The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum

There has been lots of talk about same sex marriage in the news lately. Where do you all stand on this subject?

I am completely for it. Gays and lesbians are asking for legal marriage, not christian marriage, so it affects no one but themselves. It is one of the most obvious unfairities towards gays, and it can be easily stopped.

EDIT: By christian marriage I meant to say all religeous marriage

I think they should be able to, but it doesn't really affect how I'd vote based on the fact that marriage is utterly retarded and gays are damn lucky they aren't allowed to. I mean, divorce is such a royal screwing. Just ask Harrison Ford.

As long as social rights (like tax-cuts or taxfree bonus handover to the partner) are given to you because you are married, i'd say no to same-sex marriage.

The moment all these bonuses are linked to having a child together, i do not care a lot then. I recognize their whish, i'd allow them to, but i am very conservative.
Same-sex-marriage cannot be good for society, because society needs children. The marriage was a protectionhaven for those who wanted/have children together, and that would not be the case with Same-Sex-Marriage.

Enjoy,
Krulle

Quote: because society needs children

Well, yes. But we don't need a LOT of children. We've got
plenty. So if all the queers stopped having kids, it's not going to put a dent in our economy.

I'm for the idea of gay marriage. I mean, they're got just as much right to civil tax cuts, reponsibilites and such as straight people, right? I think the idea of picketing churches to force the issue is silly and immature on the part of the gay community. Gay marriage is about choice and freedom. If the church doesn't want to marry them, that should be the church's choice. However, our country (Canada) being a democracy, I think needs to treat everyone (queer, traditional) equally. Thus, I support legal marriage.

I think that gay-marrige is ok. As long as it doesn't hurt anyone or such. After all, we are living in a free country\ies, aren't we?

But the problem here, in my opinion is child-adopting. I mean, gay couple adopting a child.... It is just wrong! When he will grow up he will think that he needs to be "gay" and in fact, this is what he will see every day! If you want to marry, fine. But at some point all/most/some/few will want to adopt a child.

Society does need children, but society should have to put up with gay couples. Marriage should not be based on the ability to procreate, it should be based the ability to love.
I have only lived my own life so I don't know this for sure, but I'm guessing that gays and lesbians can love.

Also, the human population is growing too much for its own good. A slower population growth would be a blessing.

I don't really see the connection actually between gay marriage and the number of children born. Gay people, in gay relationships, aren't exactly likely to produce children on their own, married or not. Now, I realize that there are ways, obviously, for gays to have kids. But I don't think the presents or absents of marriage will change the rate at which they're reproducing.

Seond point. Why shouldn't queers be allowed to adopt? I mean, I know
lots of straight people that make absollutely TERRIBLE parents. What gives them the right to raise kids? Because they're straight? That seems to be a pretty silly reason. Now, while some kids might not do so well with gay parents, I don't think they'd be a lot worse off than children of a striaght couple.

Besides, if gay people are adopting a child, it's likely because the atright person was unable to properly care of the child. Hey, why not give the gay parent-wannabe a chance?

Not all children mimic their "parents" in this respect. I've actually quite a lot of info in this topic (being as how I live with a gay couple). I know of quite a few homosexual couples that have children tied to them (as in one or both parties involved bore these children before "discovering" they were gay). I only have a small sampling to work from, mind you, but every instance I've found of this I see children growing up with gay "parents" and turning out straight (so far). One of the children even has children of his own!

Granted, I can see the possibility that a child that deals with this his entire life might seek to mimic that, but if he does, it is his choice, and therefore none of your business. But there's an equal chance that the child will not mimic (whether out of rebellion or level-headed thinking), and it's still not your business.

I don't really care if people want to be married to one another, and if they think they can raise children, good. That's fewer children that have to live in orphanages.

The churches don't have to marry people if they don't want to, it's their choice. But it seems unfair that gay people don't get that choice, that's all.

Disclaimer: I'm not gay, I just have a lot of gay acquaintences.
Joke: I'm not gay, my boyfriend is.

First, what's wrong with a child growing up thinking that gay relationships are normal?

Second, a plurality of approved studies approved by the American Psychological Association assert that children raised by homosexual couples are in fact less likely to become homosexuals.

There really shouldn't even be a debate about this.

Let's see this realistically if SSM is legalized want happens to the family unit.  Oh?  Adopt?  that is a stupid idea did any of u go to public school?  children in that situation will be tortured and have a shattered childhood,  how do u explain to a child, a teacher, a class, that ur dad is ur mom or vice-versa.  Seriously if they must be allowedat least made it illegal for them to adopt.  doing so will just make the population even more against these people with special needs.

I take it that we should also ban high-prescription glasses and pocket protectors, because of the teasing they would provoke.

Kids are going to tease and be teased, and changing the subject of the tease won't make a whit of difference.

Death_999 seemed to tell what I thought.

Marriage is okay, since it's basically a formal thing, nothing else. But what comes to adopting, I'd rather leave that right. The kid probably would, as D999 said, be teased and wouldn't tell his/her parents are gay to anyway, barricading all the emotions and yaddayadda I'll end my over-philosophical babble here.

I dont see your logic terminator. More kids with same sex gardiens would bring much more acceptance.

Stupid nitpick that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand: A question should have a question mark (?).
Counter to your statement: What happens to the family unit? I'd say it's pretty messed up right now as is, wouldn't you? Divorce and married separations aren't a new thing, they've been on the rise for decades.


I went to public school, and I can say from experience that it doesn't matter what you say, do, or are; children will pick on other children no matter what. If a child is tortured for having a gay parent, then I guess they should also be tortured for having divorced parents too, eh?

How to explain this phenomenon to people:
1) Don't. It's nobody's business.
2) Just explain it as it is.

And if that isn't enough for the teachers and other classmates, then fuck them. As stated in #1, it's none of their business anyhow. If you seriously think that your (un)popularity in public school will really have an effect on anything outside of those walls, then you really need to reevaluate your life up to this point.


Right now it is illegal for gay couples to adopt, simply on the basis that they aren't married. If you give gay people marriage but don't give them adoption, they'll continue picketing and complaining because they're not getting equal rights. And they would be completely right in doing so.

You're saying that people's rights must be determined by what they do in private? Turn the situation around: Don't you think it would be unfair if you were denied your rights simply because you like having sex with the opposite gender? It's a private act, after all. Why should it matter?

I didn't know adoption required marriage. Might make things a lot trickier.

Luckily, I don't giva a horse's a** about religious stuff.  ::)

I don't follow christianity word for word, but I do believe in what if stands for. I think that even the christian definition of marriage should be updated.

But christianity isn't really the issue, since legal and relious marriages are different.

Chrispy mentioned that he believed marriage had to do with love; well, that's religious marriage.  Legal marriages are about a contractual bond, one which can be broken with minimal (comparitively) repercussions.  A cleric will generally counsel a couple before marriage, making sure that they truelly are ready to make a commitment to the ones they love.  A "justice of the peace" probably does not (no experience in this matter).

Legal marriages arose because the State (whatever government) decided that there was a good reason for marriage, and I doubt it was just to get form-handling fees from the already existing religious marriages.  What were their reasons?
The ancient Greeks seemed tolerant of homosexuals in their society; did they have such marriages?  Did they have Legal marriages (considering everyone was supposed to worship the greek gods anyway)?

Some people have suggested doing away with Legal marriages since they are contributing to the high-divorce rate.  IMO, this would kill two birds with one stone.  What say you?

I sayeth: What about the atheists?
I know that many decide to take religous marrige anyway (to show the love to their other half that often is not atheist for example) but beeing forced to it would complicate matters, not to mention it would be just plain wrong.

The same goes for marriges of people of different religions. I dont know how it is in the States, but in Poland you have to go through hell of a lot of trouble to marry a catholic-eastern couple for example (despite the fact that they are both christian).

There's one more thing. In a religous marrige the Church might impose rules to which some people wouldn't agree even if they belive in the god the mentioned church worships (warships?).

Now in a legal marrige, there are no rules and no limits (except for gender I guess... and age sometimes... but that's beside the point) . A couple gets married and the rest is up to them, they decide the rules they want to go by and what they want to belive.

As for the divorce rate, tell me which is better: a high number of divorces or a high number of couples beating or cheating on each other.
Besides the problem is not the ease of getting a divorce, but the people themselves. You wont change the way they think, and you wont force them to be happy. If you make it impossible to have divorce then they will find other ways of showing their antipathy to each other (like the above mentioned beating and cheating).

I would say that Terminator is nary too bright, but he de facto says it all the time.

Legal benefits for married couples do not only include things like tax breaks. If I were to get in a car accident and be in critical condition in the hospital, only family could get in to see me. Therefor, my hypothetical same-gender boyfriend of 15 years would not be able to visit me.
I believe that the 700+ benefits for being married (in Mass. anyways) are a bit excessive, however.

I'd like to take a second to point out that a number of European countries have had legalized homosexual marriage for years now. I think the Dutch started
the trend in the 1980s. Now, most of north-west Europe lets gays wed.
They're doing just fine. People have gotten over the idea and not a whole
lot has changed as a result. Perhaps it's long over-due that we're following
suit.

All this taking ideas from Europe, next we'll be trying to adopt the Metric System... oh, the horror!</sarcasm>

(edited to clarify that this was a joke on the slippery slope argument)

I, being Canadian, have the metric system and I can tell you that it is awsomely easy.

1cm3=1 liter
1 liter of water has a mass of 1 gram

short cuts like that are all over the metric system. no math involved.

Arizona and Indiana would switch to daylight savings time sooner than the U.S. officially adopting the metric system. :)

(http://ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/gay8.jpg)

Not a fan of the metric system?

I know I sound like I don't know what I'm talking about I'm a defect of my own location, Typically americans have a very shallow-thrid-world view of the rest of the world.



Actually all scientific communities have adopted the metric system so all results will yeild the same conclusion. and secondly the metric system was designed with water as it's base 1ML of water weigh one gram a liter of water weighs about 2 or 3 pounds 1ml of water is one gram so hence it's density is 1.0 at least pure H₂0 is.

I know I sound like I don't know what I'm talking about I'm a defect of my own location, Typically americans have a very shallow-thrid-world view of the rest of the world.

Converting to the metric system would be no easy task see that most ameriacns hate change.  Hypothetically speaking if it did get approved all measurements would have to be changed automobile, lumber and the DOT would be affected do u have any idea how many road signs we have that say 50mph or road work 100ft? It would be at least a 10 year process

EDIT: I know my grammar sucks but u get the point don't u?

(Quote edited with spelling)

Well, as a American I have seen at least three instances were important people try to change the USA to metric. All of them failed, or a better term, did not succeed the way it was meant to. The programs to change America to metric that were funded by the goverment did not get very far either. Why, when asked, the leader of the goverment paid group trying to change America to metric did not know his one height in metric. He knew his one height in inches though.

Though when you think about it, metric does make sense. 0 C being freezing and 100 be boiling. However, people who say it is easy have probaly learned the metric system first. I did not learn it first and thus I have a easier time with the "conventional" system. So just be careful when you say the metric is easier.  

At what point did this thread jump from gay marriage to a debate on
americans and the metric system?
I guess the connection is that Americans are behind the times on both.

Embrace the kilogram and the queer, my southern brothers. You'll be
happier when you do.

I have no problem with discussing both.

The metric system was designed to be easier, but changing to it would be no easy task. I think amarica is already slowly changing, and that is the best way.

Being as gay as a loon and supportive of equity, there can only be one answer for one such as I.  I honestly believe people should be able to do as they choose; of course, I'm not so sure about marraige myself, I don't think I'd like it but the lack of the option is a bit of an inequitous slap in the face.

As for the metric system and the rest of it, being in Britain, parts of my homeland have possessed such a system for a while now and yea, I doubt it will be long before something else comes along to replace it.  Things grow, things change and adapt.  Adaption is life, without it there's only stagnation, people sitting around bored and wondering what they're going to do with themselves today and stuff.  Stagnation usually tends to not be favoured by the process of evolution.  Change is good, as literally, change is life.

Besides, fresh ideas are always fun.

For some reason I don't think that the metric system is going to
be responsible for people sitting around at home wondering what to
do next.
The lack of a sequal to UQM, now that will cause some stagnation.

Hmmm, oddly enough I haven't chimed in on this one yet. Let me correct that now.

Some of what follows may echo what has already been said, so you'll have to forgive me. But let me start by giving you my bio so you know where I'm coming from. First off, I'm straight. I'm also married with a child. Next, I'm Christian, Mormon to be exact, but I pride myself on being in a religion that I can justify morally without falling back on the condescending "It's wrong in Gods eyes" argument that seems to pervade this question so often. Every point in my faith starts with a spiritual confermation that I can go back to if I need to, but I rarely do because everything just makes sense. That's my stand.

I do no support homosexual marrage. This is nothing personal against homosexuals. If I were to argue this point I would take a financial standpoint. Yes financial. As a father and husband I am at a economical disadvantage from an unmarried man with no children of my age. I am the primary support for my family. As such I feel I need the economical tax breaks that America gives to married people, and further to parents.

When a homosexual marrage takes place, are you telling me that one partner will choose to stay at home and be a "domestic engineer" to build a home for their growing family? I doubt it. Even if some homosexual couples choose to adopt, which is an entirely different can of worms, the majority of homosexual couples will esentally be two incomes with all the financial privlages of marrage. It creates an economic inequality, and that's not what the constitution of America was written for. Infact it was written with the opposite in mind and has succeeded so well that it has even overcome the prejedices (sp?) of it's writters.

With this in mind, I feel that marrage needs to be defined as more than "A union between one man and one woman," but should be expanded and re-written to become, "A contractual union between one man and one woman to the end of producing a household that will foster an environment for the rearing of children." Children, in this wording are mentioned, but not required, and it leaves plenty of room for intrepretation. However, I feel it would only better society if we were to define marrage in this way. This does not address the issue of children born out of wedlock and I feel that would need to be addressed, but does not pertain to the issue at hand.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

So what about marriages between heterosexuals who are infertile?

I don't see why they would more inclined to adopt (an implicit assumption in the inclusion of the gender issue) than homosexuals.

What about two 70-year-olds getting married? They typically don't have the strength to raise a child. Ban elderly marriages?

Heck, even parents will at the end find that they are unable to raise children. Are their marriages nullified on this account?

Or what about straight people that don't want kids? Or what if the gay
couple does adopt. Then should they be allowed to marry. Your agument against gay marriage is as flawed as Mormon  dogma.

Furthermore, the rights granted to you by your government states that
people are equal. Each person has the same rights (in theory) to life,
liberty and happiness. No where in there does it say that one person should
lower their household income to be equal with another family. That, old
boy, is socialism. Which, I'd like to point out, your country is very much against.

Gays shouldnt have to concern themselves with the economy. I see in a way that everyone should have the same rights, and if the economy takes a hit, it has no right to blame gay couples. Heterosexual marriage 'jumped on the boat' first, but that doesnt mean that homosexual marriage should be left behind for the sake of taxes.

But what he is saying is the homosexuals are "better fitted" to make money. Therefore, to keep it even, they should not get goverment money.

It may seem like more married couples have kids than gay couples addopt, but that is something that cannot be assumed. The right still has to be there.

Unless I am misunderstanding your message Chrispy, I think that your are misinterpreting my message. I will try again.

What I am saying is that mostly males are the provider of the family. (I don't mean to offend a woman that is, but I think the majority is men) Thus having two men allows the fmaily to make more money than a family of a man and a woman. But they still enjoy the same benifits. So that encourages gay because you can make a lot more money, especally if you do not have a kid and still get the taxes and stuff off from the goverment. This puts "regular" marriges at a disadvantage.

EDIT: I apoligize if I seem one-sided. I am trying ot be enven handed, but as some of you know, I have had some trouble with that in the past.

Sorry for the confusion.
I did in fact understand your post. I was trying to say that though your post is correct, it should not be a factor. We cannot assume that gay couples will make more money. That should not deprive gays of the right to marry.

We can check to see if gay couple make more money. Just average them and compare.  Now true, their are not NEAR the amount of gay couples as "traditional" couples, but it is a start.

In my mind, That ALONE should not deprive gays the rights to marry. However there are otehr issues.

The issues are more like assumptions though. Even if they are true, its just a statistic. It shouldnt affect peoples rights.

I don't think that was necessary.  As I recall this topic was for discussing people's views on gay marriage, not attacking people's religions.

While I'm at it I guess I should say that I think that this is a moral issue, and I don't really know that the government should be able to make moral decisions for people.  But then, something like a constitutional amendment would really have to be aproved by the people, so I don't know if I'd agree with that or not.

Technically no, I've never heard of the state acknowledgeing a marriage on it's own behalf maybe at a city hall or a courthouse, or Las Vegas but let me get back to the point at hand most religions regard marriage as a sacred or holy bond between a man and a woman.  The way I see noone can be objective in this matter everyone here already has predetermined opinions on this one of three ideas
1: appalled by the idea
2: sympathize the idea
3: Could care less
actually anyone agreeing with point #3 proably would not post here anyway.  It's one of those situations that labels u. 1 labels u homophobic or closed minded. While point 2 labels u as a "bleeding heart liberal", or homosexual yourself. Please note I am trying to put this as delicatly as possible If u feel insulted it is unintentional.

Whether the government should be able to make moral decisions for the People is a moot point. They do. Actually, that's sort of the point of
having a government; to make sure people follow the "rules" and to protect them from outside forces. That's why we have stupid rules like minimum drinking age, age restrictions on pornography and taobacco products.
If North American governments wok up to the idea that education is far more effective than censorship and "the war on drugs" we might be able to solve a lot of our problems.

As far as gays making more or less money than their straight counter parts, I fail to see how that should matter. A lot of straight people make a lot more money than the average Joe and there are no marriage restrictions on them.
Mr. Black, Billy Gates, George Bush all come to mind. No one has told them to get out of their marriages because it's bad for the economy.

Sure Bill Gates, George Bush and many others make A LOT more money thatn the average joe. HOWEVER, there is a big difference. We are looking at the average of straights. So there are many people that make less money thatn the average joe. See, average joe is,  as its name implies, average. Thus Bill Gates and the President as well as other "rich" people, have people to average them off. Homosexual, however have no such thing. There average will be higher than "straight" marriages. Thus it hurst the encomny.

What are you talking about? The state certainly does acknowledge marriage on its own behalf!
Even when it's a religious ceremony, you know that phrase, "By the power vested in me by the state of X, I pronounce you man and wife!"  that pops up in hetero marriages? You got that 'power vested in me by the state of...' bit?

These ministers are state licensees of the right to conduct marriages, a legal proceeding.



Yes, and the state considers it a legal bond.

Anyway, there are many religions which have differing views of marriage. Polygamy is a feature of many religions (though even in religions which permit it it is rare due to the expense and other practical matters). In some areas, a woman cannot marry a man without implicitly marrying his brothers as well.
Being married as a young child is also quite common, that certainly deviates from the 'a man and a woman' concept, in a different way.
Some religions allow for divorce. Some do not. Some do not even allow for widows to remarry (though widowers usually can). A few even hold that a couple is not truly married until the woman is a mother.

You can see that there isn't a clear agreement on the religious definition of marriage.

Also note that the United States has never forced a religion to recognize a marriage just because a state recognized that marriage. If gays are allowed to marry, the Catholic Church or the Episcopalians or the Baptists can decline to recognize that marriage.


BTW: Attacking Mormonism was utterly uncalled for.

sorry death what i meant was that usually people usually get married at a church or capel or another place of worship and considering that catholics (FYI: Jews, protestants and christians fitt in this group) consider this to be a mortal sin (a sin that will sent u directly to hell) being a sacralage of the most holy and divine of all sacrments.  Acknowledging that most most religious people in the US are catholics ( or some other derivative of the Holy Roman and Bysntine Empires) a large portition of this gays & lesbians with spend n eternity in hell.

NOTE: I know my spelling and grammar sux.
NOTE2: Please refrain from using only gays this refers to the guys only lesbians is the term for women don't offend (although "queer is the correct term, it's of an insult though) any of these people when don't need any closed-minded people posting here who are unwilling to discuss the issue.

Terminator- the obnoxious one

Instead of throwing around slang, maybe we should just use the term homosexual. This could replace queer, gay, lesbian, fag and any other scary, offensive terms.

As a few people have commented on my shot on Morons, I'd like
to address that. First of all, I'd like to say that I've never met a Moron I didn't like. It's the religion I have a problem with, not the people themselves.
I love having Morons over, we trade baked goods, debate religion and it's great.

Second, this entire thread is based on attacking or supporting homosexual marriage, adoption and homosexuals themselves. Now, if some of this board's members feel that they can take shots at homosexuals (even dedicate a whole thread to the subject) then why should I restrain my comments on religious dogma?

Furthermore, I seem to remember Jesus taking shots at organsized religion. but I don't remember him saying that homosexuals couldn't marry.

First of all, I would not consider us taking "shots" at homosexuals. We are debating. And if you notice, there is a debater for each side. Taking "shots" as you call it is not what is happening here.

2. The Bible is very clear about homosexuals - Don't. (I will find the verse if you want - I don't know it off the top of my head.) Now whether or not Jesus said it or not I don't know.

No record exists of Jesus saying anything about homosexuals, but he does say a few things about the sanctity of marriage.  Paul and Moses were the two most vocal writers about homosexuality.

I thought that is what I said.

(Edit: oh, yes, by referring to the 'catholic' instead of 'Catholic' you really did mean all those groups. Disregard point 1)

First, Catholicism is not the majority religion in America; though it has the plurality with 24%, it is outnumbered by protestants 2 to 1.
Then you get the 10% who were generically unreligious, and 7% who are explicitly agnostic or atheist.
Then you get religions of slight representation - Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Unitarian, Neopagan, American Animist, Baha'i, and the Pkunk.

Second, the first amendment prohibits the establishment of religion in law. How is the argument that something should be done only because the majority religion says it should be not an attempt to establish religion in law?

Third, if you are taking into consideration those laws of Moses concerning homosexuality, why not take into consideration of the others? Do you shake hands with women without checking if they are menstruating? Do you offer burnt offerings?

Yes, Jesus replaced the old law with the new (keeping the 10 commandments and adding an eleventh). Great! Now justify this selective use of the laws of Moses.

As for Paul, could you elaborate? I see lots of stuff about love, for sure.

(Edit: DUH, I know what the 11th commandment was. Care to actually address the issues?)

Sorry was refering to christanity not catholism and I believe the 11 commandment as death so delicately put was "Love oneanother as I have loved you."

Thankfully I'm a gentile, so technicallly leviticus is just a bunch of good suggestions to me. :)


1 Timothy 1:8-11 applies (law is for the lawless, not the lawfull, homosexuality mentioned in a long list of unlawfulls)
I'm certain there's more, but I'm probably not entering the right terms into the search engines.  Paul was one of the big "love the sinner, hate the sin" guys (except when it came to obviously unrepentant people pretending to be christian [1 Corinthians 5:9-13])

Upon the very same page of the Torah where it condemns homosexuals to death it also condemns to death those who eat shellfish or have sex with a menstruating woman. We don't think of those as on equal footing with homosexuality, for some reason. Gee, I wonder if there's an ulterior motive to all this anti-gay hate?

Also, gay does not strictly speaking refer exclusively to men, though it is often used that way.

It's not really hate it's more along the lines of disgust.

Fine. Now respond to the modified question...

First i must apologize ahead of time I allready know I will recieve alot of heat from the flames I am most certainly going to recieve, since D_999 forced this on me. wow that sounded a little odd.

there are certain roles men and women play in life in recent(I use recent very loosely) years this has changed from the cooking/cleaning woman and working man to it can work either way.  This change might have become welcome if the timing was somewhat different.  This change in whats accepted in society in quite a bit drastic to what most people are used to.  How long did it take for women to gain the right to vote? blacks? One final thought What legitamate reason(not like the pro-marawana movement) why it is necessary for partners of the same gender and sexual preferance need to be married and will withdraw from this thread. If u expect me to write a 30 page thesis on this you are sadly mistaken. Let me end it here for now before I offend any more people.   Any flames please e-mail me it's in my profile we do not need 25 posts of people yelling at me here.

EDITED FOR CONTENT GETTING EARLY LATR.

Not flaming you, just suggesting that you call "death" Death 999 or D_999 or something like that. It is easier to read that way. ;)

Also it shows slight respect for calling a person their name.

This post is offensive, but not in the way you're thinking...

First of all I am a Christian. Second, I am Against Same sex marriages. I believe these people who are homosexual need help not marriage. Marriage was given to man, by God, as the way a man and a woman are too become one in Gods eyes. When you trample on that, like homosexuals do, you will shame yourself.




The Law given to Moses by God is very clear about punishments for homosexuality. I am sure glad Jesus Christ died on the cross to forgive us of our sins.



The Bible rarely goes to specifics on homosexuality but refers to it in the more general term “sexual immorality” It is understandable why since such behavior probably did not even have a name, back then.

Homo sexuality is wrong and is a sin.
It’s on the same level as perverted old men having sex with little boys and girls.
I don't hate them, I just know they have picked an, immoral, self destructive life style and I can forgive them of that. But they need help to change their ways, not a way to indulge themselves in their lifestyles and that’s what gay marriage is.

Right.....But that's a christian view point on religious marriage.
Hey, if the church wants to refuse to marry queers, then so be it.

However...

Since US and Canadian law forbid mixing religion and state,
this makes it a moot point whether the church marries gays.
The debate is (on a national scale) whether homosexuals should
legally be allowed to marry, not religiously.

Way to beg the question. I grant that the old testament was out-and-out against homosexuality. However, this prohibition is situated among other rules that I'm sure you break quite frequently without even thinking that you have sinned, and in fact committed an abomination of the eyes of the lord.

SO, working within the new testament, and not begging the question, what have you?



Grown men are capable of giving consent. From a legal standpoint, this makes it VERY different.



Funny, they were happily going about being homosexual without the help of the state giving them marriage licenses. It's not a way to indulge themselves, since they can equally well commit the sin without the marriage.

I'd say it's fair to let them get married. It's everyones private thing, and there's no harm. Why wouldn't they be allowed to do so?

That is what this entire thread has been about.  ;)

making that an extreamally relavent post. (har har)

Sorry  :( I should have read it all through. But what? No post against SSM?

I am not that well informed about this subject - What is SSM?

I'm pretty sure he made up that contraction, and I'm pretty sure he meant same sex marriage

Duh....   >:( >:( - I showed have put that together! That is the sad state of my tired brain right now.....  :'(

Romans 1:26-27 seems pretty clear:
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Also 1 Cor. 6:9, Col. 3:5, 1 Tim. 1:10, 2 Tim. 3:3 and Jude 1:7.

But that has no legal relavence.

It has relevance to what D_999 was talking about though....

Right.  I was answering Death_999's question.  I still stand by what I said earlier: "I think that this is a moral issue, and I don't really know that the government should be able to make moral decisions for people."

U mean like smoking and drinking look around it's been done already these are moral issues that have been outlawed, In recent news Okay not recent but within the last 3 years Mike Bloomburg (don't like him so I don't care about spelling) passed a law making it illegal to smoke indoors( affects inside bars as well) and to drink outdoors. Those of u who don't know who Mike Bloomburg he's the Mayor of New York City. So lets drop "it's a moral issue" as a defense.

TERMINATOR - the obnoxious one

P.S. Death999 I'm curious on where u stand on this, u seem to make points for both sides, are u for, against, or just don't give a damn?

The reason that he is providing both "sides" facts is because he wants both sides to know all there is to know abou the subject.

Cigarette smoking is actually a health issue; and prohibition was enacted partly because the drunks back then where breaking other laws (getting too roudy).

I am for gay marriage, as the overwhelming predominance of my points have illustrated.

The one part I think you might be thinking of where I seem to argue against it is where I refer to it as a sin.

This was part of my trying to convince someone of its wisdom within his set of axioms, one of which was that homosexual acts are sins. Given that I could not dislodge that axiom, I had to assume it in any argument I intended not to be immediately dismissed.

But sins should not have legal relavence. Its true that many sins and crimes are the same (murder, theft) but they are not the same. Jealousy is a sin, but no one would dream of making it a crime.

Note that I was arguing FOR civil gay marriage within the assumption that it WAS a sin.

SO, what you just said was the core of my argument.

From a legal standpoint, it should be permitted, even if in the eyes of God it is abominable.

So we're in agreement.

11:10  
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
 
11:11  
They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
 
11:12  
Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Sayyyyy, they're talking about shellfish there, aren't they?

I could quote verses about unicorns, nothing being poisonous, contradictions, death proscription for copulating with a menstruating woman, etc.. But we all know I would be wasting my time.

What I want to know is whether homosexuality is wrong because gOD says so, or because it is inherently immoral.

What you're asking there is something philosophers have been trying to ascertain for a long while: "Is God above good, or is good above God?"  It's a straw-man falacy though, the unspoken answer is the one accepted by Judeo-Christian believers: "God and good are one and the same."

If they are one and the same, then murdering a ten year old would not be wrong unless gOD said it was. I beg to differ.

I ask again: If gOD did not condemn homosexual behavior, would it still be wrong?

And I repeat again; you're asking a silly question.  God does not condone homosexual behavior (in humans; who knows about animals), just as he does not condone murder.  His condoning or condemnation aren't governed by an outside measure of what is right though.  According to Judeo-Christian theologians, He _is_ right (not in the sense of being in accordance with the truth, but in the sense of being the truth itself).  
He's also not a judicial dictator who just arbitrarily decides what is right and what is wrong, (unless you believe comparison to Himself to be an arbitrary measure).

To sum up:  If I said yes to your answer, I would be saying that "good is above God".  If I said no, I would be saying that "God is above good".

Another facet:  I suppose one could go the route of Plato and look at the word "wrong" and remove any implications about spirituality.  At which point the question would be like asking "is 2+2=5 wrong?".  Then you could say:
Q: Functionally, what is sexual intercourse for?
A: Continuation of the Species
Q: Does Homosexual sexual intercourse fulfill this role?
A: No.
In that sense, it could be considered wrong even if it weren't a sin.

Edit: Just realized that it was Plato's ethics that dealt with fulfilment of purpose, not Aristotle's

Homosexual marriage is not for procriation (duh). I am not a homosexual, and maybe picowoof could correct me though I don't know if he still frequents this forum, but it is done for pleasure.

Pleasure is a by-product which is intended to make people (creatures in general) want to reproduce.  I know that children aren't produced from a homosexual union (that was my point in the Platonic reasoning above).

Under that line of reasoning, intercourse between a husband and wife who are trying to conceive, that does not result in pregnancy, is "wrong".

As "wrong" implies "something to be avoided" in the ethical sense, I think you have used a "weighted" term to make your case.  Thanks for playing.

The biological purpose of sex should not restrict peoples rights. They arn't indangering the human race. Your right, people arn't born gay, its a decision people make. But they should have the right to that decision, and still be treated like everone else.

If you're trying to concieve, "not resulting in pregnancy" is what you're trying to avoid.  BTW, I never said Plato was a great ethicist; he's just commonly studied.  :P

God at one point says that eating shellfish is wrong, but I feel that morally there is no flaw in it. I like to think killing is wrong without even being told. In fact, by this definition, because many people never read the bible or otherwise "receive" the word of God, they never know what is right or wrong. Conclusion: The Augustinian definition of right and wrong only holds up if you're already religious.

Here's one for you: Is marriage about love, procreation, or something else?

Because if it is about procreation, I don't think sterile couples, old people, people who have had operations, people who use condoms, people who are adopting, or people who are likely to miscarry should be allowed to marry.

If it is about love, then should homosexual and heterosexual love be viewed as the same in the eyes of the law? Why or why not?

Is it about something else entirely? I cannot think of anything.

I think marriage could be about what ever reason you make it.
The most comon reason I would like to think of is love, and then since heterosexuals have never been homosexuals, they cannot know if homosexuals feel love. We have to assume that they do.

I think that marriage, at its root, is more about social structure than
anything else. To avoid a society in which might makes right, you
need rules about who is going to live, screw and work with whom.
So civilization needed a way to merge people together in a
household. Bingo, marriage.

People have been getting married for thousands of years for many
reasons other than love. Property, convience, unexpected babies....
So I think love is out of the picture, really. It's a nice addition, but obviosuly
isn't the main reason....or wasn't.

I think that marriage helps pervent the spread of STDs (ideally), gives children a structed home (in a perfect world lol) and sets up guidelines for who is included in a home.

Following this idea, letting homosexual marriage would do more for socity than preventing it.

That talk is mighty reasonable. We don't take kindly to that type of thing here. You sure you ain't scientists?

Almost everything we do here is reasonable, and we are fans of a (kinda) scientific game. ;) Know thy forum and all.

Ever heard of bisexuals?

Also, there is the behavioral aspect... I mean, how much direct evidence to heteros have that other heteros experience love? I suppose this is what you're getting at.

That was exactly what I was getting at. You cant assume how any one of any different or same sexuality thinks.

Sure I can; I'm the same species, am I not? I don't know why you're even sidetracking into this.

The point was, if marriage can be said to be about love, and homosexuals love, then homosexuals should be able to marry. It's not a sidetrack at all.

Now, as for these assumptions -- yes, you CAN make them. But using those assumptions as the basis for law without justification is wildly invalid.

By can't I meant shouldn't.

I'm rather bewildered at how someone can be against same sex marriage, personally. In what way would it affect anyone of the straight orientation? At worst, they'd be uncomfortable about the homosexuals being more open. And we're living in a democracy, so we must therefore protect the rights of the minority.

I have a feeling that people opposed to this are simply afraid that they're going to catch TEH GHEY!!!11four  :P

>>And we're living in a democracy, so we must therefore protect the rights of >>the minority.

Actually, the point of a democracy is to support the well being of the whole, not a minority. Which is why the side with the most votes wins....ideally. Besides, not everyone here lives in a democracy.

Well, by that logic, we can oppress, genocide, enslave, etc. any minority if the majority is for it. Democracy is (or should be) a system to give ALL people equal rights. If we are taking away the right to marriage, we are going against democracy itself. So, in my opinion, any true democracy should allow homosexuals to marry.

Yes, when a democracy is abused, all sorts of things are possible.

Have you ever heard of a "bill of attainder"?  It's a wonderful artifact from British history, how it would work is that the Parliament would pass a law stating that a person was guilty of a crime, and would also levy punishment upon them.  Since your guilt (and punishment) was at that point a matter of law, it was 100% legal, and technically in accordance with the will of the majority, as it had to be voted into law.

The problem with bills of attainder, naturally, is that there is absolutely no judcial process involved in them.  If a majority of lawmakers believed that someone was guilty, even if that person had overwhelming evidence of their innocence, they were guilty.  Before being banned, bills of attainder were widely used as a means of attacking political opponents (and you thought it was bad when your favourite political party fell out of majority status NOW) and they are explicitly banned in the articles of the U.S. Constitution as part of the separation of government powers.

My point is simply this:  it does not matter what the mechanism is for redressing grievances with your government (democracy, republic, monarchy, theocracy), as all forms of representation have their inherent flaws and shortcomings.  What matters is having institutions in place that can effectively prevent any group or groups of people from accquiring too much power over others.

Hello from a long-time lurker. ;)

Being an MA resident, this topic stirs a few brain cells in me.

For one... the whole "economic" argument makes no sense at all to me. The majority of straight couples I know have both the man and the woman working... nowadays, even if women didn't choose to work on their own accord, most of them would have to just to be able to pay the bills. So, any straight couple with both members working is also going to "make more" than a couple with just one person working.

While women still get paid less than men in some instances, I don't think the difference is enough from the average two men in a couple working to cause a supposed divide. Not to mention that men can get crap-paying jobs and women can get well-paying jobs. Gender has nothing to do with it.

Finally, you're forgetting that gay couples can consist of two *women* as well.

For two, the procreation issue. If you ban marriage for gays on that factor, you have to ban all straight marriages that can't produce children. Now, if you're willing to go far enough to say that all marriages that won't produce children should be banned, I'll still disagree with you, but at least you'll be consistent and logical.

For three, the religious issue. It's irrelevant. If churches choose to not recognize gay marriages, that's their choice, and they are welcome to make it. Has nothing to do with legal marriage. Legality should be based on what causes harm to society. Seeing as how many gays who will marry have already been living together for years, and many of them have also gone through numerous legal hoops and troubles to gain rights like visitation rights, inheritance, shared insurance benefits, etc., I fail to see how letting those couples officially recognize their commitment and gain the legal rights of choosing to accept responsibility for each other in a much easier fashion is going to cause damage.

For four, the idea of children being raised by gays. I know several people raised by gay parents. AFAIK, all of them are straight, and no worse off than my friends raised by straight parents. Granted, it's a small sample, but... either you're gay, you're bi, or you're straight. No matter how appealing or accepting the gay "lifestyle" might ever be to me, it's not going to change the fact that I'm not attracted to my own gender. And most of the gay people I know knew from a young age that they were attracted to their own gender, even before they knew that "being gay" even existed as an option.

Yeah, some people are going to "dabble" in being gay because it's "cool". It's no different mindset than a kid trying anything that's supposedly "trendy". If the kid is really gay, they'll settle into that, if the kid isn't really gay then they'll grow up, stop being a poser, and find how they really feel sexually.

The kids being picked on issue. Kids mean enough to want to pick on someone will latch on any reason at hand. If you have poor parents, if you're from a different race, religion, or country, if you have a physical defect, if your parents are divorced, if you are adopted (even by straight parents), etc. Granted, having gay parents might provide an easier reason for tormenting a kid, but it's a weak argument on its own.

I have yet to hear a non-religious argument against gay marriage that is actually sound. I'd be willing to be surprised. ;)

Why don't you sign up and stick around?

I must say, though, what you said seems to mostly recapitulate what had already been said by others here.