100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Two more states allow same sex marriage. | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Folks, clearly an impasse has been reached in this debate. So, perhaps it would be best just to let this thread die. NO. You must stay here and ENTERTAIN ME with your strange arguments. But seriously(ish) - I would like to know how exactly people that are so against something like homosexuals marrying are thinking. I'm open to any viewpoints, and would like to hear everyone's feelings on the matter. What I've gathered so far is that some feel that traditional values are being upset, and that their own marriage is soiled by other people of the same gender marrying? Let's cut to the chase. Some people are opposed to sex between two members of the same gender because their faiths teach that such behavior is sinful. Meanwhile, other people have no objection to sex between two members of the same gender because those people don't conform to the teachings of any faith. Now, just as it would be wrong to try to force a person to accept the teachings of another person's faith, it would be equally wrong to try to force a person to deny the teachings of that person's faith. I do not know how this particular topic is being handled in other nations, but in the USA, it is unconstitutional to let any religious teaching dictate what is and isn't permissible in civil law. Personally, I am opposed to any attempt to use a civil government to enforce the teachings of any particular faith. A civil law against certain behavior needs to be based on something that is reasonable and logical to all parties, including atheists and agnostics. At the same time, I am opposed to any attempt to suppress freedom of religion. People of all faiths should be free to proclaim whatever their faiths teach. No one is forcing you to agree with those who have sex with a member of the same sex. However, whether you agree or not, it's going to happen. And even if same sex marriage is not legal somewhere, it won't stop sex between members of the same sex. You cannot control sex between those you disagree with simply because of your faith. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did you think the same when interracial marriages aren't allowed? That things were fine and didn't need to change? keep it on topic... isn't that what you told msharmony? this thread is about gays, not interracial... I agree that dismissing the earlier posts comparing it to pedophiles on the ground of it being off topic seemed strange. Although the comparison did not seem entirely accurate - a major difference between homosexuals and pedophiles being that pedophiles usually target unwilling or confused children, hurting them, as opposed to consensual lovers wanting to commit to eachother - it did seem pretty on-topic. He has a decent point though, is this that much different from when interracial couples wanted to marry? Well, not only gay people are pedophiles. And it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. If it were a reason to ban gay marriage, it would be a reason to ban straight marriage, too. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HUST91
on
Mon 05/13/13 02:54 PM
|
|
I agree that dismissing the earlier posts comparing it to pedophiles on the ground of it being off topic seemed strange. Although the comparison did not seem entirely accurate - a major difference between homosexuals and pedophiles being that pedophiles usually target unwilling or confused children, hurting them, as opposed to consensual lovers wanting to commit to eachother - it did seem pretty on-topic. He has a decent point though, is this that much different from when interracial couples wanted to marry? Well, not only gay people are pedophiles. And it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. If it were a reason to ban gay marriage, it would be a reason to ban straight marriage, too. Wah..? I thought it was a comparison, a similar case taken up that would allow you to relate and share how he felt about the whole thing, rather than the two being directly related? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that dismissing the earlier posts comparing it to pedophiles on the ground of it being off topic seemed strange. Although the comparison did not seem entirely accurate - a major difference between homosexuals and pedophiles being that pedophiles usually target unwilling or confused children, hurting them, as opposed to consensual lovers wanting to commit to eachother - it did seem pretty on-topic. He has a decent point though, is this that much different from when interracial couples wanted to marry? Well, not only gay people are pedophiles. And it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. If it were a reason to ban gay marriage, it would be a reason to ban straight marriage, too. Wah..? I thought it was a comparison, a similar case taken up that would allow you to relate and share how he felt about the whole thing, rather than the two being directly related? Not sure what you are trying to say. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Folks, clearly an impasse has been reached in this debate. So, perhaps it would be best just to let this thread die. NO. You must stay here and ENTERTAIN ME with your strange arguments. But seriously(ish) - I would like to know how exactly people that are so against something like homosexuals marrying are thinking. I'm open to any viewpoints, and would like to hear everyone's feelings on the matter. What I've gathered so far is that some feel that traditional values are being upset, and that their own marriage is soiled by other people of the same gender marrying? nothing wrong with the way things are now, so why change it? gays over here seem to be demanding that the non gays accept and embrace gays, and i don't work well with demands... Did you think the same when interracial marriages aren't allowed? That things were fine and didn't need to change? keep it on topic... isn't that what you told msharmony? this thread is about gays, not interracial... Except the issues she brought up didn't compare. Wanting interracial marriages outlawed absolutely compares to this. You keep not answering questions, moe. I can only guess why that is. start a post about interracial marriages, then we can talk... this thread is about gay marriage...and i know you know my thoughts on that... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did you think the same when interracial marriages aren't allowed? That things were fine and didn't need to change? keep it on topic... isn't that what you told msharmony? this thread is about gays, not interracial... I agree that dismissing the earlier posts comparing it to pedophiles on the ground of it being off topic seemed strange. Although the comparison did not seem entirely accurate - a major difference between homosexuals and pedophiles being that pedophiles usually target unwilling or confused children, hurting them, as opposed to consensual lovers wanting to commit to eachother - it did seem pretty on-topic. He has a decent point though, is this that much different from when interracial couples wanted to marry? Well, not only gay people are pedophiles. And it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. If it were a reason to ban gay marriage, it would be a reason to ban straight marriage, too. marriage started as a religious idea, to keep things like gays down. then the state had to take over, because of the money/child/possession issues. this whole gay marriage thing is about money, and i feel the government has a right to call it as they see fit, because they spot the bills... your not going to let your kids decide how to spend your money, why should the government? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marriage did not start out being religious. Religion didn't become involved in marriage until later on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marriage did not start out being religious. Religion didn't become involved in marriage until later on. uh, no... it was always a religious concept... a MAN and a WOMAN, bound by god, to PROCREATE... kinda hard with man/man - woman/woman... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No one is forcing you to agree with those who have sex with a member of the same sex. However, whether you agree or not, it's going to happen. And even if same sex marriage is not legal somewhere, it won't stop sex between members of the same sex. You cannot control sex between those you disagree with simply because of your faith. In my last post, I was speaking in general terms in regards to faiths. I wasn't addressing any particular faith that I may or may not have. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Congrats to Minnesota for now allowing marriage equality! I believe that is now 12 states and DC that have legalized same sex marriage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
whole gay marriage thing is about money I disagree with the above-quoted claim. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
singmesweet
on
Mon 05/13/13 03:18 PM
|
|
Marriage did not start out being religious. Religion didn't become involved in marriage until later on. uh, no... it was always a religious concept... a MAN and a WOMAN, bound by god, to PROCREATE... kinda hard with man/man - woman/woman... Do some research on the history of marriage. Religion was not always part of marriage. And of course not everyone who marries has children. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marriage did not start out being religious. Religion didn't become involved in marriage until later on. really? when did JP's, judges, and ship captains start marrying couples? before that, it was a priest in a church... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marriage did not start out being religious. Religion didn't become involved in marriage until later on. uh, no... it was always a religious concept... a MAN and a WOMAN, bound by god, to PROCREATE... kinda hard with man/man - woman/woman... Do some research on the history of marriage. Religion was not always part of marriage. And of course not everyone who marries has children. you are a little right, maybe... wiki: From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no uniform religious or other ceremony being required.[53] However, bishop Ignatius of Antioch writing around 110 to bishop Polycarp of Smyrna exhorts, "t becomes both men and women who marry, to form their union with the approval of the bishop, that their marriage may be according to God, and not after their own lust."[54] In the 12th century[where?], women were obligated to take the name of their husbands and starting in the second half of the 16th century[where?] parental consent along with the church's consent was required for marriage.[55] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
whole gay marriage thing is about money I disagree with the above-quoted claim. then whats it about? sex? no, they can have sex anyway love? no, they can love each other without marriage being together? agian, they can be together as long as they want benefits? .... BINGO, we have a winner |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
whole gay marriage thing is about money I disagree with the above-quoted claim. then whats it about? sex? no, they can have sex anyway love? no, they can love each other without marriage being together? agian, they can be together as long as they want benefits? .... BINGO, we have a winner The purpose of same-sex marriage is to enable both partners in such a marriage to have the same civil rights as both partners in a heterosexual marriage. For example, if a husband in a heterosexual marriage becomes incapacitated, then his wife has the legal ability to make medical decisions upon her husband's behalf. If a heterosexual married couple adopt a child, and if one marriage partner then dies, then custody of the child automatically goes to the surviving spouse. If one partner in a heterosexual marriage dies without leaving behind a will, then the surviving spouse automatically inherits everything belonging to the deceased. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Folks, clearly an impasse has been reached in this debate. So, perhaps it would be best just to let this thread die. NO. You must stay here and ENTERTAIN ME with your strange arguments. But seriously(ish) - I would like to know how exactly people that are so against something like homosexuals marrying are thinking. I'm open to any viewpoints, and would like to hear everyone's feelings on the matter. What I've gathered so far is that some feel that traditional values are being upset, and that their own marriage is soiled by other people of the same gender marrying? Let's cut to the chase. Some people are opposed to sex between two members of the same gender because their faiths teach that such behavior is sinful. Meanwhile, other people have no objection to sex between two members of the same gender because those people don't conform to the teachings of any faith. Now, just as it would be wrong to try to force a person to accept the teachings of another person's faith, it would be equally wrong to try to force a person to deny the teachings of that person's faith. I do not know how this particular topic is being handled in other nations, but in the USA, it is unconstitutional to let any religious teaching dictate what is and isn't permissible in civil law. Personally, I am opposed to any attempt to use a civil government to enforce the teachings of any particular faith. A civil law against certain behavior needs to be based on something that is reasonable and logical to all parties, including atheists and agnostics. At the same time, I am opposed to any attempt to suppress freedom of religion. People of all faiths should be free to proclaim whatever their faiths teach. Good points dodo |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Toodygirl5
on
Mon 05/13/13 05:08 PM
|
|
In the Beginning God created Adam and Eve, male and female to be joined together as One. Marriage is between a man and a woman and same sex is a civil union between the two of the same sex. The purpose of same-sex marriage is to enable both partners to have the same civil rights as a heterosexual marriage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the Beginning God created Adam and Eve, male and female to be joined together as One. Marriage is between a man and a woman and same sex is a civil union between the two of the same sex. The purpose of same-sex marriage is to enable both partners to have the same civil rights as a heterosexual marriage. thats quite right,, women didnt have to be called men to get equal rights, they just fought for equal rights as humans gay folks could fight for equal rights without damanding the definition of marriage be changed,,,, they can have civil unions that join their lives and assets, but I believe that the point IS TO FORCE the culture to make their SEXUAL CHOICES equally embraced |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure what you are trying to say. Just that it was a comparison, rather than that he claimed that they were related. start a post about interracial marriages, then we can talk... this thread is about gay marriage...and i know you know my thoughts on that... I believe that this, too, was a comparison. Interracial marriages being illegal seems very similar to homosexual marriages being illegal to me. uh, no... it was always a religious concept... a MAN and a WOMAN, bound by god, to PROCREATE... kinda hard with man/man - woman/woman... Aren't they mostly bound by the goverment these days? I mean, many marriages don't mention god at all. I do agree that you shouldn't force religious priests to perform ceremonies "under god" though, much like you don't ask a particular club to allow people they dislike in (or do you?), but state-marriages, or starting their own church that does? Why not? No really, I'm asking. whole gay marriage thing is about money I disagree with the above-quoted claim. then whats it about? sex? no, they can have sex anyway love? no, they can love each other without marriage being together? agian, they can be together as long as they want benefits? .... BINGO, we have a winner Not that sure - a lot of people put a lot of spiritual significance in the concept of being "married". I, at least, have never heard of someone wanting to marry someone they love to get better benefits. Then again, they can get pretty much the same benefits here, even if they're not married, so my sample group is probably biased. |
|
|
|
|
