|
|
Post by Stal on Jul 3, 2004 21:34:20 GMT -5
Ummm... so what now? Do we hug or something? Er, I accept hugs. From girls.... Hugging guys is just a little too awkward and stiff. (The irony of my statements and the thread it is on...) I'll shake your hand, though.  |
|
|
|
Post by Buddy on Jul 3, 2004 21:38:03 GMT -5
Er, I accept hugs. From girls.... Hugging guys is just a little too awkward and stiff. (The irony of my statements and the thread it is on...) I'll shake your hand, though. *shrugs* Well, you be that way then! *shakes Stal's hand* Okay, enough with the mushy stuff! Let's get on to the debate! I mean, if there's even gonna be a debate... 'cause if there's not, then I'm leaving... *walks out* |
|
|
|
Post by Retired Blub on Jul 3, 2004 22:09:27 GMT -5
LOL, i've created a good debate! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Oily on Jul 4, 2004 10:07:33 GMT -5
But getting back to something else, the government actually HAS to recognize marriages performed by religions. It's not just marriages from one religion, it's marriages from all religions. No religion is above the other. To not recognize a religious marriage would be pushing forth the religion of "Non-Religion/Secular Humanism" and violating the Seperation (All ready declared religions by United States Supreme Court to begin with. So by all legal definitions, not technical ones, I am correct.) So, if I set up a church or mosque or similar, and said one of my key beliefs was that homosexual marriages were fine, and then began to marry off couples, the government could not actually stop me? Interesting... Second of all, since when were wild animals homosexual? If you're talking about how sometimes male dogs seem to be...well...you know, that's not what they're doing. The top male is asserting his place as the leader. He's saying, "I'm better than you." Nope, there's been many documented cases of homosexuality in animals from dogs to bulls to hedgehogs to ducks. My point with those facts was to show what happens without a religious influence in support of my earlier statements of "What if there had never been any religions." If there is no religious influence the black & white areas of right and wrong become void and no one can say another person is wrong on any sort of moral/ethical level. And if there is a religious influence, every black and white turns into shades of grey so people can use their holy words to shut down others arguments. You only have to look at the millions of religions and denominations to see that right and wrong is NEVER black and white. And, still, no one can say anyone else is necessarily wrong on any sort of level - issues such as abortion, euthansia and, indeed, homosexual marriage are fiercely fought over even by people within the same religion. While religious influence has had an effect on society over many years, I don't think that marriage is purely religious. People always find a way to announce long, monogamous relationships like that. I'm sure that most cultures end up with some ring or tribal marking to announce two people living together. A family is a natural impulse. Besides, some religions espouse not having marriage, or being bigamous. There are many religious people still here today, and yet all the STDs and teen pregnancies keep rising. Religion and morality are closely linked but not to mutal exclusion. Really, the society and culture around you (whether influenced by religious morals or non-relgious morals) influences you most. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jul 4, 2004 11:44:48 GMT -5
So, if I set up a church or mosque or similar, and said one of my key beliefs was that homosexual marriages were fine, and then began to marry off couples, the government could not actually stop me? Interesting... See, I was wondering about that, myself. But there still comes instances where if your religion goes against the law of the land something must be done. The mormons (and Utah) weren't allowed to join the US until they got rid of polygamy/bigomy. And then of course there's all those extreme Muslim religions that wish to kill us all for their 72 virgins in Heaven. Something makes me think the government might want to put a stop to that.  With the black and white thing, I was basically saying there are now things that say "This is wrong, this isn't.". Without the religious influence, nothing like that really comes about. All sets of morals in todays civilization come from a beginning religious influence. That religious influence then influenced society and that decided what "right & wrong" in society for awhile. Now of course here's where we diverge. Me, being me, I believe all humans came from Adam & Eve and so forth. So the influence of monogamous marriages is of course going to filter down to other cultures and tribes. You on the other hand believe in evolution, so you think it's a basic instinct. Simple divergence, but I think we can work around this.... *ponders on how to phrase things* *can't think of a way, yet* >.> Let me get back on this one. And you're right about it being society that influences you. I never said otherwise. I just said it was the religious influence that caused aspects of it. Since about 1963, when divine law was taken out of schools, religions began to lose their influence on society. But there are still things ingrained in the way a person lives based on those earlier religious influences. Marriage, for instance, is one. Abstinence is another... I have to cut my rambling short. Have things to do around the house. Let me know if I didn't make sense or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2004 21:42:38 GMT -5
I personally think it's alright. We can't control our nature, and Bush seems to think it's wrong. If it's ok for a black person and a white person to gert married, why can't 2 women get married?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jessica Coconut on Jul 5, 2004 20:54:01 GMT -5
Pat, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Marriage License given out by the state what recognizes a marriage in the first place? If you don't have a Marriage License, then any wedding ceremony in the first place is void? I'm just a little confused on that aspect so go ahead and let me know. But getting back to something else, the government actually HAS to recognize marriages performed by religions. It's not just marriages from one religion, it's marriages from all religions. No religion is above the other. To not recognize a religious marriage would be pushing forth the religion of "Non-Religion/Secular Humanism" and violating the Seperation (All ready declared religions by United States Supreme Court to begin with. So by all legal definitions, not technical ones, I am correct.) And just as the government has to provide priests/clerics/ministers from your religion when you are in the military lest they get in trouble for opressing and/or violating your rights, the same goes for marriages. Your postulate could use a little bit of reworking. Oh? My beliefs. I belief Homosexuality is a choice, and is wrong. This comes from my very deep religious beliefs. But though I do not support any form of Homosexual Marriages due to my beliefs, I cannot give any reason why the government should not allow them to marry. No arguement I could give would be able to push forth anything but my own religious bias. EDIT -- One final thing for those people saying animals have monogamous relationships. Sure. But do animals have marriages? I know humans who have monogamous relationships even though they're not married. What I am saying is that marriage itself is a religious practice. Otherwise it'd be anywhere from a "Well, you want to shack up, live together forever, and have sex?" to, more likely, a sexual free-for-all. Take out any religious influence, and I garuantee marriages would never have existed. Exactly what I was stating there about courting. It's not marriage. They just like flatter their would-be mate, with pretty wings, showing off strength or something, it's just a form of courting. It serves the purpose of marriage all in one. I never said anything about them LEAVING eachother. I researched swans for a recent project and I know they stay together for life. Same with Swallows. Technically, for animals to show their really married, they have sex. In the Christian religion also, sex is like "official marriage". It basically seals the deal. I know the idea of a civil union is difficult to fathom for many, many reasons. I stated at the end that it would take a lot of working, and now I realise that it would probably never work. Meh. In the effort to find another solution... just another one rooted out. |
|
|
|
Post by sollunaestrella on Jul 6, 2004 10:57:51 GMT -5
I dunno, it’s a bit of a word thing with me. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman - if you call a dog’s leg a tail, the lgs will still BE legs even though you call it something different. Leg in English, pierna in Spanish, but it’s the same thing. That’s what I believe about marriage; that’s just what it is, and you can’t change the definition of a word to fit your liking.
I’m not so sure, though, about the whole “sanctity” of marriage thing. I am a member of the United Methodist Church (almost ashamedly in some respects), which considers only two things to be sacraments: baptism and communion. In my church, marriage is not considered so sacred as to be a sacrament. Even so, I think marriage is a very religious concept, whether you’re religious or not. It’s one thing to mate for life and live together; it’s another to have the bond of marriage, to have made a promise and taken an oath to love someone forever. I don’t care if you’re an atheist - that idea of marriage is a very religious one. And that sort of sanctity is definitely destroyed by people like Britney Spears who get married while drunk and then are divorced the next day. It’s definitely destroyed by those reality TV shows that go to any lengths to test the love of two newlyweds, trying to break them up.
Anyway, that was a little bit off topic.
I’ve been trying to form my opinion on this. I am a religious person and I looked homosexuality up in the index of my Bible. From what it says, it seems as if it’s the sexual impurity that’s a sin - not love. Because, of course, love is what the Bible is about. Love is not a sin, but sexual impurity is. You can argue that homosexual sex is not a sin, but how can it not be? No one’s body is designed to have sex with another person of your gender. It is biologically designed to reproduce, which is impossible within a homosexual relationship. And, as someone else said, the whole idea to have a family can be considered a biological instinct. The only way a homosexual couple can have a family is if they adopt a child. But is it healthy for a child to grow up in that kind of environment? Children need a mother figure and a father figure, and a household with a homosexual couple for parents is not a good environment for them to mature. It’s the same deal for a single parent. The ideal setting for a child’s growth is with a mother figure and a father figure.
I believe that practicing homosexuality is a sin. I don’t think homosexuality in itself is - as long as it is truly not a choice, which I don’t know. There’s a difference between homosexuality and choosing to act upon that instinct of homosexual sex. As somebody else said, I believe, some animals might be homosexual, but they also do things in public that we as humans would not consider acceptable if we did them (such as have sex in public). Humans, although animals, can make choices. (Maybe so can dogs, but they don’t make the choices humans generally consider acceptable.)
That was a very long ramble that doesn’t have much of a point.
Meh. The state can’t give anyone anything more than a civil union, anyway. It’s up to the couple to make it a marriage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ikkin on Jul 6, 2004 22:00:15 GMT -5
Because of my religious beliefs, I believe same sex marriage is wrong, but since these beliefs are mine, and others do not share them, they would not make the best argument. Therefore, I will, for the sake of argument, try to separate these beliefs from my position. That said, I feel that while same-sex relationships are wrong, I could tolerate "Civil Unions" while "marriages" would be offensive.
Something may be in order to prevent cries of discrimination. A possibility would be for the government to only be able to perform "Civil Unions" for anyone, while giving Marriage Licenses, and therefore the title of "married," only for those who are married by a religion. There may be problems with this, but it is only a possibility, and one that I have not thought much on the problems thereof. (Basically, don't use that against me and ignore the rest of my post!)
Anyways, the reason I am against "same-sex marriage" even more than "Civil Unions" is because of the implications of the redefining of marriage itself. In several countries where same-sex marriage was legalized, such as Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, in which out-of wedlock births and cohabitation increased, with Sweden in 1997 having the lowest marriage rate in history. These trends begin when same sex marriage was legalized, pointing to a correlation. And other trends in the US point to a correlation between children raised in families without a female mother and a male father and future problems (crime and out-of-wedlock births) I fear for society.
I am uncertain as to whether even "Civil Unions" would tear families apart, but a redefinition of marriage could have frightening repercussions.
|
|
|
|
Post by mushroom on Jul 7, 2004 0:12:51 GMT -5
Even so, I think marriage is a very religious concept, whether you’re religious or not. It’s one thing to mate for life and live together; it’s another to have the bond of marriage, to have made a promise and taken an oath to love someone forever. I don’t care if you’re an atheist - that idea of marriage is a very religious one. I'm sorry--are you saying homosexuals shouldn't be married because marriage is religious or because it's only biology? I'm not understanding you. Something may be in order to prevent cries of discrimination. A possibility would be for the government to only be able to perform "Civil Unions" for anyone, while giving Marriage Licenses, and therefore the title of "married," only for those who are married by a religion. There may be problems with this, but it is only a possibility, and one that I have not thought much on the problems thereof. (Basically, don't use that against me and ignore the rest of my post!) If marriage is religious, the government has no business with it at all; it's fine if you want all people to be given civil unions, but you can't restrict the word "married." By the way, have you ever heard of the Universal Life Church? They give out free, completely valid ordinations to absolutely anyone. I'd be willing to bet you can find some kind of clergyman who would marry a homosexual couple. Can you give me a source on any of that? Also, does the single-parent study refer only to children raised in a single-parent household or does it also refer to children living through a divorce? If the latter, it's not very valid--a child whose parents divorced, probably with lots of fighting along the way, has a very different background than a child who just never had a mother/father. By the way, correlation isn't necessarily cause. It could be that both symptoms--homosexual marriages and promiscuity--may be caused by a general decrease in religious influence. It could be that there is no correlation whatsoever; has promiscuity risen similarly over the same period in places where homosexual marriages were legalized long ago, or after the beginning of the period in question, or still haven't been legalized? |
|
|
|
Post by sollunaestrella on Jul 7, 2004 7:54:28 GMT -5
I'm sorry--are you saying homosexuals shouldn't be married because marriage is religious or because it's only biology? I'm not understanding you. The biology thing, mostly, I guess. The ramble about the sanctity of marriage was merely a ramble. :P |
|
|
|
Post by Buddy on Jul 7, 2004 10:49:45 GMT -5
Something may be in order to prevent cries of discrimination. A possibility would be for the government to only be able to perform "Civil Unions" for anyone, while giving Marriage Licenses, and therefore the title of "married," only for those who are married by a religion. There may be problems with this, but it is only a possibility, and one that I have not thought much on the problems thereof. (Basically, don't use that against me and ignore the rest of my post!) All Civil Unions are is a way to place people in a different category. No one can possibly argue this is a good thing. To try and "seperate" the gays from the straights, as far as I can see. This isn't a compromise - it's a joke. Okay, there was a low marriage rate... and? And there is absolutely no proof what-so-ever that more out-of-wedlock births leads to more crime. There's proof that poverty and less gun-control (I say the second without starting a debate) contribute to more crime, but I've seen nowhere where that more out-of-wedlock children lead to higher crime rates. To add to that, I've seen nowhere where legalization of gay marriage leads to more out-of-wedlock children. I see none. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2004 22:04:44 GMT -5
-Personaly I think America should focus less on minor issues like homosexuality, even if the so called "disease" of homosexuality and same sex marriages gets banned, or if the government seriously enforces the law forthwith forbidding homosexuality. The society we live in, will still be far from reaching a paragon-
Terrorists, crime and poverty, things like that, I would consider them to be much more damaging to our society.
Anyways, let me share my points of view regarding same sex marriages.
I don't really agree with or support homosexuality
-Least of all, same sex marriages- but I do accept it as part of our society, although If I had a choice I'd much rather live in a heterosexual society. But its inevitable, homosexuality is not a disease or something that just popped up. It has been around for many centuries, from the times of Rome , and to this day.
I as a christian, would have to wholeheartedly agree with punchbag bob. I consider the marrying of gay couples, offensive and extremely blasphemous to our doctrine. While homosexuals are big part of the population of not just the United States, but of the world , christianity is still a much bigger part and we shouldn't be disrespected in that manner. Sure, I think homosexuals should not be discriminated, and should have the same rights as "straights" in exception to marriage within a church. Probably some of you are thinking -you said they should have the same rights, you say they shouldn't be discriminated, so why would you neglect them the right to marriage within a church- So quite simply I would say, it is a matter of principle.
Another thing I would have to disagree on, is when a homosexual says "God made me this way" or "I was born this way". Perhaps for some, perhaps for many they were born with the fancy of the same sex, for a time I did believe them. Until one day, I was channel surfing then I flip on an HBO documentary called "Middle School Confessions" it covered all the things from being neglected in school, depression to drug abuse, and homosexuality of adolescents, it was quite interesting. It said, over 20% of 12 year olds in the United States are unsure about their sexual identity. Then they interviewed this 11 year old girl, she was talking about some girl in school she really liked, but the other girl was straight and called her a lesbian and to drop dead. Then later their was a congregation of other kids, unsure of their sexual identities, most of them afraid of telling their parents. Then they interviewed the girls mother. She said "Well I believe
whatever my daughter wants in life I support, she gets teased and picked on alot being called lesbo" She also stated how she would drop her daughter off at this place where other 'gay' kids could collaborate and such, some of the other parents who were aware of their childs uncertainty of their sexual identities would do the same.
This may sound undiplomatic, but I think the parents are very ignorant and dont know what the hell they're doing. Twelve is a tender age, its a step-off from going into the wonderful lands of puberty. Instead of letting the child mature, develop and find a sense of awareness. I myself am a teenager (15 very proud), I do want my parents to listen to me, its the most important thing a parent can do for a teenager and I stress
-teenager-.
These kids barely 10-12 years old say theyre unsure of their sexual identity, doesn't necesarily mean that theyre homosexual, these kids haven't had the time or the opportunity to truely know their sexual identity. And then the parent so ignorantly, wants the child, to collaborate with other children that share the same obscurity is only solidifying their sexual identity, forthwith influencing homosexuality in their child.
I'm not saying this is the cause or the 'root' of homosexuality, I do believe some people just simply are born that way, as I do believe some cross-gender people do what they do because they felt they weren't inside the right body(but thats a different subject). All im saying is, this could be one of few other circumstances by which some people turn out to be homosexuals, and if atleast the parents weren't so quick to accept their childs uncertainty and would try to atleast veer them from that obscurity or atleast just let them develop just enough so their sexual identity is certain.
|
|
|
|
Post by Killix on Jul 20, 2004 16:13:52 GMT -5
What an interesting debate we have going on.
I disagree with anyone who says homosexuality is a choice. People don't just wake up one day and say, "I think I'm going to be gay." It just doesn't work like that. Whether it's unnatural or not, does that mean that people should hate and think it's wrong for them to love eachother? I sure don't think so. Nobody chooses to be homosexual, just like nobody chooses to be hetrosexual...we are just born that way.
I wonder what it would be like if this whole thing was the opposite? I mean, if homosexuality was "normal" and hetrosexuality was considered, "wrong" because the natural way to reproduce was for two people of the same gender to mate? How would you feel, knowing that you are looked down upon in society because of what you are?
Just put yourself in the non-literal shoes of others...it gives you something to think about.
EDIT: That rambling probably made no sense...
|
|
|
|
Post by william on Jul 20, 2004 16:23:06 GMT -5
What an interesting debate we have going on. I disagree with anyone who says homosexuality is a choice. People don't just wake up one day and say, "I think I'm going to be gay." It just doesn't work like that. Whether it's unnatural or not, does that mean that people should hate and think it's wrong for them to love eachother? I sure don't think so. Nobody chooses to be homosexual, just like nobody chooses to be hetrosexual...we are just born that way. I wonder what it would be like if this whole thing was the opposite? I mean, if homosexuality was "normal" and hetrosexuality was considered, "wrong" because the natural way to reproduce was for two people of the same gender to mate? How would you feel, knowing that you are looked down upon in society because of what you are? Just put yourself in the non-literal shoes of others...it gives you something to think about. EDIT: That rambling probably made no sense... I totally agree with you, and furthermore, I'd like to add that I read a while ago that a certain number (can't remember exact %) of teen suicides were gay people with the 'where did I go wrong?' attitude. In fact many scientist now believe that it is genetic. To be frank, I think it's disgraceful how some people can say, 'I disagree with homosexuality, it's wrong, and people should decide not to be gay!'. As in the previous post, put yourself in the opposite position, no wonder there are so many suicedes, etc, with that attitude! How would you feel if people label you as being 'wrong', and treat you badly? I'm sorry for my behaving so strongly, but this is the way I feel about the topic. |
|
