can’t drink from the one that says ‘whites only’.”

It’s the SAME thing here. “It’s okay for you to have civil unions but you can’t call it a marriage. That would take away from the respect of those drunkerds getting hitched in Vegas.” “We don’t want you gays soiling up the word marraige.” :roll: :roll: :roll:

@stuka:

You are still missing the point. A church has a right to refuse to marry anybody. If that happened for gays, they could hire a person who is licensed to marry. A church cannot, however, interfer with the law.

Cut and dry…… I don’t dispute the fact that gays could get all the same rights out of a civil union. Yet, it reminds me of the days when blacks were granted the same rights as whites but it was followed with dumbass rules like, “you can only drink from your designated water fountain but you can’t drink from the one that says ‘whites only’.”

It’s the SAME thing here. “It’s okay for you to have civil unions but you can’t call it a marriage. That would take away from the respect of those drunkerds getting hitched in Vegas.” “We don’t want you gays soiling up the word marraige.” :roll: :roll: :roll:

i think the whole vegas-marriage thing is ridiculous myself. Still, just because the word “marriage” is being soiled does not mean that it is not possible to put this trend on the skids, so to speak.
So what additional rights come with getting a marriage vs. a civil union that enables you to make this comparison?
I guess you could call any union between two people and label it a “marriage” - heck, we use that term when remarking on the amalgamation of 2 corporations, associations, etc.
So then what are we debating, i guess. What does marriage mean?
Maybe there should be a complete dissociation from the whole term marriage in that unless you are affiliated with a group that provides these, then you are in a “common-law/civil union” relationship. I still do not know why the gov’t sees it’s place in legislating this.

@cystic:

i think the whole vegas-marriage thing is ridiculous myself. Still, just because the word “marriage” is being soiled does not mean that it is not possible to put this trend on the skids, so to speak.
So what additional rights come with getting a marriage vs. a civil union that enables you to make this comparison?
I guess you could call any union between two people and label it a “marriage” - heck, we use that term when remarking on the amalgamation of 2 corporations, associations, etc.
So then what are we debating, i guess. What does marriage mean?
Maybe there should be a complete dissociation from the whole term marriage in that unless you are affiliated with a group that provides these, then you are in a “common-law/civil union” relationship. I still do not know why the gov’t sees it’s place in legislating this.

:lol: Lol. This has been the best part of your arguement that I can somewhat agree in. Yes, perhaps there does need to be a dissociation with the term ‘marraige’. Or they need to invent a more marital type word for gays. Hmmmm…… I dunno.

I think everyone is missing everyone’s point. CC, i dont know the laws in Canada (nor all of them in the US) but gay marriages are only legal in a handful of states (like, Vermont, i think). The idea is that it should be legal everywhere. I dont give a crap if you call it marriage or not, or whether or not the church sanctifies it, just give gay married couples the same legal rights as the married straight couples.

@Janus1:

I think everyone is missing everyone’s point. CC, i dont know the laws in Canada (nor all of them in the US) but gay marriages are only legal in a handful of states (like, Vermont, i think). The idea is that it should be legal everywhere. I dont give a crap if you call it marriage or not, or whether or not the church sanctifies it, just give gay married couples the same legal rights as the married straight couples.

that’s called a “civil union”.

yes. but its not allowed. thats the point.

@Janus1:

yes. but its not allowed. thats the point.

ahhh
wrong country.

i dont have a problem with gays but why are they always forcuing their ideas on us?

i dont have a problem with gays but why are they always forcuing their ideas on us

How do you figure? As I’ve shown above marriage as seen by the gov’t is not a religious ceremony but a civil arrangement. I don’t see any proponents of gay marriage arguing individual churchs should be forced to give religious solemnity to arragements they condemn, but rather merely want the equal protection by gov’t afforded to them in the bill of rights.

@tigertank:

i dont have a problem with gays but why are they always forcuing their ideas on us?

I don’t have a problem with USies but why are they always forcuing their ideas on us?

with the difference: gays don’t force their ideas “on you”.

I don’t have a problem with USies but why are they always forcuing their ideas on us?

I don’t have a problem with foreigners, but why are they always forcuing their ideas on us?

@Janus1:

I don’t have a problem with USies but why are they always forcuing their ideas on us?

I don’t have a problem with foreigners, but why are they always forcuing their ideas on us?

The US is the wealthiest, most powerful country in the world. The influence that it exerts on the rest of the world can not possibly be compared. There is very little that Americans may “need” or “fear” from any others. At the same time, it has so much to offer the rest of the world. And it does - for better or for worse - exert itself. Very often it is for good, however when it is not it is more devestating than when it is helpful. The point is this. The US sets the agenda for the rest of the world. To one degree or another. When the US sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold with various effects. As a brilliant and worldly person, you doubtless realize this. So what is the point?
We do not “force” our ideas on the US - it would be impossible. All we can do is wimper a little, and hope that the US hears something. Who knows - if they hear something, they just might pay attention. This may make a small change in some obscure policy which could alter the destiny of an entire nation.
So Washington is filled with an army of lobbyists - all looking to “force” their ideas. If entire countries may beg to be paid attention to, this hardly may be considered “forcing”.