Gay Marriages

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 . . . . .

(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.