11 states vote on gay marriage

[EmilyBono]

yes Emily, you can stay, we'll need you to help us pack their Volkswagens

Sorry, I don't plan on kicking any homosexuals out of America. But that's just me.

 

[Diemen]

Mods, how much longer do we have to put up with this intolerant trolling? Every post of his oozes intolerance and discrimination. Some track record for an avowed Christian.

 

[Anthony]

Sigh.

Yes, when will people get a grip and stop trolling?

The aforementioned troll has been told to leave, as will anyone else who continues to be baited in this continuinous craze. Will everyone please calm down?

Ant.

 

[speedracer]

I think that the rules of marriage should be uniform here, the abnormalities the can result from incestuous relationships are the reason why most of the worlds religions consider them wrong, those laws are there for a decent reason. If you allowed gay marriage then it should be applied equally and forbid incestuous relationships even gay ones. After all, this is all about equality.

Ergo the hypothetical question about menopausal or gay incestuous couples. And again, I make all my arguments without reference to religion.

The reason we don't sanction incestuous couples is because we believe the only sex that should be going on in the nuclear family is between the parents. You don't want your son and daughter fancying each other when they're teens, right?

The reason we reward heterosexual marriage is because we see it as the foundation of the nuclear family (even though not all couples end up having or adopting kids). The reason we (meaning some states) don't reward gay marriage is the same reason we don't reward single parenthood. It's not (necessarily) because we see it as immoral, but because we don't see it as ideal. We think that the family should have exactly one male parent and one female parent because this gives the kids appropriate gender role models.

The point is that marriage is not exclusively an individual privilege -- it is also about establishing a (inherently discriminatory) social norm about the nature of the family. If you believe that gay parents can raise a family just as well as heterosexual parents (as I very tentatively believe), then absolutely it is your duty to uphold gay marriage.

Sorry this post is so short, but I gotta go now. Later.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The practical reason is that the abnormalities and problems associated with incestuous relationships have made them a taboo in most cultures, I think from a non-religious standpoint that such relationships are wrong - they are not about love as much as some very serious emotional problems and those who partake are sick individuals. The question arising from the absence of children that it doesn't harm anybody - I think that such a relationship is harmful to each individual and hence should not be allowed.

What I am getting at, two individuals of consenting age who are acting in a way that does not harm anybody, fine. Gay marriage will not instantly allow illegal acts to occur.

Now the question about adopting or having children opens up a whole different can of worms, I do think that children can be raised in a gay household (for instance a couple have a child, then break up and one parent comes out of the closet) - I have seen that work perfectly fine, but to start bringing children into households where there is no offset of having another parent they can go to (ignoring deadbeats for a moment) it can get a little slippery.

Maybe we are looking at this problem the wrong way, rather than mess around with the state attempting to interfere with an apparently religious concept (marriage) we should just get the government out of that area entirely and only allow civil unions, be it Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve. People can go to a Church or Voodo Ritual to get married but the state only reciognises civil unions.

 

[mellyinsf]

This is why Christians should stick to the Bible instead of vague statements based about "God".

I do believe the bible was brought up several times in this thread. So was god, and they go hand in hand. I will not press this issue anymore.
I agree, our government should get out of the marriage business. Everyone should have the right to a civil union, and if their church permits, a marriage. A state should not tell a church what they can and can't do, and the same with the church to a government.

 

[mkdominatr]

I respect homosexuals. My neighbors are gay and they are nice, normal people. I say they deserve marriage benefits at least. It doesnt affect me in any way if they got married either. I dont see a down side. But i understand also people who are against it in a way.

 

[speedracer]

Maybe we are looking at this problem the wrong way, rather than mess around with the state attempting to interfere with an apparently religious concept (marriage) we should just get the government out of that area entirely and only allow civil unions, be it Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve. People can go to a Church or Voodo Ritual to get married but the state only reciognises civil unions.

I really don't think replacing marriage with civil union solves the problem; it merely displaces or relabels it. A "civil union" is still the official approval of the "state", meaning the people as a whole, right?

 

[mellyinsf]

speedracer what exactly about a gay man or women scares you so much?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Speedracer is afraid of gays

Maybe it is the lack of sleep talking but I read it as a line of argument in support of gay marriage, slightly.

 

[speedracer]

speedracer what exactly about a gay man or women scares you so much?

They hide in the shadows and eat you when you're sleeping.

Feel free to respond to arguments I have actually made instead of attempting to read my mind.

 

[Rebirth_of_Slic]

Marriage should be kept between a man and woman. We live in a democracy, the people in 11 states spoke, they want only genuine marriages to exist in society. In time, I expect more states to follow the lead of those 11 states, and uphold the sanctity of marriage.

 

[speedracer]

Marriage should be kept between a man and woman. We live in a democracy, the people in 11 states spoke, they want only genuine marriages to exist in society. In time, I expect more states to follow the lead of those 11 states, and uphold the sanctity of marriage.

Rebirth_of_Slic:

A gentle word from a FYM medium-beginner to a rookie: you're going to have to do better than declare marriage as "sacred" if you want to defend your position.

 

[Rebirth_of_Slic]

Rebirth_of_Slic:

A gentle word from a FYM medium-beginner to a rookie: you're going to have to do better than declare marriage as "sacred" if you want to defend your position.

Corinthians
7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Mark
10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

It doesn't get much more sacred than the Bible.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Is Rebirth_of_Slic GOP_Catholic, just asking because they both display some tenencies that some might take exception to.

 

[Renne]

It doesn't get much more sacred than the Bible.

Yes, but calling on the "sanctity" of marriage like that is only applicable for people who actually believe in god.

It's funny, most definitions of marriage these days don't even make any reference to God...

 

[speedracer]

It doesn't get much more sacred than the Bible.

And this makes your argument unpersuasive to people who don't value the Bible's words on this subject.

It's not a good idea to act as if you're preaching to the choir here.

 

[Renne]

And this makes your argument unpersuasive to people who don't value the Bible's words on this subject.

Snap?

 

[Rebirth_of_Slic]

If they don't believe in the Bible, then no amount of logic will work with them, for they have already been lost.

Luckily, those non-believers are the minority, and they sit in the back of the bus.

 

[speedracer]

If they don't believe in the Bible, then no amount of logic will work with them, for they have already been lost.

Luckily, those non-believers are the minority, and they sit in the back of the bus.

Originally posted by GOP_Catholic
Christians are done sitting at the back of the bus.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Obviously there is only one thing dumber than a troll, a troll who doesn't understand the concept of getting their IP blocked.

 

[Renne]

If they don't believe in the Bible, then no amount of logic will work with them, for they have already been lost.

Luckily, those non-believers are the minority, and they sit in the back of the bus.

I find this comment of yours incredibly offensive.

People who do not believe in your god are not lesser beings as you're so clearly implying here.

I can argue logic despite not believing in your god, and just because I don't believe doesn't immediately invalidate my opinion. If this is what you believe then I suggest that you do not post here again, because without being able to be open to the opinions of others you are displaying an overwhelming closed-mindedness that is not conducive to any kind of debate.


ETA: I see that you're someone who is already banned. Well done. That's going to make people support your argument!

 

[A_Wanderer]

Leave it be Renne and don't worry about it, don't feed the trolls; they exist for the amusment of the rest of us but should never be treated as equals.

If I am wrong Rebirth_of_Slic then may your God strike me down

 

[mellyinsf]

Obviously there is only one thing dumber than a troll, a troll who doesn't understand the concept of getting their IP blocked.

Thank you

 

[Rebirth_of_Slic]

I suggest that you do not post here again

who's the one being closed-minded ???

That's what I thought

 

[A_Wanderer]

 

[speedracer]

I thought trolls were large humanoid monsters who lived in caves and other dark areas, had 3d6 hit points, a base armor class of 9 and were capable of 1d8 hit points of damage per attack.

 

[indra]

who's the one being closed-minded ???

That's what I thought

I think a banning may be in order....

 

[Renne]

Leave it be Renne and don't worry about it, don't feed the trolls; they exist for the amusment of the rest of us but should never be treated as equals.

If I am wrong Rebirth_of_Slic then may your God strike me down

Sorry, it's just people who accuse me of being second-class because I'm secular and not religious get my back up.

It probably didn't help that I've already had someone have a go at me today saying that I can't appreciate U2's music as much as they do because I'm secular

 

[Sicy]

Banned people just dont seem to get it.. or they do but they just enjoy finding ways around being banned.

The next step will be Elvis contacting their ISP to report abuse.. I dont think they want to go there!