Debate and Discussion

the whole gay thing
marine at 10:04AM, Jan. 13, 2006
(offline)
posts: 2,425
joined: 1-6-2006
Where do you guys stand on the issues of the whole gay thing?

A lot of people last year got their panties in a tiffle because some of them wanted to get married. Its my opinion that marriages in general are a bullshit concept that needs to be outlawed entirely, and that the homosexuals should have just a much a right to ruin their lives with marriage as the rest of us.

So whats your thoughts? :roll:
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Mazoo at 3:25PM, Jan. 13, 2006
(offline)
posts: 601
joined: 1-2-2006
Well that's certainly an… interesting way to say your point. But I wholey agree with you. Gay couples have (or should have!) as much right to get married or even adopt children as heterosexual couples do! America's constitution says all men are equal, and a gay man is no less a man than a straight one. (that includes women as well!). However, since it took so long for women and black people (I don't think the term “African-American” is accurate, since nearly all of the “black” people in America are not from Africa, but I digress…) to get their full rights, it's considerable that America will be slow enough to take its time on this issue. (more like stall). I don't believe in all this bullcrap that it's against religions and faiths for them to get married and blah blah blah. There are many gay people who are devout Christians. Does that make them bad Christians or something? I don't think so. Hiding behind the Bible is a bit overrated (but you can't take that comment seriously from me, since I'm not very religious). All in all, I don't believe that someone else's standards and views should dictate how another person lives.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:56PM
mykill at 3:34PM, Jan. 13, 2006
(online)
posts: 194
joined: 1-11-2006
I happen to be a gay person. This subject gets tired very quickly due to the fact there are NO strong arguments against respecting the rights of Gay people as equals.

The strongest argument that exists is “but God said so” - but of course, amongst those that take religion seriously, it's never ever clear exactly what God did say. The Jewish/Christian scripture is explicitly written by people, first of all.

The Koran is distinguished in being perhaps the only holy book claiming direct authorship from God. But then you got SUFI's to fuck that up….
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:09PM
Hero at 6:49PM, Jan. 13, 2006
(online)
posts: 448
joined: 1-3-2006
People are people. Sins are not measured in degrees. Lying or coveting are just as bad as buttsex in the eyes of the Lord. We should love all our fellow men despite their sins. Even with the Bible saying it's taboo, it's not on our heads to judge.
Don't hate the sinner, hate the sin.
This is simply my opinion. I mean no offense by it.
K.A.L.A-Dan: Rival!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:47PM
ccs1989 at 9:57AM, Jan. 14, 2006
(online)
posts: 2,656
joined: 1-2-2006
It's times like these that I wish I was one of those religious evangelical Christians. It would make arguments so much easier because all I would have to do is shout like Pat Robertson and provide out-of-context passages from the Bible over and over and ignor anyone who proves me wrong by saying that they're going to hell.

But you know what? I'm not, so I can't. The problem of trying to argue on the side of homosexual people's rights to marry is that then you get branded as gay yourself by some, or you just get ignored by the really religious people. Any kind of fact stands lame in the face of human bigotry I've seen.

As for me I think gays should be allowed to marry. I just don't see exactly what all the people against it are afraid of? Not being able to adjust? If there's one things humans have done a lot it's adjust.
http://ccs1989.deviantart.com

“If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.”
-Henry David Thoreau, Walden
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:37AM
ozoneocean at 11:15AM, Jan. 14, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,800
joined: 1-2-2006
ccs1989
If there's one things humans have done a lot it's adjust.
That's true. People will just have to get used to gay marriage, just like they’re used to single parents these days. Single parents were a pretty horrible thing to people in the 50’s, but then people were stupider in the 50’s, I mean, all that shitty music, big stupid cars, everything in pastel… Did all the smart ones die in WW2 or something?

And then there’s being gay in general. It seemed to be pretty ok back before the bible even existed. People were fine with it then. Look at the Spartans for instance: The toughest, angriest bunch of self denying WAR addicts you’re ever likely to come across ever, and if you told them you don’t like butt-sex, they’d have beaten you up for being a pansy!

Things change in the history of civilisation and culture, and people are always getting used to it. Maybe gay marriage will be perfectly normal in a few years, and maybe they’ll look back on us in 200 years time in utter disbelief and think we all must have been insane to even think of such a thing. And maybe 100 years after that they’ll look back at them and think they all must have been conservative tight bums because people in that day and age are maying their pets… or their houses or something…
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:23PM
ozoneocean at 1:06PM, Jan. 14, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,800
joined: 1-2-2006
That's true Finbar, things change and so do people.
Yes, by “Bible” I meant the much translated, Christian sort of thing we've got to day; that is an important corner stone of much of Western Culture. Not the original Hebrew scrolls, old religious texts or anything like that.

There are records of people being persecuted for homosexual practice throughout history and there’re records of it being celebrated too. I've no reason to believe we'll ever reach a constant. And you're right, even when something is widely condemned, it still goes on, and even when something is widely accepted, it can still be despised.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:23PM
mykill at 1:33PM, Jan. 14, 2006
(online)
posts: 194
joined: 1-11-2006
Just FYI: For a brief period in time I flirted with Methodist Chrsitianity - my Paternal grandfathers sibling had all be come Methoditst ministers (My grandpa, the only one to breed, also went to seminary but dropped out a confirmed atheist and communist).

I found a progressive Methodist church in my NYC Queens neighborhood of Astoria and began attending. The main minister was female and her ministering partner was a father of several children yet also proudly displayed freedom rings along with his crucifix necklace (Freedom rings are aluminum rings in colors of the rainbow - a ‘dl’ code that you happen to be gay and wouldn't be offended by a same sex romantic proposition).

The congregation was about 90% elderly and really quite sweet. I got a lot of mileage sharing insights I got from eastern religion (stuff like true evil is the product of ignorance) - and it seemed like I might be able to make a go of Christianity.

There was the “gay” thing tho. I had a an actual dream of Jesus himself repremanding me for my reading of the Old Testement - according to dream Jesus, the only person who would ‘sleep with a man as with a woman’ would be a same sex sodomizing HETEROSEXUAL. As a man who slept with men AS WITH A MAN - I was Biblically OK.

I shared this dream with the Methodist congregation and they were very - not skeptical. They were certain I really did have a conversation with the REAL Jesus in my dream and that it was true, my gayness was okay with Christianity.

These Christian were also very big on ‘being taken by the holy spirit’ and “looking for the holy spirit within” - reminded me of Voudon believe it or not.

What happened? Why arn't I Chistian now? I made a very bad mistake - I actually started READING THE BIBLE. I can't worship a God that toys with worshippers telling them to kill their son, Torturing Job to see if he's really faithful or not, sets a bad example by killing Egyptian new born babies….

But the Methodist congregation was just so sweet. I couldn't bring my questions and moral outrage to their attention, it just seemed wrong.

That's one reason I'm a Buddhist Chaos magician now days.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:09PM
Aurora Moon at 1:50PM, Jan. 14, 2006
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
I know what you mean Mykill.

although I didn't manage to find any churches where the people were ever so sweet.
instead, I had the luck to attend churches that was this close to becoming right out fundamentalist. maybe it was just the priests I generally disliked.

so I read the bible AND attended those churches in my youth, and were confronted with a very ugly-looking side to the religion, and it pretty much turned me off.

so I just title myself as a pagan, and follow my own self-made religion now.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:09AM
invisiblegirl at 7:38PM, Jan. 14, 2006
(offline)
posts: 21
joined: 1-8-2006
Well seeing as how women weren't allowed to wear pants at the workplace or at school in the united states until thirty something years ago. THIRTY SOMETHING YEARS AGO…holy crap that is not that long ago. I could imagine that gay marriage is a difficult thing to swallow now.

People just need to face it, gay marriage isn't wrong, it's probably something that needed to be done alooong time ago. And frankly its none of our business anyways.
Gay sex, as much as it is “sinning” or how it is illegal in some states, can even be found in the animal kingdom, watch the animal channel sometimes. Dolphins have gay sex.

The only thing I worry about American marriage in general is that it'll ruin the lasting power of relationships within the Gay community. That's America for you. Marriage is meaningless here. And now I return to my point that it's none of our business anyways.

Alright so I'm a little crazy tonight… :x Arg
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:02PM
ccs1989 at 8:08PM, Jan. 14, 2006
(online)
posts: 2,656
joined: 1-2-2006
ozoneocean
they’ll look back at them and think they all must have been conservative tight bums because people in that day and age are maying their pets… or their houses or something…

That would scare the crap out of me. I dunno though, maybe the human race will evolve to not just have couples. Maybe groups of people will live in the same abode and cultures won't be as obsessed with sex as we evolve and things will gradually develope towards a utopia and people will support each other and communities will be built where everyone is personal and understanding and love and peace will spread…

I dunno, does that even have a chance of happening in the world we live in?
http://ccs1989.deviantart.com

“If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.”
-Henry David Thoreau, Walden
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:37AM
invisiblegirl at 8:43PM, Jan. 14, 2006
(offline)
posts: 21
joined: 1-8-2006
ccs1989
That would scare the crap out of me. I dunno though, maybe the human race will evolve to not just have couples. Maybe groups of people will live in the same abode and cultures won't be as obsessed with sex as we evolve and things will gradually develope towards a utopia and people will support each other and communities will be built where everyone is personal and understanding and love and peace will spread…

I dunno, does that even have a chance of happening in the world we live in?
Never. It will never happen.
You can wish for world peace, end homelessness and sickness, and it wont ever happen. Greedy people will always exist to fuck things up.
I don't know if you know this but the concept of communism was supposed to be like a utopia. Where everyone was equal, no one got more than anyone else. Hell, even Hitlers plan was supposed to be a utopia of perfect blonde german aryans. But I'll save that discussion for another time.
Frankly I think a utopia would only be possible if we were all turned into robots.

Hey which brings me back to gay marriage… we'd definately be closer to a happier and more peaceful world if we accepted gay marriage and moved on.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:02PM
Anonymous at 9:51AM, Jan. 17, 2006
(offline)
posts: 678
joined: 4-22-2006
ozoneocean
ccs1989
It seemed to be pretty ok back before the bible even existed. People were fine with it then. Look at the Spartans for instance: The toughest, angriest bunch of self denying WAR addicts you’re ever likely to come across ever, and if you told them you don’t like butt-sex, they’d have beaten you up for being a pansy!


Reminds me of the Greek Socrates, who was not executed for sleeping with men, but for teaching them to think.
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:53AM
ozoneocean at 10:52AM, Jan. 17, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,800
joined: 1-2-2006
InvisibleGirl
Well seeing as how women weren't allowed to wear pants at the workplace or at school in the united states until thirty something years ago. THIRTY SOMETHING YEARS AGO…holy crap that is not that long ago. I could imagine that gay marriage is a difficult thing to swallow now.
You see? That's why I wondered if all the smart people hadn't died in WW2! Women even wore full suits back in the 20's, let alone just pants. Short hair and short dresses were fine too. But get to the 50's and people think they invented the universe in black and white: Men only dress like this and act this way and women only dress and behave that way. The mid 20thC was a backward and freaky time… People like GWB Jnr really want to drag us back to it. :x

They say the 60's were a time of revolution and experimentation, I say the 60's were a time when people came to their senses and started acting normally again.
But the 20thC is a perfect argument for why gay marriage will be perfectly acceptable, but may not always stay that way when it does. Just look at all the social change and reversal that happened then! We get liberation, repression, liberation, repression, and liberation again!

People who don’t understand history think it’s all about humanity changing for the better and always advancing in a straight-line from cavemen, to the Romans, to the Renaissance to the Industrial revolution, to the 20thC into space and enlightenment!!! But that’s just kids stuff…
Technology tends to get better but people stay the same. Culture doesn’t advance, it just exists and changes, and it can even be lost. Even technology can be lost: we only rediscovered concrete in the 19thC, almost 2000 years after we lost it. Trivial social change like gay marriage seems like a big thing to us now, but in the scheme of things it’s not.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:23PM
kyupol at 8:28PM, Jan. 17, 2006
(online)
posts: 3,712
joined: 1-12-2006
In the old dd, I used to be a staunch opponent of legalizing homo marriages.

But now, after actually doin my research, my position on this issue is neutral. It doesnt affect me. Homosexuals arent THE enemy… well… unless they dont homosexually assault me or force homosexuality down the throats of heterosexuals. Unless they don't cover their agenda with the fig leaf of “political correctness”.

I agree with marine. Marriage IS fucked up. Marriage is nothing but the ultimate sucker deal. There is a bigger probability of me shooting myself in the foot “just for the hell of it” than getting married.

I dont agree though that marriage in general should be outlawed. Let people have it if they are really fully convinced that they HAVE TO marry.
NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:24PM
mykill at 4:14PM, Jan. 19, 2006
(online)
posts: 194
joined: 1-11-2006
It's not true. If a church makes a VERY large stink relating to damning homosexuals, the church is about marketing more than saving souls.

Religious people who take being anti-gay very seriously fall into two flavors: they are gay themselves or they simply do not believe in homosexuality.

The former who are gay themselves, know for a fact that the anti-gay bias in the world is the only thing keeping THEM from actively being gay - therefore if there was Gay marriage - everyone would ‘turn gay’ - there'd be no babies - mass chaos!

The latter folk who do not believe in homosexuality - believe gay people are heterosexual and are simply pretending to be gay to piss people off or thumb their nose at God.

A third variety, the ‘ex-gay’ variety and the ‘progressive hostile’ variety- suggest ‘gay’ is the physical sex act, and if you can choose to to be celebate or procreate with a woman - you get to ‘not be gay’. Sexual orientation isn't real or relevant to this point of view.

America represents a LOT of people who have internalized homophobia to the extent they ‘know’ gay marriage is wrong without thinking. Human nature suggests humans start with a position and use thinking to justify it (that's how people ‘get stuck in their ways’) - instead of thinking to arrive at a position. So ‘Gay marriage’ is a real threat to a cultural status quo, so it becomes a powerful marketing tool for Republicans who want to be elected and churches that want to fill their pews and collection plates.

Back in the day of race based slavery, the champions of the bigoted institution were also the white churches. Churches are a business. Resistance to change is a huge marketing opportunity. Churches en masse -ALWAYS RESIST CHANGE.

If you want a good church, find a church that doesn't go there and spends its time concerned primarily with souls and good deeds. Homophobia has nothing to do with those two concerns.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:09PM
Linh at 5:17PM, Jan. 21, 2006
(online)
posts: 32
joined: 1-10-2006
FinbarReilly
Oh yeah, because gay couples last so much longer than straight ones…
Actually, I read about a research somewhere which shows that gay couples DO tend to last longer than straight couples. But this has more to do with society's prejudice towards gay couples than any special characteristics of homosexuals. Gay couples usually put a lot of thought into publicly dating and marriage; they expect hardships along the road due to the prejudice they'll face. Compare that to the 50% divorce rate here in the US….

At least, that's what I read =P

I also do think the belief that guys are afraid of commitment is probably nothing more than a stereotype.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:35PM
Terminal at 9:03PM, Jan. 21, 2006
(online)
posts: 5,505
joined: 1-6-2006
To tell you truth, I think. Well I think nothing. Fuck, give people what they want. They want to get married, go ahead. Is it gonna mess up the world? Probably not. Is the devil gonna come up and slay us all? No. No one really cares anymore. Who cares what God thinks? (If it thinks at all gay marriage is wrong.) This country stoped caring about God, So why must they hid under that defense?

It`s ironic to think that gay marriages do nothing to mankind but those opposed to it are the ones that do the damage.

.: Myxomatosis :.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:09PM
ozoneocean at 9:04PM, Jan. 21, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,800
joined: 1-2-2006
Gay couples lasting? I dunno… Quite a few do, but isn't promiscuity one of the main aspects of most gay communities? Mostly male, but women aren't exempt by any means.
I suppose that's not really always about relationships though is it?
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:23PM
ozoneocean at 11:12PM, Jan. 21, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,800
joined: 1-2-2006
Mr. Neil
Nobody should have to ask to be treated fairly.
That's the problem exactly.
The other thing that bothers me is the prejudice against gay priests. Why gay people want to be priests at all is beyond me, but that's not the issue… If a person believes that strongly in their faith that they want to represent it, that they want to become part of its church hierarchy, then they should be rewarded with the position!
In the developed world generally, there’s a massive deficit of people willing to become priests. The church can’t afford to be choosy, can it?

The idea that gay people priests are to blame from child molesters in churches is as stupid as the idea that celibacy is to blame, or it’s just a problem of the Catholic Church:
#1 paedophilia is a sickness that mainly shows up in the straight community.
#2 The problem with sick, fucked up priests, abusing their authority over naïve, impressionable parishioners is unfortunately common to all faiths worldwide: Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, all flavours of Christianity.
Paedophiles seek positions of authority over children in all walks of life.
#3 “Celibate” people will break their vows for whomever and whatever they fancy: it doesn’t turn them into sex monsters.

Lets have some more gay priests to wed all couples!
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:23PM
Aurora Moon at 3:04AM, Jan. 22, 2006
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
ozoneocean
Mr. Neil
Nobody should have to ask to be treated fairly.
That's the problem exactly.
The other thing that bothers me is the prejudice against gay priests. Why gay people want to be priests at all is beyond me, but that's not the issue… If a person believes that strongly in their faith that they want to represent it, that they want to become part of its church hierarchy, then they should be rewarded with the position!
In the developed world generally, there’s a massive deficit of people willing to become priests. The church can’t afford to be choosy, can it?

The idea that gay people priests are to blame from child molesters in churches is as stupid as the idea that celibacy is to blame, or it’s just a problem of the Catholic Church:
#1 paedophilia is a sickness that mainly shows up in the straight community.
#2 The problem with sick, fucked up priests, abusing their authority over naïve, impressionable parishioners is unfortunately common to all faiths worldwide: Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, all flavours of Christianity.
Paedophiles seek positions of authority over children in all walks of life.
#3 “Celibate” people will break their vows for whomever and whatever they fancy: it doesn’t turn them into sex monsters.

Lets have some more gay priests to wed all couples!

I SO agree!!
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:09AM
mykill at 8:11PM, Jan. 22, 2006
(online)
posts: 194
joined: 1-11-2006
Historically Gay men become priests because they are told that being gay is unacceptable leaving celibacy their only ‘acceptable’ option. Further in their hope to eliminate the ‘unnatural urges’ in themselves, they may have faith that the sacred environment will be helpful in that regard.

The more you repress something, the stronger it becomes.

That's how come so many Catholic priests are gay and also why many of those priests find themselves becoming monsters.

In other cultures, the priesthood is often the only alternative to being responsible for raising a family.

Globally I feel there's an important need to ‘get over it’ and let it be okay that men and women marry and have romantic relations with each other if that is their nature.

When that happens, the only people who choose the priesthood of any religion will be exactly those people who really feel a calling and are prepared for whatever sacrifices are expected.

The Catholic church can't support its priesthood in maintaining their celibacy in a real way until they stop demonizing sexuality to the extent they cannot even speak frankly on the subject. The more you repress something, the stronger it gets.

I may have the solution by they way, (thanks to Zen practice). If you want to be celebate, don't repress your sexuality. Sex thoughts are like any other kind of thought - it will become displaced if the mind goes somewhere else. In repression, all you're doing is thinking about sex ALL THE TIME.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:09PM
ozoneocean at 9:19PM, Jan. 22, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,800
joined: 1-2-2006
Repression, fwah!
That's a Freudian assumption. It doesn't have much real merit. If you suppress something you didn't really care about to start with, you just forget it. Ignore it. In reality sex just isn't the be all and end all motivator it was is Freud's mind.
It's more like “Suppress something in your society and certain people will obsess over it”.
i.e. We're not all drug addicts… Amish aren't all pornfreaks etc. Certain individuals are thoough, and that's natural.

You're right in the idea that priests of a certain interest will join the church for that reason: if they have an accepting community there… A lot of gay men in times past would become monks for instance, a lot of intellectuals would join, a lot of spritualists… etc.
But in times past and now, celibacy was only an issue for a few. For some it was a constant battle to maintain their vows, for others there was no battle: they either stuck with their vows easily, or they just went defied them. If “celibacy” was actually a real problem they’d have abolished it centuries ago.

The true problem is an enduring hate-affair with the Catholic church driven by many, many factors: Hatred of Catholics by protestants stemming all the way back to the reformation, hatred of Irish by the British going back to before Cromwell, prejudice in America against later Catholic immigrants like the Polish, Irish, Italians, and Latin Americans… and it goes on and on.

For a better examination of celibacy, look at how the Buddhist Monks and nuns handle it in Thailand, Tibet etc. Some keep their vows, some don’t. Paedophiles have found the priesthood a good home there like they do all over the world, there are homosexual monks and, monks with mistresses, monks who pimp the nuns as prostitutes… Just the same as everywhere else. ^_^

Sex ‘scandals’ happen, but they don’t characterise the religion, for two reasons: People don’t have a grudge against it (no ‘real’ opposition religions in the countires either, mostly), and the ‘scandalous’ sex is only scandalous because it is the act of the minority.

But they do need to get rid of celibacy in the Catholic church, just because of the stigma attached and the fact that they need more people joining the priesthood and celibacy is a perceived obstacle in our sex obsessed century. (heheh, I can talk. hypocrite alert…)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:23PM
mykill at 6:16AM, Jan. 23, 2006
(online)
posts: 194
joined: 1-11-2006
No repression makes something stronger is as certain as 2+2=4.

The reason is simple: when you're repressing something, you're thinking about it - feeding it energy. Repression is a verb.

Amish people arn't repressing sexuality - they're keeping so busy doing ‘work’, there's little time left to think of sex. And their culture is segregated enough, sex isn't introduced rudely for them to think about either. It's a wonder they breed.

Thinking about cookies instead of something else is not repression.

Thinking “I will not fuck the maid, I will not fuck the maid, I will not fuck the maid, I will not fuck the maid, I will not fuck the maid” … THAT's repression.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:09PM
ozoneocean at 11:26AM, Jan. 25, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,800
joined: 1-2-2006
I’m not sure about your repression equation there Mykill. It seems to be all about personal repression, and know that if I make myself not do something, I won’t do it. It’s much harder to force myself to do something! :D That’s the real challenge.
Abstinence is as nothing compared to forcing yourself to do something…
Anyway, how long can you actively repress something before you just decide it’s easier to forget about the thing entirely?

It’s an interesting idea… People shouldn’t be forced by others to abstain from ordinary things, but if they want to try and abstain from something, by repressing it or whatever, I’m sure they can. It depends on your will power.
But repressing truths, political ideas, music etc in the community… That’s a different matter. Repressed ideas become attractive because they’re forbidden (rock and roll in the Eastern Bloc). But even that isn’t a straight out equation because certain things that are repressed like terrorism, paedophilia, bestiality, and cannibalism, only become interesting to the sort of people who’d probably practice them anyway.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:23PM
AlmightyNam at 7:38PM, Jan. 28, 2006
(online)
posts: 27
joined: 1-1-2006
My opinion is that the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage period. Marriage is more of a religious rite than anything else, so why should the government have any say on it period? Everyone is so anal whenever the president makes a decision that is influenced by his religious beliefs saying, “SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!! SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!” but isn't marriage a religious rite? So the government should have absolutely nothing to do with it, for or against it. So, in that logic, if homosexuals wanna marry, establish a church with a very loose belief system, and allow anyone who wants to get married, get married. The government can't really do anything about it, due to the first amendment.

Am I right? Is there some type of loophole preventing gay people to establish their own religion?
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:49AM
ozoneocean at 8:49PM, Jan. 28, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,800
joined: 1-2-2006
No, marriage has always been a state responsibility, since the dawn of the practice. Church is only concerned with ritual. You can get married to your computer if a church will let you, that doesn’t make it legal. The power the Church has over marriage is only social influence, all else is mythical.

Remember, in times past and in many cultures and religions, the Church was the state. It was responsible for law. That is true no longer. Marriage is fundamentally a legal contract, which means the Church can go screw itself.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:23PM
magickmaker at 6:03PM, Jan. 29, 2006
(offline)
posts: 330
joined: 1-7-2006
Marriage is, in essense, a totally mockery of the Seperation of Church and State. It's a fundimentally religious concept, yet it has to be confirmed by the goverenment. I've know a couple (actually, my parents), that have eschewed religion's hold on marriage and just gotten married by the state. If there really is seperation of church and state, than marriage is a government institiution, then they must allow gay couples to marry, or be branded hypocrats.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:50PM
kat8kit at 4:40PM, Feb. 1, 2006
(offline)
posts: 10
joined: 1-2-2006
ozoneocean
Gay couples lasting? I dunno… Quite a few do, but isn't promiscuity one of the main aspects of most gay communities? Mostly male, but women aren't exempt by any means.
I suppose that's not really always about relationships though is it?


This is just plain stereotyping.

Maybe it seems as if homo-sexual relationships dont last b/c homosexuals can settle down, get married and have children.

Many homosexuals do have lifelong partners- its just the fact that you dont see married gay couples walking around holding hands, or having children that you assume that they are promiscuous.


on the subject of marriage-

the christian right wing controls politics right now.
Why not give gays marriage under another name, same rights?

baby steps. Im sure gays would be happy for anyright they can gain, and by giving it a diffrent name, people who were uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage would feel a little better knowing it want the same marriage they knew.

idk- a middle ground.

at the same time though- marriage is about love, not discrimination.
Do we not allow people of diffrent races, ages or religions get married?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:13PM
ozoneocean at 9:10PM, Feb. 1, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,800
joined: 1-2-2006
Do we not allow people of diffrent races, ages or religions get married?
WHAT? Allow????????? No one ‘allows’ them, that's presuming a LOT!
Most peoples have marriage as a very, very old part of their culture. Often MUCH older and more venerable than the rather newer common practices today in the USA. Besides, you are implying that “different races, ages or religions” are members of some special groups apart from the majority, that they’re examples of unusual peoples, equivalent to the position that homosexual people unfortunately find themselves occupying in society.
There is no equivalency.

Almost all of the proposals that allow gay people to marry have a different name from ‘marriage’. That doesn’t prevent the same kinds of people from opposing it world wide.

I didn’t stereotype, I generalised. There is a difference. Specifically, with my broad statement, it is impossible to point to a typical gay person. Nothing was defined.

Your position in favour of Gay marriage is laudable, and I am in agreement with it. But your arguments are weak.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:23PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved