Any Dudes Wanna Get Married?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Thunderbolt hits himself another homer here. There is no meaningful correlation between race and homosexuality whatsoever, regardless of what some very wrong people attempted to say in the past. One is a morally neutral state of self and one is THE most morally charged of all human issues.

ZEB is correct here too. I go to a Christian church full of black people where the people I love most in all this world are and know some interracial couples there. Go ahead n tell them that their godly union is the moral equivalent of elder forlife and his “partner”. You may be shortly introduced to the ministry of the laying on of hands =] (jist kiddin) You would however get a very sound biblical exposition on the matter. My very black pastor has denounced this argument many times from the pulpit.[/quote]

And, again, I would say, why does religion have to be brought in to this? Homosexuality happens. It’s genetic. Heterosexual people create and give birth to them. If homosexuality wasn’t supposed to exist, then it wouldn’t happen since your God wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah. If your God had done it the right way the first time, we wouldn’t still have this “problem”, would we?[/quote]

Pedophilia “happens,” too.

I am NOT equating the two, but your argument certainly does not seem to allow for the distinction.
[/quote]

Yes, but that is a crime against someone who does not have the understanding of what is going on or the ability to say yes or no (which makes the answer automatically NO). Homosexuality is done between consenting adults who know what’s going on. Yes, homosexuality used to be a crime and I think still is in some jurisdictions that have all those old laws on the books, but again, it’s done between consenting adults. [/quote]

I think NYC still has sodomy laws. Gonna be interesting if it is.

162

[quote]therajraj wrote:
So is there a valid non-religious argument against gay marriage?

I haven’t seen one presented in this thread yet.

EDIT: If we re-name gay marriage to shmarriage (since marriage is a heterosexual union) is there any other non-religious reason to withhold these rights?[/quote]

Yes, economical. It will force small businesses to have higher over head they didn’t agree to.

163

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
And, again, I would say, why does religion have to be brought in to this?
[/quote]
Because marriage has been historically a religious institution. A better question is why did the State butt into the marriage business.

[quote]
Homosexuality happens. It’s genetic. [/quote]

Maybe. But then, maybe alcoholism, pedophilia, and breast cancer is genetic, too. Genetic does not mean “good.”

[quote]
If homosexuality wasn’t supposed to exist, then it wouldn’t happen since your G-d wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah. If your God had done it the right way the first time, we wouldn’t still have this “problem”, would we?[/quote]

G-d lets lots of bad things happen. People have lots of explanations why. I defer to G-d’s answer to Job, which was “where were you when I created the Heavans and the Earth.”

In short, His ways are way above our pay scale

(Also, G-d made no pretense of whiping out ALL homosexuals in S&G. There were lots and lots of things wrong in S&G.)[/quote]

The State butts in because there are legal issues that arise when one person dies. Who gets their pension benefits? What about medical insurance? What about any children? How are they protected? The State HAS to butt in. Marriages were never about religion in the past. It was about what the woman could bring to the man in her dowry and what the father could sell her to the man for in recompense. It was never about religion. It was to align families, lands, money. NOT religion.[/quote]

Done within religion. Everything was religion.

164

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

No, they want the SAME rights. Why can’t a gay couple have the same rights as a straight couple? [/quote]

Because marriage is between a man and a woman. People of the same sex getting ‘married’ is not marriage, just by definition.
[/quote]

So, it doesn’t have anything to do with the fact the majority of opponents cite the Bible as the reason? It’s just the definition of marriage that is the problem? BULLSHIT. If it was just the definition, we could just change it, add to it. No, this is a purely religious problem. Religion has taken over marriage and want to claim it all to itself. Marriage is not a religious institution, it’s been taken over by religion. It’s a legal institution, pure and simple. And because some people are religiously against homosexuals they are stopping people from having the same rights they do. It’s the religious community discriminating against outsiders…like always. [/quote]

Well, we can cite Aristotle if you want, or Plato, or any number of philosophers, but there will be something that you’ll find fault at with it. So, I’ll just state that it is unnatural, because the all or almost all of the world’s societies, cultures, and religions never elevated gay relationships to the level of marriage or the bond between man and woman. Ergo, unnatural and as Aristotle pointed out, what is unnatural is immoral. :slight_smile:

165

The bigots in the house!

166

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Well, we can cite Aristotle if you want, or Plato, or any number of philosophers, but there will be something that you’ll find fault at with it. So, I’ll just state that it is unnatural, because the all or almost all of the world’s societies, cultures, and religions never elevated gay relationships to the level of marriage or the bond between man and woman. Ergo, unnatural and as Aristotle pointed out, what is unnatural is immoral. :)[/quote]

That Aristotle said it does not make it so. The genetic mutations responsible for evolution are “unnatural”, and they produced humanity. Swimming pools filled with chocolate ice cream are unnatural, and fucking awesome.

The flip side would be that, since homosexuality exists, it is natural.

167

[quote]smh23 wrote:
genetic mutations[/quote]

Bad analogy.

That doesn’t make sense, because something exists doesn’t make it natural, what is exist in all or almost all is what is natural. :slight_smile:

168

Tirib, let me focus on this part of your statement:

“Gay marriage is simply a natural step in devaluing THE single component that most accounted for our rise and is now the direct cause of our fall. Gays can do what they want. I will not be kicking their doors down, but DO NOT attempt to sell that to me as marriage or a family.”

It sounds like you don’t have a problem with gays per se. I mean, unlike those folks at Westboro Baptist, you’re not looking to round up gays and put them in prison. I’m guessing you probably don’t care if gay couples buy houses together, live together, make medical decisions for one another, and inherit property when one partner passes away. You have a problem with attaching the word “marriage” and “family” to such relationships. Is that right?

169

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
And, again, I would say, why does religion have to be brought in to this?
[/quote]
Because marriage has been historically a religious institution. A better question is why did the State butt into the marriage business.

[quote]
Homosexuality happens. It’s genetic. [/quote]

Maybe. But then, maybe alcoholism, pedophilia, and breast cancer is genetic, too. Genetic does not mean “good.”

[quote]
If homosexuality wasn’t supposed to exist, then it wouldn’t happen since your G-d wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah. If your God had done it the right way the first time, we wouldn’t still have this “problem”, would we?[/quote]

G-d lets lots of bad things happen. People have lots of explanations why. I defer to G-d’s answer to Job, which was “where were you when I created the Heavans and the Earth.”

In short, His ways are way above our pay scale

(Also, G-d made no pretense of whiping out ALL homosexuals in S&G. There were lots and lots of things wrong in S&G.)[/quote]

The State butts in because there are legal issues that arise when one person dies. Who gets their pension benefits? What about medical insurance? What about any children? How are they protected? The State HAS to butt in. Marriages were never about religion in the past. It was about what the woman could bring to the man in her dowry and what the father could sell her to the man for in recompense. It was never about religion. It was to align families, lands, money. NOT religion.[/quote]

Done within religion. Everything was religion.[/quote]

What came first: the legal relationship or religion? I would argue that the legal relationship came first and religion got involved as a convenient enforcement mechanism to appease the wealthy and keep them coming and contributing to the local cathedral.

A young, handsome son of a wealthy landowner is told he must marry his troll of a cousin who is 15 years older than he is because her family has land.

Son: “Gee, dad, what if I don’t like being married to her and want to marry someone else?”

Wealthy Landowner: “Son, I’ll let the good priest here explain it.”

Priest: “Sorry young man, the church says that if you divorce her or cheat on her you’ll go to hell.”

Son: “Oh. Guess I better stay married to her, then.”

Landowner to Priest: “Thanks for your help, padre. I’ll be sure to place a little something extra in the collection plate this Sunday.”

Yes, my little scene contains language that is anachronistic for Medieval times, but I’ll bet that such conversations took place more than once in Medieval Europe.

170

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Tirib, let me focus on this part of your statement:
“Gay marriage is simply a natural step in devaluing THE single component that most accounted for our rise and is now the direct cause of our fall. Gays can do what they want. I will not be kicking their doors down, but DO NOT attempt to sell that to me as marriage or a family.”

It sounds like you don’t have a problem with gays per se. >>>[/quote]Follow me please. According to the Word of God it is an abomination. A damnable perversion of the created order of the holy designer. Therefore I abhor the practice accordingly as one who proclaims Jesus as my Lord. HOWEVER, my life before Christ was also a damnable abomination and I regularly committed acts of all kinds that should have bought me a one way ticket to the lake of fire. It is only by the unsearchable grace of a merciful God that I type this as a new creature in Christ having been transformed by the power of His blood and resurrection. I am not allowed to hate or self righteously condescend to ANYBODY.

Take elder forlife as an example. I honestly and truly pray for him AND his “partner”. He may not know or believe this, but I have invested myself in him. I care about him. I want him as my brother. How can that ever be if somebody were to round him up and kill him? That’s not what I want. This is not theocratic Israel. One strike and you’re out. I should have been struck dead where I stood ten thousand times. How am I gonna put my nose in the air and cringe and wince at the “filthy fag and his homo boyfriend”? No sir. To me he’s just another lost man who needs Jesus. My hand is always out to him. [quote]MikeTheBear wrote:<<< I mean, unlike those folks at Westboro Baptist, you’re not looking to round up gays and put them in prison. >>>[/quote]Phelps and his Westboro crew are traitors to the very gospel of grace they claim to preach. They do not know their own sin and it is that that produces their anti-Christian holier than thou hatred. [quote]MikeTheBear wrote:I’m guessing you probably don’t care if gay couples buy houses together, live together, make medical decisions for one another, and inherit property when one partner passes away. You have a problem with attaching the word “marriage” and “family” to such relationships. Is that right? >>>[/quote] As I said. I have a major problem with homosexuality period. My purpose in their regard on this planet though is to reflect to them the everlasting lovingkindness shown to me. As I read the scriptures, that purpose is not served by unduly suffocating their lives. I would like it if nobody was gay, but being that some are, I’m not going to be the one to tell otherwise peaceable citizens who can legally do what within the context of their private life. I will however never relent from calling them to repentance and declaring their lifestyle the horrific sin that it is.

Lastly for now, NO NO NO a thousand times NO!!! Making homosexuality marriage and or family is as I say, another indicative of a society that has clearly lost it’s way and is not long for this world in anything like it’s historical stature. To sum up? I would enter a burning building to drag elder forlife to safety. I really would (as I’m preaching the gospel to him even if he was unconscious =] ) That is not just talk and I would not be sorry I did even if he told to f**k off after I saved his life. The Lord loved me and did not give up on me long after I had given up on myself. How can I give anybody else less? Homosexuality is still a capitol crime before the throne of the most high God and I will never dare call it anything else or accept it’s being given social status reserved for a man, his female wife and their children. Many will write me off (again) as an anachronistic fanatical religious antique best put away in an attic somewhere. I couldn’t care less.

171

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
So is there a valid non-religious argument against gay marriage?

I haven’t seen one presented in this thread yet.

EDIT: If we re-name gay marriage to shmarriage (since marriage is a heterosexual union) is there any other non-religious reason to withhold these rights?[/quote]

Yes, economical. It will force small businesses to have higher over head they didn’t agree to.[/quote]

Care to elaborate?

Even if the net economic effect is negative (which I’m not conceding it is) it’s still not good enough reason to deny people certain rights.

172

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Phelps and his Westboro crew are traitors to the very gospel of grace they claim to preach. They do not know their own sin and it is that that produces their anti-Christian holier than thou hatred. [/quote]

You can take any single disfavorable trait in society and lift it up as the cause of most or all evil that exists in society. I would like to lift up this Westboro stuff, why do I know about them in the first place? Why report it, do they have something meaningful to say?
If the 60’s hadn’t happened in the 60’s, it would happen now, in the era of “communication”. It’s kind of sad that a political forum on the website of a company manufacturing supplements is one of the few interesting places on the net. Seems more like a refuge to me. Mankind wont be able to handle the amount of mental crap it produces.

I’m not in any way targeting your posts, tirib, but it was just a couple of days ago when I wondered why am I told what Westbro baptists think about this Jackass dudes drunken driving and death?

Ja ja, it’s an inbuilt flaw in humankind, indulgence. I guess it’s the only thing common for us who inhabit this forum, to at least try to control it. By more indulgence in opposite direction :confused:

173

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
So is there a valid non-religious argument against gay marriage?

I haven’t seen one presented in this thread yet.

EDIT: If we re-name gay marriage to shmarriage (since marriage is a heterosexual union) is there any other non-religious reason to withhold these rights?[/quote]

Yes, economical. It will force small businesses to have higher over head they didn’t agree to.[/quote]

Care to elaborate?

Even if the net economic effect is negative (which I’m not conceding it is) it’s still not good enough reason to deny people certain rights.[/quote]

There is legal discrimination which goes on every day and everyone is fine with it. For example, I cannot join the Marines because I am too old. It matters not that I would ace the fitness test. One cannot drink until they are 21 years of age. The list is endless. Marriage is between one man and one woman. The social liberals who are successfully tinkering with this will have limited success. Changing a 5000 year old institution for far less than 1% of the population (The number of gays that actually care) is absolutely foolish! It epitomizes what the politically correct do, that is they want to force the majority to bend to the whims of a few.

And while some of the liberal states have gone this way, I don’t think the vast majority of states where sanity rules (what can we expect from states like NY, CA or VT?) will vote this nonsense into law. I hope the homosexuals enjoy their victory in New York because that will be one of the last states to accept homosexuals getting “married”.

174

Ok, I’ll repost the question (and context), and let’s - for once - have a good, honest answer:

[i]And, of course, I always offer this up, but gay marriage advocates always shrink away from it - if gay marriage is the equivalent to the Civil Rights issue of inter-racial marriage, then ipso facto that must mean that opponents to gay marriage are the moral equivalent to opponents of inter-racial marriage during the Civil Rights movement.

Okey dokey, well, then - the black community overwhelmingly disapproves of gay marriage. So, of course, based on the above, that means that black Americans are the moral equivalent to those that opposed inter-racial marriage. They have to be. They are the modern KKK on this issue.

So, why won’t gay marriage advocates just come up and say this to black Americans?[/i]

C’mon, enough whistling past the issue. Let’s call a bigot a bigot.

Let’s go, gay marriage advocates. Time’s wasting. If gays who can’t marry are “victims”, then the most sizeable chunk of “oppressors” come from the African American community.

Let’s have it. Surely, armed with The Truth ™, you are perfectly comfortable calling out these modern versions of Bull Connors and Klansmen?

175

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

No, they want the SAME rights. Why can’t a gay couple have the same rights as a straight couple? [/quote]

Because marriage is between a man and a woman. People of the same sex getting ‘married’ is not marriage, just by definition.
[/quote]

So, it doesn’t have anything to do with the fact the majority of opponents cite the Bible as the reason? It’s just the definition of marriage that is the problem? BULLSHIT. If it was just the definition, we could just change it, add to it. No, this is a purely religious problem. Religion has taken over marriage and want to claim it all to itself. Marriage is not a religious institution, it’s been taken over by religion. It’s a legal institution, pure and simple. And because some people are religiously against homosexuals they are stopping people from having the same rights they do. It’s the religious community discriminating against outsiders…like always. [/quote]

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Its ours. Go form your own club. Shit in your own yard. America is a heterosexual country. If you want the benefit of living here, then we have rules – think of us as the mom and dad, junior, and ‘here are the house rules’.

If you want to be a homosexual pervert, fine, go ahead. But if you break the house rules, you won’t get any support from us…and you can GTFO to Netherlands or some other homo haven.

176

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Thunderbolt hits himself another homer here. There is no meaningful correlation between race and homosexuality whatsoever, regardless of what some very wrong people attempted to say in the past. One is a morally neutral state of self and one is THE most morally charged of all human issues.

ZEB is correct here too. I go to a Christian church full of black people where the people I love most in all this world are and know some interracial couples there. Go ahead n tell them that their godly union is the moral equivalent of elder forlife and his “partner”. You may be shortly introduced to the ministry of the laying on of hands =] (jist kiddin) You would however get a very sound biblical exposition on the matter. My very black pastor has denounced this argument many times from the pulpit.[/quote]

What you’re not getting is that RACE WAS A MORAL ISSUE, JUST LIKE SEXUAL ORIENTATION CURRENTLY IS A MORAL ISSUE, for bigoted believers who used their bible to rationalize their discrimination.

You are NO DIFFERENT than the believers of the last generation in that regard. The target of your discrimination has changed, but the REASONS for discriminating are the same. They quoted the bible, bemoaned the imminent fall of society, and called people to repentance just like you are doing here.

177

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
IMHO Gay marriage is wrong. IT should be called something else…like same sex union. Because it will never, ever in a million years be marriage by definition. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Give em rights all day long, but to disgrace the meaning of marriage is unacceptable. [/quote]

I couldn’t care less what you call it. I just want equal legal rights with my partner.[/quote]

You have equal rights already. Each of us have the option of marrying any women who will say yes. That is EQUAL rights. What you want are special rights. [/quote]

No, no he doesn’t. In a hospital situation, he does not have the right to be with his partner or make choices for him if the partner is incapacitated. They will go to his IMMEDIATE family, which would be the partner’s parents. A heterosexual’s IMMEDIATE family is considered their spouse, which he would not be considered. He’s just a lover or a partner. The word “spouse” has a lot more power than those words. That is not equal rights.
[/quote]

This is easily fixed with a medical power of attorney. Technically, even a spouse needs a medical POA because a medical professional cannot assume that the non-hospitalized spouse is competent to make decision. However, in practice, yes, they will go to the spouse even without a POA.[/quote]

And that’s where the discrimination occurs, in this case by placing an undue burden on gay couples over what is required of straight couples. A friend of mine was with his partner for 25 years and had medical power of attorney. But because they didn’t grab the documentation in the middle of his partner’s heart attack, my friend wasn’t allowed to visit his partner on his death bed until the parents arrived and granted permission.[/quote]

And this is the stuff I’m talking about when I say that civil marriage only grants rights. Gay marriage won’t suddenly allow one gay partner to make medical decisions for another partner, possibly against the wishes of the partner’s family, because this is already allowed provided that a POA is in place. A civil union/marriage just makes this a bit easier in emergency situations. I don’t see society crumbling because gay partners will be recognized as having the right to make medical decisions for each other, among other things.[/quote]

What about immigration rights, joint filing of tax returns, social security survivorship benefits, and a host of other rights than are entailed in marriage?

178

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:<<< So is there a valid non-religious argument against gay marriage? >>>[/quote]The religious reasons were the ones that set the trajectory of this nation while she was on her unprecedented meteoric ascent and its the abandonment of those very reasons that is as I type this ushering in our bloodless demise. You can line up egg headed bookworms, studies in hand from my front door to the Ambassador Bridge. Nothing, I MEAN NOTHING will dissuade me from what I see right in front of my face pounding me in the forehead. I gave my reasons already.
[/quote]

Those same religious reasons allowed the founding fathers to own slaves. Maybe they’re not as pristine as you seem to believe.

179

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

No, they want the SAME rights. Why can’t a gay couple have the same rights as a straight couple? [/quote]

Because marriage is between a man and a woman. People of the same sex getting ‘married’ is not marriage, just by definition.
[/quote]

So, it doesn’t have anything to do with the fact the majority of opponents cite the Bible as the reason? It’s just the definition of marriage that is the problem? BULLSHIT. If it was just the definition, we could just change it, add to it. No, this is a purely religious problem. Religion has taken over marriage and want to claim it all to itself. Marriage is not a religious institution, it’s been taken over by religion. It’s a legal institution, pure and simple. And because some people are religiously against homosexuals they are stopping people from having the same rights they do. It’s the religious community discriminating against outsiders…like always. [/quote]

Well, we can cite Aristotle if you want, or Plato, or any number of philosophers, but there will be something that you’ll find fault at with it. So, I’ll just state that it is unnatural, because the all or almost all of the world’s societies, cultures, and religions never elevated gay relationships to the level of marriage or the bond between man and woman. Ergo, unnatural and as Aristotle pointed out, what is unnatural is immoral. :)[/quote]

Catholic priests choosing celibacy is unnatural. Therefore, Catholic priests are immoral.

180

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
The State butts in because there are legal issues that arise when one person dies. Who gets their pension benefits? What about medical insurance? What about any children? How are they protected? [/quote]

Actually, until 150 years or so, this was all taken care of by courts of chancery, or religious courts.

[quote]
"The State HAS to butt in. [/quote]

The answer to flawed governmental interferance is never more governmental interferance.

[quote]
Marriages were never about religion in the past. It was about what the woman could bring to the man in her dowry and what the father could sell her to the man for in recompense. It was never about religion. It was to align families, lands, money. NOT religion.[/quote]

Maybe if you were king. Me? My family were peasants, forbidden to own land. Bet yours were, too.

In reality, it was 100% the religious institution.

The way it worked were the ladies in the Church (or Shul or whatever) would gossip and make a match. Go watch Fiddler on the Roof.

The State was not involved, at all.

The State starting getting involved with the industrial revolution and mobile serfs and modern militaries wanting to track people.