Ah gay people don't have sex with monkeys. You got it all wrong.sam_the_man said:
I'll give a better example since everyone keeps telling me that about it. How about suicide. Suicide is in my opinion morally wrong and is considered wrong by the government, hence the reason assisted suicide is illegal. Suicide is not hurting anyone but than the person commiting it (in a physical sense). Homosexual acts, like suicide are both wrong in my opinion. Suicide hurts the person commiting it physically, while homosexual acts in my opinion hurt that person spiritually. It doesn't matter if your in my religion or not, in my opinion/belief you are still responsible for his judgement when you die.amrtin77 said:
As I have said before, democracy, nor any another other form of government used works as it is said to on paper. Democracy as I have put before is just a monarchy-of-the-many.
Well then shouldn't they have a right to kill themself?
It was spread from monkeys to humans by open blood contact.
Just want to point one thing out. After the fall of Rome the tribes around it took the Christainity of the western empire and actually punished any homosexuality by death. Homosexuality then became more frequent and was accepted during the Renaissance and flourished. Then as time went by it was looked down upon once again.
The height of homosexuality was the renaissance, not today.
This was more directed at Lights than you because it was just to get the point across that it really is just my values against yours.amrtin77 said:
I think a person who seriously wants to kill themself, seriously needs psychological help. Do they have a 'right'? Perhaps. If a person kills themself, it is obviously a done deal. It isnt infringing on the rights of anyone else. And you can't really say (maybe say, but not enforce), "It is against the law to kill yourself!" If a person attempts and fails, I do believe that person needs medical help.Tipsy said:
Your logic is skewed. To begin with, one can't logically compare suicide to homosexuality in an attempt to revise a prior statement comparing suicide to murder. Suicide is self-murder, your are still comparing homosexuality to murder! I find my comparison of homosexuality to stamp collecting to be a much better analogy (and I admit, I took some serious liberty with that one). Secondly spirituality has no place at the table when one is discussing the law (the real law, not the ones invented by religion), due to the fact that the framers of our constitution saw that when the church and the state are intermingled, governments like the Taliban are the inevitable result.Tipsy said:
The problem is, the institution of marriage, I believe, was religion's business long before the state decided to give (insignificant) legal benefits to married people. If one of the two entity should stay out of marriage, it then should be the State. Furethermore, the few, minor benefits that the State gives do not provide enough ground for you to say that it goes against the secular caracteristic of the state.
You hit the nail right on the head, but it just didn't click in your head. The entire point of switching the example from murder to self-murder (suicide) was because it is going to yourself. My entire argument is based off my religion which you have no doubt seen if you have read very many of my posts. Back to the point, it is my morals/values/opinions against yours. The problem with the example of murder is that it was hurting others, but in the example of suicide, it is not, your are hurting yourself. In my argument, which once again is based off my religion, you (everyone), is still going to be judged by my God when they die whether they like it or not. Suicide is committing a sin which causes physical and spiritual damage, homosexuality is a sin which is hurting you in the spiritual way. It may not be to the same extent, but you hit the nail straight on the head.
I have already addressed how it is impossible to have a state which is not effected by religion and talking about our founding fathers. I have said this to others and I say it to you, read the thread. The last two pages have been repeats of the seven pages before it. Please, read the thread.
The legal benefits are more than enough to give a large edge to the State. Once again, regardless of origin, there is where we are now. The benefits (and title) should not be denied a people because of religious doctrine. Benefits aside, we are talking about a State issued license. The license shouldn't be biased due to religious morals or beliefs.Black~Enthusiasm said:
As I was saying above, this isn't an issue that the majority should be able to decide. That would be like having a vote for Republican or Democratic ideas and whoever won would become the sole party. That isn't fair because of how this country works. That especially wouldn't be fair to the Liberatarians, for there is no chance they would have their values looked into. The same for homosexuals. There is no way, currently, that they will win a popular vote in this. But that doesnt mean they shouldnt be allowed to live out their own beliefs.
I think I'd be great if someone would explicitly state the differences betwen civil and religious unions, where the autority of the government ends and where does the autority of religion beginsm and all the civil benefits given by the State. The discussion would be much clearer then.Lights said:
The State came and interfered with religion to give civil benefits, it is the state who's interfering. Not religion. So, on the inssue of marriage, if one of the two should stop infriging with this institution, it should be the State.
I agree with you on this one, homosexual, hence their number and popularity, do not stand a chance to change things through democracy, for this is one of the 3 dangers that De Tocqueville warned us about concerning democracy : the Dictatorship of the Majority. So it should be up to your republican government.
Actualy, in my case, not only have I sharpened my own arguments on the issue of same-sex marriage, but I've learned tons of things on a wide variety of subjects are related to the main topic. I would hope its the same for you all, even if we didn't managed to convince the other party.But anyway, I am at the point to ignore this thread. There is no possible way for me to convice you. Likewise, it is the same for you. A rather pointless debate. This isn't a creative argument.
You as well as I this will not happen. It isn't feasible nor should happen. We are not a theocracy and secular marriage is a concept that has long since been accepted. In fact, our current marriage system almost holds no similarities to its beginnings. For, according to this logic, divorces shouldn't be allowed. Henry VIII took care of that. Secular marriage is a complete and absolute different institution. Therefore, it does not require religon to validify it. And, in accordance, should not be influenced by ancient religious ideas.Black~Enthusiasm said:
Heh, two 'w00ts' for us. >:O!On a side note,, I am genuinely pleased at how this discussion was carried. Its been nine pages so far, and at the exception of some quasi-vehement exchange in the midle, it went very smootly. Cheers !
That is pure opinion, the government has the right to go wherever it wants as long as the people under the government give the government the right to by passing some sort of law.
One of the few things in this time that I am proud to be an American for is its' stance, and Bush's stance, on topics such as homosexuality and abortion.
Too bad, so sad, check the news. Paul Martin said that he will override the Supreme Court if it orders the church to marry same sex couples, better luck next time.
I really doubt that you did this, but if you did it doesn't matter what they say, it all goes up to the Vatican.
I really don't think you understand what I am saying. I could care less if someone is homosexual, the only thing in this perspective I don't like about them is the actual homosexual act itself.
