lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Homosexuality & Same-Sex Marriage
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 05-10-2006, 03:06 AM   #81
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
Personally, I believe that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage. The way I see it, the (governmentally endorsed) institution of marriage is too entangled in religion for the issue of gay marriage to be settled equitably. If some judge rules that gay marriage should be legal under the equal protection clause, the next thing you know, law suits will be filed against churches that refuse to marry homosexuals...and, under the equal protection clause, those churches will be forced to administer those marriages, which will in turn violate the free exercise clause.

Over time, my opinion has changed a bit on this subject. At first I was against gay marriage and civil unions. But, while homosexuality remains something that I disagree with, it's not going away any time soon, and there are too many legal issues surrounding the marriage/civil union debate to just write it off. Here is the conclusion I have come to after much deliberation:

I think the government should be hands-off when it comes to marriage. We should just go to a system of civil unions for everyone. That way, religious people can get a civil union under the law, and then be married in the church, while churches are not pressured by the government into performing marriages that violate their theological doctrines...and the governmental benefits that currently are bestowed on married couples can in turn go to any couple with a civil union.

As far as getting rid of marriage because of divorce, that has to be one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard (and this isn't the only place I've heard it, or I wouldn't even address it). I can't personally think of any church that endorses divorce, and every devout Christian person I've ever talked to who was divorced (usually before they became a devout Christian) regretted getting a divorce because of the damage it did to their family, particularly to their children. I've thought long and hard about this topic, as I'm getting married next month, and I strongly believe that there should be only two permissible reasons for divorce: adultery (see Matthew 19:3-9) and physical abuse (not backed Biblically that I can find, but it would probably be better if a man who abused his wife never re-married anyway).


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-10-2006, 08:08 AM   #82
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
I think the government should be hands-off when it comes to marriage. We should just go to a system of civil unions for everyone. That way, religious people can get a civil union under the law, and then be married in the church, while churches are not pressured by the government into performing marriages that violate their theological doctrines...and the governmental benefits that currently are bestowed on married couples can in turn go to any couple with a civil union.
That is exactly my opinion.. its just that the word "marriage" has come to be religiousized (if that is a word) when it initially WAS just a civil union.

IMHO there should be no legal status for religious "marriages". All marriages should be civil, legal deals... and as such should be open to all citizens equally.

"religious unions" should simply be an additional matter of personal faith.. and then it would be entirely up to each faith and person to decide whatever terms they wanted on those "religious unions".

Quote:
Originally Posted by staffsaberist
toms, if you don't mind me asking... what issues do you have with states encouraging marriage? It seems a win-win situation to me, but I'm always interested in other opinions. I promise I won't debate you on it.
Not at all.

I think a lot of my "issues" come from growing up in margret thatcher's conservative (read: republican) Britain where basically all the ills of society were blamed on single mothers and any partnership that didn't match the ideal christian view of "1 husband, 1 wife, 2.4 kids".

It was seen as a great way to get some coverage fromt he right wing press or cheers at the national conference to stand up and bash single mothers.. to cut their benefits and basically "fine" them for not being happily married! and we won't even mention gay partnerships...

-

The problem with the state encouraging one form of action is that from the other side it looks like punishing any other form of action.

Give tax breaks or extra benefits to married couples and you are basically, in comparison, penalising single mothers, cohabiting couples, gay couples (if they can't marry) etc..

If you are a single mother, for example, you are probably already at a major disadvantage... so seeing the married couple next door get benefits that you are in greater need of can hardly be a nice experience. It basically says to her "this is your fault"... when of course in many cases it isn't at all.

(same way as if you gave extra benefits to single mothers because they are in greater need then you would have married couples and marriage advocates saying "why are they being rewarded for NOT getting married and why are we being penalised for getting married???)

Anyway, thats where i'm coming from... product of my environment and all that..



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-10-2006, 09:25 AM   #83
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Windu:
So we remove the institution of marriage on the grounds of some idiots who can't keep their act together?
Not quite, my argument is closer to the argument for legalization of recreational drugs.

People who want to take drugs will, people who don't want to take drugs won't. Likewise people who are destined to stay together will, and people who aren't suited to be together, won't stay together. Since marriage is no longer a binding factor, since it no longer provides any guarantee of stability, it is an irrelevance.

And like the criminal industry surrounding the narcotics trade, there is also an entire industry surrounding divorce. A negative industry, one might say. In the process of abolishing marriage, one could determine once and for all that each individual owns only his or her own property, which would make taxation fairer, and would reduce litigation following separation. Both good things, in my view.

But divorce isn't the only reason for abolishing marriage, as I stated above. The fact that the state recognises marriage is a social injustice, due to financial advantages for married couples.

Marriage is also an outmoded, outdated, superstitious and quasi-religious ritual. It wastes time, money and effort, encourages false hopes and unrealistic expectations and is a social throwback that does nothing to move human society forward. It should be discarded just as top hats, coat tails and starched collars were discarded, just as organized religion should be discarded.

Not that I think it WILL be, but it should be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328:
As far as getting rid of marriage because of divorce, that has to be one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard (and this isn't the only place I've heard it, or I wouldn't even address it). I can't personally think of any church that endorses divorce, and every devout Christian person I've ever talked to ...
No offence, friend... but the fact that your religion doesn't always endorse divorce is not relevant to my argument. Religion is such a subjective and superstitious fancy, that when applied to a logical debate it becomes quite an obtuse and distracting influence. Divorce is a fact of life and many marriages end in divorce. Divorce is one reason, but not the only reason, that marriage has become an irrelevance in modern society. Religious views on the subject don't enter into my reasoning process.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-10-2006, 04:11 PM   #84
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
Over time, my opinion has changed a bit on this subject. At first I was against gay marriage and civil unions. But, while homosexuality remains something that I disagree with, it's not going away any time soon, and there are too many legal issues surrounding the marriage/civil union debate to just write it off. Here is the conclusion I have come to after much deliberation:

I think the government should be hands-off when it comes to marriage. We should just go to a system of civil unions for everyone. That way, religious people can get a civil union under the law, and then be married in the church, while churches are not pressured by the government into performing marriages that violate their theological doctrines...and the governmental benefits that currently are bestowed on married couples can in turn go to any couple with a civil union.
Moving to the left eh rccar?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
I've thought long and hard about this topic, as I'm getting married next month
Hey, congrats.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-11-2006, 01:22 AM   #85
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Moving to the left eh rccar?
You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think that the government should be less involved in the personal lives of citizens, perticularly in areas where the government goes outside of its Constitutional restraints, whether that has to do with restructuring the tax system, abolishing welfare, drastically restructuring and/or abolishing the public school system, etc. And that opinion also extends to marriage.

As I said above, marriage is, in large part, a religious institution. And the government cannot extend the 'right to marry' to homosexuals without violating another area of the Constitution - the Free Exercise clause. For me, it's not about gay rights, it's about bringing the government back within its Constitutional bounds.

Quote:
Hey, congrats.
Thanks.


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-11-2006, 11:03 AM   #86
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think that the government should be less involved in the personal lives of citizens, perticularly in areas where the government goes outside of its Constitutional restraints, whether that has to do with restructuring the tax system, abolishing welfare, drastically restructuring and/or abolishing the public school system, etc. And that opinion also extends to marriage.
Going liberterian then?

The dichotomy i've never understood about political parties has always been that the left wing/liberal parties are all about freedoms for people and bigger government interference.. but rightwing parties are all about less government and less regulation of companies... but always try and tell you what to do in your personal life. Weird.

I still think marriage should be made an entirely GOVERNMENTAL institution... take the religion out of marriage and you have no problems anymore.



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-11-2006, 11:20 AM   #87
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
I still think marriage should be made an entirely GOVERNMENTAL institution... take the religion out of marriage and you have no problems anymore.
Eh. Since the government has a vested interest in marriage as toms said, it can support civil contracts (like marriage). Those contracts can be given to anyone. If a church wants to endorse said contract that's their prerogative. It isn't a 'either religion based marriage or nothing' kind of thing.

It seems to me that the reason homosexuals would want to be 'married' is to have the benefits of marriage: ability to control the estate of their partners if they have an accident, etc. Tax breaks should be given on the number of children supported, not on the basis of just being married. It seems pretty obvious that they could avoid a lot of argument if they just said they wanted a 'civil contract' that would give them these benefits, instead of the religiously-charged word 'marriage'. If they want that contract recognized by a church, however, they're on their own - the government cannot interfere.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-11-2006, 02:15 PM   #88
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
Going liberterian then?
Not quite. I know that's what it sounds like, but it's not libertarian, it's Constitutional. The US Constitution just doesn't give the government the right to be meddling to the extent that it does. And you're right about Republicans and other right-wingers claiming to be conservatives and then wanting to legislate morals on other people...this is a byproduct of the preeminence of liberal thought since after the Gread Depression. Too many people take it for granted today that the government should have control over peoples' lives, so when they think people should behave a certain way...have the government make them do it!

That's not the way things should work...but I'm deviating from the topic. For a little more on my perspective, check out this post on my blog.


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-11-2006, 07:14 PM   #89
StaffSaberist
DECEPTION IS FINISHED! :D
 
StaffSaberist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The United States of America... and damn proud of it!
Posts: 1,092
Quote:
I still think marriage should be made an entirely GOVERNMENTAL institution... take the religion out of marriage and you have no problems anymore.
They don't have to be religious in nature. Sure, they're held in a church, but you can have the traditional vows or have them modified to suit your tastes. At least, that's the way it is in this chunk of the US.



Deception, the best SP level-set in the world, is done! Get it here!
"Query: What is it you wish, fat one?" - HK-47 at his best
I have begun modding TSL. Check it out here. and My Fanfic
StaffSaberist is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-15-2006, 10:02 AM   #90
Kurgan
Headhunter
 
Kurgan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1997
Location: The Dawn of Time
Posts: 18,298
LFN Staff Member 10 year veteran! 
My cousin was married to her husband in a courthouse by a justice of the peace, if that helps.


Download JK2 maps for JA Server|BOOT CAMP!|Strategic Academy|
(JA Server: 108.178.55.189:29070)


"The Concussion Rifle is the weapon of a Jedi Knight Player, an elegant weapon, from a more civilized community." - Kyle Katarn
Kurgan is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-16-2006, 11:45 AM   #91
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurgan
My cousin was married to her husband in a courthouse by a justice of the peace, if that helps.
If someone is being married in a courthouse, by a judge, then what place do any christian (or other religion) traditions/values have? I would argue none. In which case why couldn't your cousin marry her wife in a courthouse with a JotP?

Country clubs can set rules about the conduct of their members, and who can become members.. but they can't set rules for people outside the club. Religion should be the same.



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-16-2006, 06:28 PM   #92
Kurgan
Headhunter
 
Kurgan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1997
Location: The Dawn of Time
Posts: 18,298
LFN Staff Member 10 year veteran! 
People don't just get married in Christian churches (or synagogues, temples, mosques, etc) you know. People have been getting married by judges for years. It's called a civil ceremony. And it technically doesn't have to be in a courthouse, my other cousin got married by a judge at a banquet hall, again a civil ceremony (and these are both straight couples).

A marriage is recognized by the state, whether done in an ecclesiastical setting or a civil setting. Some states also have "common law marriages" that is, if you've been living with your partner a certain number of years (as if you were married in all but name) you are automatically considered legal husband and wife (and have to do the paperwork based on it, etc).

I think there might also be some kind of "common law divorce" in similar states (not sure if that's the right word) like if the couple have been seperated a certain amount of time, they are considered divorced, in law.


Download JK2 maps for JA Server|BOOT CAMP!|Strategic Academy|
(JA Server: 108.178.55.189:29070)


"The Concussion Rifle is the weapon of a Jedi Knight Player, an elegant weapon, from a more civilized community." - Kyle Katarn
Kurgan is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-17-2006, 11:36 AM   #93
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Regardless of how you are married in the United States, marriage is a power that is vested from the state level to the marrying authority, be it a judge, clergy, justice of the peace, etc.

Marriage is a civil and state function that is used by religion. Religion should have no say whatsoever in a state function as it is not religion's business. Religion -that silly superstition of supernatural agency that is unique to humanity - has nothing to do with the secular powers of government. One of these secular powers is the authority to bind a civil contract called marriage.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-17-2006, 03:47 PM   #94
Kurgan
Headhunter
 
Kurgan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1997
Location: The Dawn of Time
Posts: 18,298
LFN Staff Member 10 year veteran! 
Aren't the concepts of "government" or "law" also uniquely human concepts? And 'marriage' (which is a legal definition) too for that matter?

Anyway, ecclessiastical (and here I refer to any religion, not just a Christian denomination) marriages are a reality that the state recognizes as equal to marriages peformed by its own legal representatives (not all religious marriages are recognized of course, some churches have "blessed same sex unions" when in fact they are not legally recognized, just as some Mormon groups have blessed polygamous unions which are similarly illegal). The power is vested in certain recognized officials that include clergypeople of various religious groups. Sure you can say, if it's not illegal for two people to randomly have sex if they're both over a certain age and haven't entered into a legally binding contract with one another (entitling one of them to sue the other for divorce for "breach of contract"), why bother with marriage at all? Marriage is one of those things that people place value on (not all people, but a great number of people). "Opponets" of marriage always point out how half of marriages fail, and the so-called "marriage penalty" in taxation, but still, a lot of people place value on it. So homosexuals wishing to be married are asking for that kind of value to be available to them, and whatever legal "benefits" of that recognition also to be available. Opponents of same-sex unions/marriages/whatevers are saying that marriage should be defined so as not to allow homosexual unions legally (just as whatever other marriages we don't legally recognize such as polygamus, close cousins, or whatever other restrictions anyone places on it). As I see it, 'marriage' is a legal thing, whether it is done by a representative of the state, or a legally recognized function of a religious authority. Since you can be married in a church and divorced in a civil court (at least I think that's correct).

Anyway, blah blah blah, etc.


Skin, would you say that only secular marriages should be recognized by the state and all others deemed illegal (ex: state decides that gay marriage is fine, "religions" decide it is not, thus gay couples get married outside "religions" they get all legal benefits, I guess no celebrating their anniversaries or renewing their vows in churches, etc. though I doubt that would be the case anyway because at least a few churches have outspokenly supported "gay marriage" even though such marriages are often not legally recognized by the state)?

Or are you just saying that religion should play no part in the decision making process, regardless of popular support, and religious leaders should be forced to "recognize" (whatever that would entail) legally sanctioned homosexual marriages? Should governments exert pressure on religious bodies to enforce their consent? (that is, take away tax exempt status of churches that teach homosexuals should not/can not be married/refuse to perform gay weddings, etc.)

Maybe it is being "skirted around" by calling it "civil unions" rather than "marriage for homosexual couples" because it is felt that marriage is somehow a religious issue only. However in my example, both my cousins who were married in each their own seperate civil ceremonies (note: I'm not saying my cousins married EACH OTHER, nor that they are gay... both are negative, don't get the wrong idea) are considered "married" not "civilly unionized" or whatever, though there was no ecclesial authority involved in either case. I don't know if either will consider to have their marriages blessed by a clergyperson later, but that's not necessary anyway, they are considered "married" by law.

Since religion isn't going to go away anytime soon, I wondered if you would clarify that point, without starting the whole argument over again, of course (since I'm just jumping in here late in the game, and really didn't have plans to take it on, it's that darn subscription thing, always bringing me back to threads when I forget to unsubscribe!).


Download JK2 maps for JA Server|BOOT CAMP!|Strategic Academy|
(JA Server: 108.178.55.189:29070)


"The Concussion Rifle is the weapon of a Jedi Knight Player, an elegant weapon, from a more civilized community." - Kyle Katarn
Kurgan is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-18-2006, 12:01 AM   #95
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurgan
Skin, would you say that only secular marriages should be recognized by the state and all others deemed illegal [...] Or are you just saying that religion should play no part in the decision making process, regardless of popular support, and religious leaders should be forced to "recognize" (whatever that would entail) legally sanctioned homosexual marriages? Should governments exert pressure on religious bodies to enforce their consent? (that is, take away tax exempt status of churches that teach homosexuals should not/can not be married/refuse to perform gay weddings, etc.)
I'm saying only that religion should have no input in the civil institution of marriage. If the religious prefer that their marriages be conducted by their religious leaders, thats their choice as long as the religious leaders are educated in the laws and policies of the state. Indeed, if people prefer to be married by the General Manager of McDonald's via the Drive-Thru, this should be acceptable as well as long as the GM is trained in the same laws and policies.

If the religious leaders don't want to marry couples that don't subscribe to their specific superstitions (i.e. the pastor of the local place of worship for his Noodly Appendage refuses to marry a couple that dislikes spaghetti; or the GM doesn't want to marry a couple that are vegan) that should be fine. The couples can go other places. But superstitions should not dictate the state's qualifications for the secular institution of marriage.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice

Last edited by SkinWalker; 06-08-2006 at 09:56 AM.
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-18-2006, 05:19 AM   #96
Kurgan
Headhunter
 
Kurgan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1997
Location: The Dawn of Time
Posts: 18,298
LFN Staff Member 10 year veteran! 
Okay, sounds good!


Download JK2 maps for JA Server|BOOT CAMP!|Strategic Academy|
(JA Server: 108.178.55.189:29070)


"The Concussion Rifle is the weapon of a Jedi Knight Player, an elegant weapon, from a more civilized community." - Kyle Katarn
Kurgan is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-18-2006, 10:22 AM   #97
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
So then... following this line of reasoning too far... if marriage is a civil/governmental institution, and the US constitution bans religion from interfering with government...

..does that meant that hetero-only marriages are unconstitutional?



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-08-2006, 10:13 AM   #98
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
This thread was split & merged with The Separation of Church and State, which was an existing thread, due to so many off-topic posts.

Bigotry on the ballot fails to get even 50 votes. But the Presidential pandering will probably go on. I'm sure other "wedge issues" will be brought up in attempt to distract the American public from real issues. Right wing politicians will undoubtedly use gay-marriage as a means to appeal to their religious base and have no real interest in the issue, as demonstrated by the Senate vote. Even Bush used the code words "activist judges" to alert the religious nutters that he's speaking to them in his speech over the weekend.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-09-2006, 07:51 AM   #99
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
Bigotry on the ballot fails to get even 50 votes
Yay! Great news of the day!

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-09-2006, 10:30 AM   #100
Darth Methos
Rookie
 
Darth Methos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Yavin IV
Posts: 27
Marriage was created by the church. Correct?
Darth Methos is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-09-2006, 10:47 AM   #101
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Marriage has existed long before any modern church. Christianity is a relatively new religion.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-09-2006, 10:53 AM   #102
edlib
Close to the Edge
 
edlib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Boston, MA., USA
Posts: 9,282
Current Game: DiRT 3; Forza 4
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran 
No.

Marriage predates the Judeo-Christian religions by centuries, if not millenia, and was mostly a secular socio-political and/or economic affair and institution, rather than a romantic one.

The Church getting involved in marriage is actually a fairly recent trend, I believe.


EDIT: D'Oh!

Skin's too fast for me!

My post is in reply to the post above him!


Native XWA.Netter (Nutter?)
edlib is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-03-2006, 03:13 PM   #103
Halo_92
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,068
I honestly think that God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.
Halo_92 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-03-2006, 03:17 PM   #104
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by halo92
I honestly think that God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.
Not only does this post not make any sense, but it's entirely irrelevant.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-03-2006, 03:28 PM   #105
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Whoever first said that phrase should have copyrighted it, they'd have made a fortune!!

On a more serious note:

Its come to my attention that one of the first lesbian couples to get married is now splitting up. This is disgraceful Divorce is a sacred institution that is meant to exist between man and women... allowing homosexuals to get divorced devalues the institution of divorce and makes a mockery of the whole thing!!

God divorced Adam and Lilith, not Madam and lilith!!!



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-03-2006, 06:49 PM   #106
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by halo92
I honestly think that God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.
Your un-evidenced beliefs notwithstanding, in this forum we actually have discussion and posts consisting only of "lol" and "I know" are typically considered spam.

Should you care to discuss further the relevance of xian beliefs with regard to homosexual marriage, we're all eyes.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-03-2006, 11:57 PM   #107
Halo_92
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,068
Its not right

Besides if gays were supposed to be together they would be able to reproduce
same for lesbos
Halo_92 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-04-2006, 12:10 AM   #108
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
"It's not right" doesn't really say a lot. Why isn't it "right?"

Furthermore, what about those that are unable to reproduce? There are a lot of men and women who simply aren't capable of reproduction. Moreover, what has the need to reproduce to do with whether or not two people who love each other should be afforded the same rights and guarantees that are afforded to a male/female who marry?

Also, I'll have to point out that this is coming full circle in this thread, as all these arguments have already been covered and those against same-sex marriage have flat-out lost the debate. There simply is no logical reason to disallow it. None has been mentioned that wasn't easily refuted.

The worst part of your argument is "supposed to be together," which implies that there is some cosmic plan or destiny. There is no evidence that such "plans" exist or that there is anything in nature that is "supposed" to do anything. Things simply are. Evolution has no plan.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-04-2006, 12:29 AM   #109
Halo_92
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,068
sure i agree the few men and woman who can't reproduce is the same as the Entire Freaking population of gays and lesbos can't reproduce right. C'mon!
Halo_92 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-04-2006, 12:49 AM   #110
El Sitherino
The Original.
 
El Sitherino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Planet Funkālnite.
Posts: 14,509
Hot Topic Starter LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by halo92
sure i agree the few men and woman who can't reproduce is the same as the Entire Freaking population of gays and lesbos can't reproduce right. C'mon!
Legislation. Serious Business.

If you're going to make an argument for making law, it must cover all ground or else it's just bull**** tyrannical non-sense. So if a senator proposes we completely ban gay-marriage on the fact that they as a couple cannot reproduce, then it must also carry to heterosexual couples not being allowed to marry if one, or both, of them cannot reproduce.

Also, what about couples completely unwilling to have kids? Should they not be married since they won't **** for Jesus' love? To bless the world with more of gods little miracles?


“This body is not me. I am not caught in this body.
I am life without limit.”
El Sitherino is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-04-2006, 12:54 AM   #111
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
One thing I neglected to mention was that gay couples aren't incapable of reproducing. They just cannot reproduce with each other. They can seek alternative methods of reproduction in the same manner as over 9 million women each year through fertility clinics (in vitro fertilization and surrogate motherhood); moreover, they can adopt.

The bigoted arguments against homosexual couples simply don't hold up to scrutiny. It can only boil down to bigotry: you don't like them, therefore they shouldn't seek happiness. The pursuit of happiness is only for those in who are in complete agreement with the bigot.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-04-2006, 12:57 AM   #112
Tyrion
nothing is real
 
Tyrion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: no one I think is in my tree, I mean it must be high or low
Posts: 6,917
LF Jester Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by halo92
sure i agree the few men and woman who can't reproduce is the same as the Entire Freaking population of gays and lesbos can't reproduce right. C'mon!
From Wikipedia:

About 15% of all total couples cannot reproduce due to either one or both of the partners being infertile.

4-5% of the total population in America is homosexual.

So pretty much, there are more men and women who cannot reproduce than there are homosexuals.



Tyrion is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-04-2006, 08:17 AM   #113
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Plus I can quite happily reproduce outside marriage. The two aren't linked.

Plus a large proportion of married couples use contraception, or one or the other has had "the snip" so they can't have kids anymore, or they are too old to have kids.

So i guess that if marriage is linked to having kids then all sex outside marriage should be illegal. Plus it should be illegal to use contracteption or have the snip. Plus any couples who can't have kids shouldn't be allowed to get married. And once they get over 60 they should have to get divorced since there is no longer a need to be married.

Quote:
its not right
Yes it is.



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-04-2006, 08:28 AM   #114
edlib
Close to the Edge
 
edlib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Boston, MA., USA
Posts: 9,282
Current Game: DiRT 3; Forza 4
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
So i guess that if marriage is linked to having kids then all sex outside marriage should be illegal. Plus it should be illegal to use contracteption or have the snip.
Hmmm... there are factions in the world that would have absolutely no problem with any of that.


Native XWA.Netter (Nutter?)
edlib is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-04-2006, 08:57 AM   #115
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
Besides if gays were supposed to be together they would be able to reproduce
same for lesbos
There's more to being together than having kids.

Another argument I hear is the "slippery slope". "We allow gays to marry, then what's next? We've got bigamists and people wanting to marry children and animals now!" Well... So the Heck what? Take the bigamy, beastiality, and child-loving as it comes. It's no reason not to ban homosexual marriage.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-04-2006, 02:49 PM   #116
swphreak
My cabbages!!!
 
swphreak's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 6,510
10 year veteran! Folder extraordinaire LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Another argument I hear is the "slippery slope".
I got that from several family members. Personally, I think it's a bunch of bull.

Homosexual marriage involves two consenting human adults. Beastiality does not, and there are laws against "child-loving." As for bigamy... don't really care to get into that, let it stay in the little cult-towns, that's fine with me.
swphreak is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-04-2006, 02:59 PM   #117
Kurgan
Headhunter
 
Kurgan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1997
Location: The Dawn of Time
Posts: 18,298
LFN Staff Member 10 year veteran! 
But why? What if three consenting adults want to have a loving relationship sanctioned by law? Or four? Why make an arbitrary cutoff at two?

Also, how do you feel about close heterosexual relationships (incest)? What if two consenting first cousins want to get married? Siblings? Parent and offspring?

I'm not saying this decides it one way or the other, but if the "two consenting human adults" is all it takes, there can be other things to consider as well, as there are people out there who wish to be married, but are not legally allowed, (and many who have their physical relationships anyway).

The "slippery slope" is a fallacy yes, but these are valid questions. Saying homosexual marriage would lead to beastiality marriage and necrophilia marriage (and therefore since those things are gross, we shouldn't allow homosexual marriage for fear of the other things happening) is the slippery slope, but those hardly compare to incestous heterosexual relationships (which were once legal in many parts of the world and a few places still are, though the degree of closeness allowed varies), child brides (which were legal in many parts of the world and a few places still are, and of course the ages vary), and polygamy/polyandry (again, were legal in many places and still are in some, even in our own country).

What it gets down is to the definition of "marriage." If it's just two consenting adults (two include a pair of homosexual partners of the same gender) then you need to consider these other options, from groups that want to have their relationships legally recognized. Unlike beastiality and necrophilia (and "underage" child brides), many of the same arguments used to approve gay civil unions/homosexual marriage can be used to appeal to the legality of incestous relationships.

Laws, shmaws. Gay marriage isn't legal in most states, and people arguing precisely that, that the laws should be CHANGED. And yes, you have people like NAMBLA (whom most people consider to be disgusting of course) who wish to have age of consent laws not lessened (they are not universal anyway) but REMOVED, so any relationship is allowed. Of course psychologists can argue (rightly I think) that children can't properly give consent to adults, neither can non-human animals give consent to humans, thus those kinds of relationships will inevitably be a type of rape. And if rape is a violation, it should be illegal to protect the innocent.

We have laws against gay marriage (and gay sex, that are slowly being overturned) because it was commonly assumed by American society that marriage was between a man and a woman. The "one man and one woman" thing lead to persecution and threats against the Mormons, a group that sanctioned polygamy, to the point where they were forced to change their beliefs to conform with the laws of those around them (of course various split off groups still practice polygamy in defiance of everyone else, but that gets into the debate of "enforceability" of sex laws and such).

So we have the definition of marriage, the definition of consent, and all that stuff. Marriage has legal benefits and sacred connotations (though there is a secular equivalent, and it's really up to the couple and the community how much religious stock they put into it). But it's an institution. What people are calling for is a radical reform, reorganization or reform of this institution and others are disagreeing how it should be done or if it should be done at all.

Making "same sex civil unions" a new seperate legal institution apart from "marriage" (heterosexuals only) is an interesting issue of course.


Download JK2 maps for JA Server|BOOT CAMP!|Strategic Academy|
(JA Server: 108.178.55.189:29070)


"The Concussion Rifle is the weapon of a Jedi Knight Player, an elegant weapon, from a more civilized community." - Kyle Katarn
Kurgan is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-04-2006, 06:38 PM   #118
Halo_92
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,068
Resectivly speacking are you gay? i'm certainly not so i don't support them and my religion has a lot to do with my beliefs
Halo_92 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-04-2006, 08:04 PM   #119
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by halo92
Resectivly speacking are you gay? i'm certainly not so i don't support them
This post wreaks of bigotry. That's about all there is to it.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-04-2006, 08:18 PM   #120
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
I support them although I'm heterosexual. Contrary to some peoples' beliefs, you don't have to be gay to support homosexuality. You only need the conviction that they're not hurting anyone, nor attempting to do so, and you're all set.

Religion's Mythology's thoughts on the matter is completely irrelevant to me. Unless you follow the Bible word-for-word, they should be for you, too (you don't 100% abide by the Holy Book, so how can you make others do?).

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Homosexuality & Same-Sex Marriage

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:44 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.