1 in 10 (rock, American, Religious, member, quote)

adidasss · 01-09-2007, 07:45 AM

Ok, I got to about page 4 of this crap and couldn't be bothered to read more. It's insane that a thread about gay marriage once again turned into a religious debate. I don't know why I bothered making these posts if even those who support gay people don't bother to read them ( I completely understand why someone like Oojay would turn a blind eye).

There is no rational explanation to why gay marriages are not allowed in most countries, including most states of the U.S. if you extract religion from the issue. The state is supposed to be a civil institution, separated from religion, and western societies love to flaunt this theorem when trying to prove how muslim societies are backward. Hypocracy at its best. By not allowing gay people to marry, they ( we ) are being denied one of the essential human rights.

There is a concensus on at least one thing, that homosexuality is not a psychiatric condition, an illness. If we are not harming others and are with full mental capacity, there is no other reason for denying us equal rights as other people. Most constitutions are now based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and still have the audacity to proclaim that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". Yes we are all born equal, but we become unequal as soon as someone finds out he "fancies" the same sex. "The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to deny them is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights." - Scott Bidstrup's essey on gay marriage

There are reoccuring arguments whenever this issue is being discussed , so let's adress some of them.

1. "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State." ( as proclaimed by article 16. point 3. of the Universal Declaration of Human rights.

This is one of the essential arguments anti-gay marriage politicians drag up, that by allowing people of the same sex to marry, who cannot reproduce the "normal way", they are somehow threatening the "institution" of marriage, as if heterosexual people would be so offended by gay people having the same rights as them, that they would not marry any more or have children. Absolutely rediculous. The second point of this argument is that gay people and their union simply cannot be allowed to be on the same level ( as far as the name and the rights this institution would include ) as one of the "fundamental group units of society". I assume, purely on the basys of principle ( there is no other rationale to justify such a distinction, once again, if you exclude religion from it, a family can consist of two people of the same sex ). I am deliberatly avoiding the issue of gay couples adopting children as that is a completely different matter.

If one of the essential purposes of marriage is procreation, infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry either.

2. Homosexuality is morally wrong and therefore shouldn't be sanctioned.
"There is such in a thing in the United States as the separation of Church and State. America is not based on one particular faith, nor on a single moral code, but on a plurality of creeds. Your feelings as a member of a particular religious community notwithstanding, you have a responsibility as a citizen to support the extension of the same civil rights you yourself enjoy to everyone equally. Race, sex, religion, and sexual orientation must not affect the even application of civil rights. Homosexuality is not morally wrong, but even if you believe it is, you must not oppose the right of any person to claim equal privileges under the law." - http://www.soyouwanna.com/

3. "The suggestion that homosexuals can be 'married' is absurd, since marriage is, by definition, a union between a man and a woman."

"There has never been any fixed, traditional definition of marriage. The idea of marriage is constantly changing according to the changing needs of society. The world we live in today is very different from the world of a hundred or fifty years ago and our institutions must be altered to reflect these changes. There is no evidence to suggest that same-sex marriage would be harmful to society." - http://www.soyouwanna.com/

"Some argue that marriage is defined narrowly as only being between a man and a woman, so gays can’t possibly marry. The fact is, though, that the nature of marriage has changed in definition and make-up many times over the centuries. Marriage today isn’t at all like what it was two millennia or even two centuries ago. The changes in marriage have been broad and fundamental, so what are traditionalists really trying to defend? What is “traditional” about modern marriage?

Most of these changes have moved power in marriage away from the families and to the couples, as well as making women more equal. Let’s look at just a few of the most significant changes in marriage in the West over the past centuries:

Legalization of divorce
Criminalization of marital rape (and recognition that the concept even exists)
Legalization of contraception
Legalization of interracial marriage
Recognition of women’s right to own property in a marriage
Elimination of dowries
Elimination of parents’ right to choose or reject their children’s mates
Elimination of childhood marriages and betrothals
Elimination of polygamy
Existence of large numbers of unmarried people
Women not taking the last names of their husbands
Changing emphasis from money and property to love and personal fulfillment" - Austine Cline

DontRunMeOver · 01-09-2007, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adidasss

If one of the essential purposes of marriage is procreation, infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry either.

I thought that too, its a pretty glaring flaw in their logic. Also, any couple who choose not to have kids whether infertile or not should have their marriage annulled (by law

) if this logic were applied thoroughly.

And if this statement "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State." is important to them, shouldn't they be focussing on re-outlawing divorce (as, regardless of how it may improve people's lives it is technically allowing the 'family unit' to break up) rather than banning *** marriage? Ignoring adoption, a married *** couple who don't produce their own offspring isn't some kind of damaged family unit. It's a two-person family unit.

EDIT: And why is the word 'gay' still blocked? Aaarrgh.

Kurt_Cobain · 01-09-2007, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DontRunMeOver

Gay sex rarely results in the need for abortion. Anti-abortionists should love it.

Lets all say a big yay to gay!!!

I personally that with regards to christian marriages, or marriage under any other religion, its up to the leaders of those religious establishments to determine who can and can't be married by them and what this marriage entails. If rules relating to those marriages discriminate against any particular group then I don't feel there's anything particularly wrong with that... if you want to be part of a certain religion then there's no use bitching when their rules don't suit you.

For marriages in general, though, I don't really see what the problem is with homosexual marriage and I don't think it's the position of religion to set the rules by which non-religious types get married, if they are married in a non-religious way. Marriage is a tradition, a tradition that is perfectly capable of existing independent to religion. The idea of marriage between two people predates modern religions by a long way, so the suggestion that modern religions carry some greater moral weight with regards to how marriage is carried out doesn't really hold. Modern religion didn't invent marriage, so it has no right to set the guidelines for non-religious marriages. I personally believe that religious people should be payed less attention than non-religious people when it comes to opinions on non-religious marriage, as religious marriage is their scene rather than non-religious marriage.

That post was the best in this thread

Barnard17 · 01-09-2007, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merkaba

Yep, yep, and Google has homosexual sheep in the clear on this argument too.

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=oojay&word2

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php...ojay&word2=fal
Nailed the ****er!

Kurt_Cobain · 01-09-2007, 09:48 AM

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php...jay&word2=Kurt
Oojay, man, you just plain suck

adidasss · 01-09-2007, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DontRunMeOver

I thought that too, its a pretty glaring flaw in their logic. Also, any couple who choose not to have kids whether infertile or not should have their marriage annulled (by law

) if this logic were applied thoroughly.

And if this statement "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State." is important to them, shouldn't they be focussing on re-outlawing divorce (as, regardless of how it may improve people's lives it is technically allowing the 'family unit' to break up) rather than banning gay marriage? Ignoring adoption, a married *** couple who don't produce their own offspring isn't some kind of damaged family unit. It's a two-person family unit.

EDIT: And why is the word 'gay' still blocked? Aaarrgh.

This is where hypocracy kicks in, they're perfectly aware of the fact that in a civil society divorce is sanctioned yet they justify not allowing gay people to marry implicitly ( if not explicitly as in Croatia for instance, I won't even go into the bullshit my parliamentary representatives spouted out whilst discussing gay marriage ) by turning to the Bible. If gay marriage is a travesty and unnatural, then so is divorce, at least in the eyes of God, so why does the civil state allow it??
Let's face it, the institution of marriage means very little in America if there is about a 50% divorce rate. Britney Spears can have a one day marriage, but serious and mature gay couples are not allowed to...talk about travesty.

I personally don't believe in marriage, you don't need a piece of paper to justify your love for another, but there are some serious rights that come from being married and are denied to homosexuals, such as, the right to decide on medical treatment, the right not to testify against your partner in a court of law, then there's the whole heritability issue, healthcare insurance etc....

Edit: I seriously don't know why I bother trying to have a serious discussion on a fucking kiddy forum...

DontRunMeOver · 01-09-2007, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adidasss

Edit: I seriously don't know why I bother trying to have a serious discussion on a fucking kiddy forum...

Well, it helps to educate the kids at least.

Also, discussing, arguing and explaining issues, whether it be to kiddies or adults, dumbasses or geniuses... it all requires different approaches so its all good practise, even for a lawyer in training. Remember that juries, clients and other lawyers all have the ability to be ignorant or immature too. Plus, when you discuss the same issues with adults, a lot of the time you encounter the same ignorance and illogical opinions except 'maturity' and time often teaches the ignorant and illogical to keep quiet when they don't know what they're talking about.

adidasss · 01-09-2007, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DontRunMeOver

Well, it helps to educate the kids at least.

Also, discussing, arguing and explaining issues, whether it be to kiddies or adults, dumbasses or geniuses... it all requires different approaches so its all good practise, even for a lawyer in training. Remember that juries, clients and other lawyers all have the ability to be ignorant or immature too. Plus, when you discuss the same issues with adults, a lot of the time you encounter the same ignorance and illogical opinions except 'maturity' and time often teaches the ignorant and illogical to keep quiet when they don't know what they're talking about.

If the judge or jury start playing jump rope in the middle of my closing argument ( which is what's happening here ), I'll consider changing proffesions...
I doubt half the kids that appeared in this thread have the attention spand to read a post longer than 3 sentences.

tdoc210 · 01-09-2007, 10:54 AM

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php...jay&word2=Tdoc
pwnt

MURDER JUNKIE · 01-09-2007, 12:54 PM

This is where Canadians are miles ahead of Conservative thinking Americans, most Canadians I have encountered are pretty free minded in terms of homosexuality. Every homophobe I have ever encountered here objects not due to religious reasons but the phobia of being peckerchecked in a mens bathroom or (GASP) being hit on, because every straight male is clearly Brad Pitt to a G-ay male. Myself and my crew got over these phobias long ago

Blame Canada
/end rant

01-09-2007, 07:45 AM	#221 (permalink)
adidasss Slavic gay sauce Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Abu Dhabi Posts: 7,993	Ok, I got to about page 4 of this crap and couldn't be bothered to read more. It's insane that a thread about gay marriage once again turned into a religious debate. I don't know why I bothered making these posts if even those who support gay people don't bother to read them ( I completely understand why someone like Oojay would turn a blind eye). There is no rational explanation to why gay marriages are not allowed in most countries, including most states of the U.S. if you extract religion from the issue. The state is supposed to be a civil institution, separated from religion, and western societies love to flaunt this theorem when trying to prove how muslim societies are backward. Hypocracy at its best. By not allowing gay people to marry, they ( we ) are being denied one of the essential human rights. There is a concensus on at least one thing, that homosexuality is not a psychiatric condition, an illness. If we are not harming others and are with full mental capacity, there is no other reason for denying us equal rights as other people. Most constitutions are now based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and still have the audacity to proclaim that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". Yes we are all born equal, but we become unequal as soon as someone finds out he "fancies" the same sex. "The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to deny them is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights." - Scott Bidstrup's essey on gay marriage There are reoccuring arguments whenever this issue is being discussed , so let's adress some of them. 1. "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State." ( as proclaimed by article 16. point 3. of the Universal Declaration of Human rights. This is one of the essential arguments anti-gay marriage politicians drag up, that by allowing people of the same sex to marry, who cannot reproduce the "normal way", they are somehow threatening the "institution" of marriage, as if heterosexual people would be so offended by gay people having the same rights as them, that they would not marry any more or have children. Absolutely rediculous. The second point of this argument is that gay people and their union simply cannot be allowed to be on the same level ( as far as the name and the rights this institution would include ) as one of the "fundamental group units of society". I assume, purely on the basys of principle ( there is no other rationale to justify such a distinction, once again, if you exclude religion from it, a family can consist of two people of the same sex ). I am deliberatly avoiding the issue of gay couples adopting children as that is a completely different matter. If one of the essential purposes of marriage is procreation, infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry either. 2. Homosexuality is morally wrong and therefore shouldn't be sanctioned. "There is such in a thing in the United States as the separation of Church and State. America is not based on one particular faith, nor on a single moral code, but on a plurality of creeds. Your feelings as a member of a particular religious community notwithstanding, you have a responsibility as a citizen to support the extension of the same civil rights you yourself enjoy to everyone equally. Race, sex, religion, and sexual orientation must not affect the even application of civil rights. Homosexuality is not morally wrong, but even if you believe it is, you must not oppose the right of any person to claim equal privileges under the law." - http://www.soyouwanna.com/ 3. "The suggestion that homosexuals can be 'married' is absurd, since marriage is, by definition, a union between a man and a woman." "There has never been any fixed, traditional definition of marriage. The idea of marriage is constantly changing according to the changing needs of society. The world we live in today is very different from the world of a hundred or fifty years ago and our institutions must be altered to reflect these changes. There is no evidence to suggest that same-sex marriage would be harmful to society." - http://www.soyouwanna.com/ "Some argue that marriage is defined narrowly as only being between a man and a woman, so gays can’t possibly marry. The fact is, though, that the nature of marriage has changed in definition and make-up many times over the centuries. Marriage today isn’t at all like what it was two millennia or even two centuries ago. The changes in marriage have been broad and fundamental, so what are traditionalists really trying to defend? What is “traditional” about modern marriage? Most of these changes have moved power in marriage away from the families and to the couples, as well as making women more equal. Let’s look at just a few of the most significant changes in marriage in the West over the past centuries: Legalization of divorce Criminalization of marital rape (and recognition that the concept even exists) Legalization of contraception Legalization of interracial marriage Recognition of women’s right to own property in a marriage Elimination of dowries Elimination of parents’ right to choose or reject their children’s mates Elimination of childhood marriages and betrothals Elimination of polygamy Existence of large numbers of unmarried people Women not taking the last names of their husbands Changing emphasis from money and property to love and personal fulfillment" - Austine Cline __________________ “Think of what a paradise this world would be if men were kind and wise.” - Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle. Last.fm Last edited by adidasss; 01-09-2007 at 08:01 AM.

01-09-2007, 09:48 AM	#225 (permalink)
Kurt_Cobain Alan Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: In bed, with Cheryl Tweedy Posts: 275	http://www.googlefight.com/index.php...jay&word2=Kurt Oojay, man, you just plain suck __________________ http://kungfucrazy.forum-motion.com/

01-09-2007, 10:54 AM	#229 (permalink)
tdoc210 ashes against the grain Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: new hampsha Posts: 2,617	http://www.googlefight.com/index.php...jay&word2=Tdoc pwnt __________________ We went back there and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember... I... I... I cried. I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn't know what I wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want to forget. And then I realized... like I was shot... like I was shot with a diamond... a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought: My God... the genius of that.

01-09-2007, 12:54 PM	#230 (permalink)
MURDER JUNKIE The Wetter The Better!! Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: SH1TTY London Ontario Canada Posts: 2,504	This is where Canadians are miles ahead of Conservative thinking Americans, most Canadians I have encountered are pretty free minded in terms of homosexuality. Every homophobe I have ever encountered here objects not due to religious reasons but the phobia of being peckerchecked in a mens bathroom or (GASP) being hit on, because every straight male is clearly Brad Pitt to a G-ay male. Myself and my crew got over these phobias long ago Blame Canada /end rant