Should gay marriages be allowed

[DeletedUser563]

Ok, if we are going to have this discussion here I want you all to follow a few simple extra rules for this topic...

a) You are not in anyway allowed to state anything about your own sexual identity here or in any other active thread on the forum - this is not the time or place to toss around your own queer-fears, etc.

b) I will lock the thread until Jakkals - the original poster - defines what s/he means with 'good' and 'bad' so that we have anything useful to relate to. I they don't want to do that - I will just delete the thread.

c) Whenever you refer to something outside of yourself: be specific - and I mean really specific - 'the church', 'catholics', 'gay-people', 'queers' are not specific enough to draw any conclusions from.

/Mod-Edlit

 

[DeletedUser563]

The marriage is normally a church convention.

So it is argued that since being gay is considered a sin by most church groups(our church groups would anyway have no meaning to you,(zcc for example believe you may not eat pig as well) (Genesis 19:1-24; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Psalm 5:5) Above is some references i got by posting such a question to a search engine. Therefore since marriage is sanctioned by the church(in the general sense) gay marriages would not be allowed by such church groups. So the question remain do you think gay marriages should be allowed. From a legal point of view our country allows domestic partnerships to be recognized. Mostly to handle the scenario were the life partner dies and the estate would otherwise inherit intestate to the nearest kin which usually is the parents or children she or he may have had. So edlit can add the green rules she posted before. And I think argue it from any point of view church, different faith, legal whatever. From a muslim point of view would also be interesting. I know you all refer to each others as brothers since you are all brothers of the cloth. But Ok not certain how marriage works for you guys. Would such a person still be considered a brother to you. Please may i also add :respect your Muslim brethren's point of views.

A counter argument we can use as a basis is "Ya know, this is a very controvertial subject. Most radical christians believe that your going to burn in hell and all that but I believe that God made all of us.....and God loves us. And if it's a sin...isn't God a loving God? And isn't God a forgiving God? And Judge not...lest ye be judged"

I will stay mostly out of this topic.

Ok so swing away.

 

[DeletedUser]

There are about 3 or so threads already existing in the D&D/Saloon sections pertaining to same-sex marriage, but here we go again...

Religious Institution
Christians may be claiming that marriage is a Christian institution, but it is not. Marriage is performed in every society, regardless of the dominating religion. Marriage can be performed with religious accoutrements, or it can be performed in the sterility of a court house. But, ultimately, marriage is a contract. It is an agreement between two (or more) parties, to share price, property, and purpose.

The male/female labeling is a purely monotheistic (Christian, Judiasm, Muslim) hang-up. It is a religious stance that is not necessarily in opposition to marriage of same sex couples, but in opposition to same-sex. Marriage does not belong to the Church, anymore than does an agreement between two businesses. Any blurring of these lines is merely a disguised attack on gays/lesbians.

Civil Union
According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), 1049 protections and responsibilities from the federal government that are provided in a civil marriage, are not as well provided in a civil union. As well, U.S. Federal and joint U.S. Federal/State programs do not recognize a civil union and thus things like Medicaid, family insurance, tax status, and pension protections are not provided, nor available. Civil unions have limited legal application (inferior to civil marriage), exist mostly as an appeasement gesture, and merely serve to demonstrate the core prejudice still maintained in the U.S. and other countries.

Civil Marriage
Marriage is falsely argued as a religious institution. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage in a government. It is a legal/binding agreement and adjudicated by an elected official, usually a "judge." Marriage is not about the performance of "SEX," it is not about the union under God, it is about the declaration of a commitment between two persons to maintain a monogamous relationship. In fact, it is more...

There are many benefits to having agreements set between two persons: One is increasing "trust" and thus decreasing stress, another is substantially decreasing the possibility of contracting a venereal disease, And yet another is ensure joint ownership/responsibility. To quote Marie Gallagher, "In every complex society governed by law, marriage exists as a public legal act and not merely a private romantic declaration or religious rite." [1]

State and religious authority acknowledges marriage as an institution of interpersonal relationships, often viewed as a contract. There are a variety of reasons for entering into marriage, but they are usually legal, social, and/or economic.

[1] http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/What is Marriage For.pdf

 

[DeletedUser]

Using the bible as a historical reference for how to define marriage is not the best idea. In the bible marriage was clearly an institution that had benefits to men that were not extended to women. Men could have many wives. Men could divorce wives if they chose, but not vice versa. If a man died his wife was not able to inherit so she was a pauper who had to rely on the generosity of her sons. If she had no sons she was basically worthless and if her family didn't care for her she would be left as a begger.

Women who were divorced or widowed were lucky if they were allowed to go through the fields after the crops had been harvested and pick up the little bits that were left behind.

Clearly modern civil and church laws concerning marriage have tended to steer away from any "biblical" predecessors they may have had.

I can't speak for other religions because I don't know them, but the Christian religion has been twisting the rules to serve the interest of the church itself since it began. Even if you read Paul's letters to the early churches (which are part of the new testament (Bible) - he was constantly berating them for their self-serving behavior and hypocrisy. So I think it is safe to eliminate the bible as a reliable source for modern behavior in this instance.

I don't know about the Catholic church since I was born protestant, but in fact most of the protestant churches do support gay marriages and gay ministers.

 

[DeletedUser]

Its true that church is bending rules as they like, to serve their own interests, as most of the points you advocate, its also true that marriage is traditionally union between man and woman and there is absolutely no need to change that and irritate people, give a new name to institution between same sex couples and problem is solved.

Its also true that gay community is getting louder and louder in their demands, and i must say that really annoys me. They are acting like there is holocaust over them, but i dont see that...

Just my 2 cents...

 

[DeletedUser]

I don't know about the Catholic church since I was born protestant.....

Wow! You must've been a pretty smart embryo. I don't remember even knowing about religion until I was at least 4 or 5.

 

[DeletedUser]

lol okay I was born into a family that followed the Protestant religion and I had many experiences in that religion because I was raised by that Protestant family and went to Protestant church and Protestant Sunday School.

And don't think for a minute that I'm bashing the bible or anyone who follows that or any other religion, because I'm not. I'm simply stating that religion is subject to certain flexibility as an institution, which it is, and that the bible isn't necessarily the best source to use to discuss modern marriage practices, which it isn't.

I have a lot of respect for the bible. There is a lot that is great in that book. And I have respect for people who follow various religions. I also understand people who are against anything that doesn't fit into their "right and proper way of life" framework. We all have them, we just have different definitions of what is right and proper. It is a hard thing for people to work out, because in order for people to live together in peace with true tolerance, they have to agree on what a wide variety of those "proper way of life" frameworks can include and what they can't.

 

[DeletedUser]

It is a hard thing for people to work out, because in order for people to live together in peace with true tolerance, they have to agree on what a wide variety of those "proper way of life" frameworks can include and what they can't.

(my bolding)

From an article on tolerance, that is spot on!

/Edlit

 

[DeletedUser]

I can't speak for other religions because I don't know them, but the Christian religion has been twisting the rules to serve the interest of the church itself since it began. Even if you read Paul's letters to the early churches (which are part of the new testament (Bible) - he was constantly berating them for their self-serving behavior and hypocrisy. So I think it is safe to eliminate the bible as a reliable source for modern behavior in this instance.

I don't know about the Catholic church since I was born protestant, but in fact most of the protestant churches do support gay marriages and gay ministers.

Just because certain religions that claim to follow the bible show "self-serving behavior and hypocrisy" does not mean the bible it's self is responsible for their "self-serving behavior and hypocrisy." You said it your self Paul was "berating them for their self-serving behavior and hypocrisy." The Bible was not condoning this behavior.

As far as things like women not being allowed to own property and things of that nature, its not condoned by the Bible either, and the bible instituted rules to help those women; the land owners were not allowed to process the entire field and these beggars were allowed to glean the fields of the landowners. This was the norm at the time and it was not until after the messiah that a lot of these practices when put to rest.

If you look at the other nations who lived in the area at the time of Israelites, they condoned human sacrifice and slavery. The bible directly prohibited human sacrifice and put limitations on slavery. They had to let their slaves free after a set time period.

I have heard many ppl bash the bible because they have an incomplete understanding and take the scriptures out of context.

@anarchy111

I agree the "gay community is getting louder and louder in their demands." It annoys me also but they are free to voice their opinions and we should be equally free to voice ours.
I have a problem with them stating that they are not allowed to marry as they are perfectly legal to marry to opposite sex same as every one ells. There is not a holocaust against them as they are free as the next person. They can own property, get married, have children, work at the profession they choose, and no one is stopping them and making them register to some list some where. They are not made to wear badges of some sort. All their limitations are self inflicted. They choose not to get married to a person of the opposite sex, they are totally allowed to do so.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm fine with churches/mosques/temples of Baal etc. refusing to marry same-sex couples (gay people have been marrying for centuries btw, just not to the people they fancy). After all, if you're going to base your life on some ancient book then why not follow it into every weird place it takes you? And if your religion is homophobic then gay people probably should be staying away from it anyway as they have much better options.

As far as tax breaks, property rights, residency, social benefits etc. that are dependent on marital status are concerned, then I don't think it should be a condition that both parties should have contrasting genitals. That is just a too-weird hangover for me. If I'm allowed a legal partner then their gender should be immaterial. Call it 'civil partnership' if you think 'marriage' doesn't stretch - it's only a name.

I don't have a problem if gay people are getting louder. Given that they used to have to be completely silent it's almost inevitable, and besides, they don't seem a very hateful community. And if you think they've nothing left to complain about, try going to Iran, where they can be hanged.

 

[DeletedUser]

Actually Edlit I was talking about each individual person having their own set of ideas. There is no other means of allowing people to differ. That article is making a point which I won't disagree with, but I don't want to get bogged down on how we use a term. I did say "true tolerance" for a reason.

I won't argue that people don't do a good job of living together despite their differences. I agree they don't do a good job at all. But you are not ever going to get all people to agree on one way to live and be. So people have to make room for people to be different from each other and yet share space on this world.

I am personally very much for gay marriage. I don't just tolerate this lifestyle, I truly believe it is in every way equal to a heterosexual union. But I am just being realistic when I say I don't believe everyone is going to change the way they believe.

 

[DeletedUser30834]

As far as tax breaks, property rights, residency, social benefits etc. that are dependent on marital status are concerned, then I don't think it should be a condition that both parties should have contrasting genitals. That is just a too-weird hangover for me. If I'm allowed a legal partner then their gender should be immaterial. Call it 'civil partnership' if you think 'marriage' doesn't stretch - it's only a name.

It is a legitimate role of society to promote what benefits it. Until relatively recently, population growth benefited society, the stability of a traditional family benefited society, and providing for when that broke down like with the death of a spouse- benefits society. These rules and laws are legitimate creations for society to explore and enact.

I don't have a problem if gay people are getting louder. Given that they used to have to be completely silent it's almost inevitable, and besides, they don't seem a very hateful community. And if you think they've nothing left to complain about, try going to Iran, where they can be hanged.

That is mighty generous of you to not object. However, i would caution accepting behavior because it could be worse or people could be treated worse in other political systems. After all, I doubt many people in Europe where the death penalty is pretty much abolished would be accepting of murderers because other counties shoot them or gas them. Otherwise you get people like Anders Behring Breivik who killed 77 people, mostly women and children, who will likely never see a prison sentence.

 

[DeletedUser]

However, i would caution accepting behavior because it could be worse or people could be treated worse in other political systems. After all, I doubt many people in Europe where the death penalty is pretty much abolished would be accepting of murderers because other counties shoot them or gas them. Otherwise you get people like Anders Behring Breivik who killed 77 people, mostly women and children, who will likely never see a prison sentence.

There is no connection between being gay and murdering people.
No one is saying we should accept some behaviour because other societies reject it.
Logical disconnect.

 

[DeletedUser30834]

There is no connection between being gay and murdering people.
No one is saying we should accept some behaviour because other societies reject it.
Logical disconnect.

Sigh.. No one said there was any connection between being gay and murdering people. You said "And if you think they've nothing left to complain about, try going to Iran, where they can be hanged." and i said yeah, cause that type of reasoning has worked so well already and cautioned its usage.

If fact, I didn't even make statement about being gay or anything related to it yet. Just that the laws you don't think should exist has or had a proper place in society and because people follow the same reasoning you equated with gays having something to complain about has already created a situation where someone who probably should face the death penalty if there ever was a situation justifying it, will likely never see the inside of a prison.

 

[DeletedUser]

Sigh.. No one said there was any connection between being gay and murdering people.

Then why are you bringing Breivik into a discussion about gay marriage?

You said "And if you think they've nothing left to complain about, try going to Iran, where they can be hanged." and i said yeah, cause that type of reasoning has worked so well already and cautioned its usage.

What type of reasoning? I was responding to WillyP saying "All their limitations are self inflicted" by pointing out that outside Western society this is far from the case.

If fact, I didn't even make statement about being gay or anything related to it yet.

You realise that this thread is about GAY MARRIAGE do you?

Just that the laws you don't think should exist has or had a proper place in society and because people follow the same reasoning you equated with gays having something to complain about has already created a situation where someone who probably should face the death penalty if there ever was a situation justifying it, will likely never see the inside of a prison.

Idk if English is your first language (no disrespect) but I cannot make any sense of this sentence. Something about not hanging gays being like not sending murderers to jail? No, I give up.

 

[DeletedUser30834]

Then why are you bringing Breivik into a discussion about gay marriage?

What type of reasoning? I was responding to WillyP saying "All their limitations are self inflicted" by pointing out that outside Western society this is far from the case.


You realise that this thread is about GAY MARRIAGE do you?

I guess i read you post wrong then. I thought you were responding to the comment "I agree the gay community is getting louder and louder in their demands. It annoys me also but they are free to voice their opinions and we should be equally free to voice ours. " and was in some way saying "we should except their complaining just because they can be executed in Iran." He does have a point though, they already have the same rights everyone else has, and what they want is extra rights based around their choice of behavior.

Idk if English is your first language (no disrespect) but I cannot make any sense of this sentence. Something about not hanging gays being like not sending murderers to jail? No, I give up.

I'm not sure why you are even trying to make sence of that sentence, as far as i can tell, it was never said until you wrote it.

But what i was trying to say while avoiding 2000 lines was that codling or going soft on behavior society finds offensive or objectionable because you are somehow enlightened and civilized after a grudge match of mental masturbation with less useful results results in situations were the exact opposite of what should happen- happening. Bringing up a terrorist mass murderer to illustrate that point brings no bearing to the point itself except to illustrate that the one time it is plainly obvious that someone should be severely punished, and the result end up with him not even being convicted and possibly walking the streets again in a couple decades or less.

Oh and before someone thinks i'm trying to insult this board, someone on it, the editing staff, or gets turned on by the term masturbation thinking i'm being perverted, i guess i should provide some clarifying information on what was said.

mental masturbation= http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mental%20masterbation


You= the figurative you as in the people who felt it necessary to create a legal situation where someone can blow a building up and start ethnic cleansing of children and women trapped on an island while receiving little to no resistance in the process or penalties after the fact.

So in other words, the fact that gays can be hung in Iran should not be a factor in what kind of behavior or attitudes we (as in the literal us) in other parts of other societies would be willing to accept, tolerate, condone, or not.

If you're still confused to what i am saying, I'm not sure i can do anything more to draw the picture. I'm pretty sure from extensive testing performed by my 3 year old that using a sharpe and crayons to draw a pic on the monitor would not help illustrate or express this point for anyone but me. I guess we should just leave it at the way it is then.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Sigh.. No one said there was any connection between being gay and murdering people. You said "And if you think they've nothing left to complain about, try going to Iran, where they can be hanged." and i said yeah, cause that type of reasoning has worked so well already and cautioned its usage.

If fact, I didn't even make statement about being gay or anything related to it yet. Just that the laws you don't think should exist has or had a proper place in society and because people follow the same reasoning you equated with gays having something to complain about has already created a situation where someone who probably should face the death penalty if there ever was a situation justifying it, will likely never see the inside of a prison.

Total pointless post and wayyy off topic. In fact i suspect your trying to associate the gay community with a crime to be compared with something like murder. Propaganda BS

Its supposed to be about gay marriage opinions not some stupid reference to countries that have laws against it.

Back on topic

My Opinion of gay community marriage

Religious marriage.

Up to the faith entirely.If your part of a faith and you expect it to change to suit you because you don't conform to its core beliefs then tough .... either deal with it of find another faith, or none at all.

As to the faith changing the goalposts ? well thats up to the faith, to me it seems pretty ridiculous that man can interpret what he wants re the wishes of a supposed holy book written through man by god anytime he wants.... and does.... unless of course someone highly respected enough has a vision that say for example god told him that actually gods opinion has changed now since last week and please make appropriate alterations youd expect your religion to be consistent if you really believe in it wouldnt you ?

Then again "thou shalt not kill" has kinda been interpreted by both religion and society to "kill who you want whenever it suits" so i guess we shouldnt be so stuffy about changing the goalposts whenever its convenient.

Civil Marriage

Absolutely 100% for gay community marriage. Don't have to justify why or give a reason other than human beings have a choice who to be with, if that choice is the same sex then its no less valid than a couple of the opposite sex.

Personal opinion.

Marriage is nothing more than a total control issue and about tracking in the system. It is just a piece of paper be it religious or governmental and nothing other than a necessary document in society for use and the boundaries/rules placed on it are just another way of enslaving human beings to the will of others.

You are born with a heart and a brain, you are free to choose who you wish to walk through life with, whichever person you wish to be with is a personal choice YOU make. If you wish to bow down to societies rules and boundaries that is your choice and there are many reasons for doing so, not in the least the restrictions governments place on immigration for spouses/non spouses. It is that sole purpose i am married but i need no piece of paper to tell me who my chosen partner in life is, apparently most people do.

You need noone elses permission nor approval of who you choose as your partner in life, gay or otherwise...... end of.

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree the "gay community is getting louder and louder in their demands." It annoys me also but they are free to voice their opinions and we should be equally free to voice ours.
I have a problem with them stating that they are not allowed to marry as they are perfectly legal to marry to opposite sex same as every one ells. There is not a holocaust against them as they are free as the next person. They can own property, get married, have children, work at the profession they choose, and no one is stopping them and making them register to some list some where. They are not made to wear badges of some sort. All their limitations are self inflicted. They choose not to get married to a person of the opposite sex, they are totally allowed to do so.

But we aren't equally free nor do we get nearly close media space for much more important issues, thats my problem with them...

I don't have a problem if gay people are getting louder. Given that they used to have to be completely silent it's almost inevitable, and besides, they don't seem a very hateful community. And if you think they've nothing left to complain about, try going to Iran, where they can be hanged.

Hateful or not they are moving attention of society from much more important issues and that alone is terribly selfish especially if you take into account their rights imo are completely protected in every western country.

Well people are getting killed in many countries, large companies are running countries, Americans are bombing countries and bringing down governments for oil, banks are ruining peoples lives. Why are those gays more important than all of the above?

Then why are you bringing Breivik into a discussion about gay marriage?

Well why are you bringing Iran into that discussion?

 

[DeletedUser]

But we aren't equally free nor do we get nearly close media space for much more important issues, thats my problem with them...



Hateful or not they are moving attention of society from much more important issues and that alone is terribly selfish especially if you take into account their rights imo are completely protected in every western country.

Well people are getting killed in many countries, large companies are running countries, Americans are bombing countries and bringing down governments for oil, banks are ruining peoples lives. Why are those gays more important than all of the above?




Well why are you bringing Iran into that discussion?

In connection with the "gay" part of the topic, whereas Breivik has no such connection. See?

As for taking attention from more 'important' issues - there's no objective measure of importance. If something's important to someone they have the right to try to give it as much publicity as they can - end of. I don't have to first protest against world hunger, wars, climate change etc. before I can protest about a dangerous junction near my house. When people don't feel marginalised they don't protest. What are you saying? People shouldn't be selfish? Good luck with that one.

 

[DeletedUser]

In connection with the "gay" part of the topic, whereas Breivik has no such connection. See?

As for taking attention from more 'important' issues - there's no objective measure of importance. If something's important to someone they have the right to try to give it as much publicity as they can - end of. I don't have to first protest against world hunger, wars, climate change etc. before I can protest about a dangerous junction near my house. When people don't feel marginalised they don't protest. What are you saying? People shouldn't be selfish? Good luck with that one.

Regarding gays, Breivik... Fixed, equally pointless as that part with Iran.

There isn't? What a load of crap. Dead people, ruined lives, corporate fascism, wars... All subjects much more important than gay marriage for anyone that has more than one working brain cell. If junction near your house hogs all the media space while people are dying someone should ran you over on that junction several times.
People will be selfish, they shouldn't be dumb and allow themselves to be blinded by pointless issues, and should also try to help anyone else except themselves, at least by not silencing their voice...