Thought on homosexuality and same sex marriage

[Tipsy]

That is not what I said, but you are far to ****ing stupid to continue this with so I think I will just quit before I beat my keyboard to oblivion...

It is exactly what you said, and for atleast the third time, I directly quote you:

However it is not our goverments place to choose one doctrine over another.

From your reasoning I look from your point of view and according to this statement logic dictates that murder should be legalized because it agrees with the church and the government does not have the right to pick between doctrines. Once again, if you wish to rebase your argument I will listen.

ok, time for the hammer.

i say im an alien, you say "ok, your probably not, but ill allow you to think you are coz i dont really care and i respect your beliefs"
thats fine. because im nor hurting anything by saying im an alien.

Good so far.

but if i say "i killed her, and she deserved it because she was too fat"
do you still say "i respect your opinion, she deserved to die because thats your opinion and i respect that"

I will still respect your opinion even if it is blatently wrong. As for agreeing with it is a whole other matter. I believe that homosexual marriage hurts the sanctity of marriage in the Roman Catholic sense.

homosexual marraige isnt hurting anyone, so why should someone be able to say "its against my beliefs, they shouldnt be able to do that even though it affects me in NO WAY WHATSOEVER."

It won't hurt anyone, but it will hurt a thing, the sanctity of marriage.

I think we actually got somewhere this post :dance

Anywho, if you are trying to argue for Forge's argument, then I don't see any proof that his argument is valid. If you are just posting regardless of what Forge says just say so. (This is a question, I just phrased it badly)

One more question. If you were a Roman Catholic, believed in God the way I do, do you see how it hurts the sanctity of marriage from how it is not a valid marriage to the church because it is not between a man, a woman, and God?

Edit: Really am sorry bout being harsh last night.

 

[amrtin77]

From your reasoning I look from your point of view and according to this statement logic dictates that murder should be legalized because it agrees with the church and the government does not have the right to pick between doctrines.

heres the problem

logic dictates that murder should be legalized because it agrees with the church

thats the wrong because. it should be illegal because it HURTS people. not because a document says so.

Anywho, if you are trying to argue for Forge's argument, then I don't see any proof that his argument is valid. If you are just posting regardless of what Forge says just say so. (This is a question, I just phrased it badly)

im arguing on my own behalf. im not a puppet.. im simply trying to get you to understand what were both saying any way i can.

I will still respect your opinion even if it is blatently wrong. As for agreeing with it is a whole other matter. I believe that homosexual marriage hurts the sanctity of marriage in the Roman Catholic sense.

which brings us to the origional topic. what gives you the right to stop someone from doing something that affects you in NO way, only because "thats your opinion."

im sorry, thats not strong enough a reason to oppress someone. i could see if gay marraige hurt you in some way. but you simply dont agree with it. it doesnt really hurt anything.

Edit: Really am sorry bout being harsh last night.

its cool. this is a tedious argument.. i lost my temper a few times myself.

 

[Forged]

Religion doesn't hold a monopoly on religious marriage ? Really ? and how is that so ? And is it because a handfull of rogue churches decided that they didn't whanted to follow the bible to the letterthat it mean the whole view point of the religion, as awhole, should be changed ?

I'm saying the goverment shouldn't be partisan to what one religous group says over another... The way a religon deciphers its' text is its' own decisions not the goverments.

From your reasoning I look from your point of view and according to this statement logic dictates that murder should be legalized because it agrees with the church and the government does not have the right to pick between doctrines. Once again, if you wish to rebase your argument I will listen.

Ok let me try thing again...

Religon says murder is wrong
Goverment says murder is wrong

The reason religon says murder is wrong I don't know

The reason Goverment says murder is wrong is that you are infringing on another persons rights. It has nothing to do with religon. If religon did not exist murder would still be illegal because you are infringing on another persons rights.

Marriage on the other hand is a diffrent issue.

A religon has the right to say (in my opinon) I will not marry this person. If it is against that religons moral beliefs so be it. However if another religon that interpruts their holy book diffrentlly steps in and says hey we will marry you then I don't see how the goverment can side with one over the other. The people obviouslly aren't trampling on the sactity of marriage for the religon marrying them, and last I checked marriage was older than christianaity.

 

[B~E]

nonono, the religion doesnt have to change anything. the government does. thats the argument. i dont care what christianity does, i care about what the government does.

-Anyone and anything can marry under the state, because the state is supposed not to care about either your sex, race, orientation and belief.

-But only a men and a women can marry under religion, because of what religion believes in.

-So, if the state vote away the religious caracteristic of marriage because of populare demand, leaving only a civil marriage, im all fine with it, because it will be done through democracy.

Well, actualy, no, I wont be fine with it, because we will have lost a century old institution, but whatcha gonna do, the people will have spoken...

the church can marry whoever they want, and no legal benifits will follow. but the state must recognize you as married to give you benifits. so the STATE, not the church, is who must change their beliefs. and the state is supposed to be secular as it is. so where exactly is the problem? no one is forcing the church to do anything at all. they dont have to marry anyone they dont want to, the state will.

please tell me your understanding me. i know your not at thick as tipsy -.-

In the US, the state can already marry homosexual, right ? Anyway, here in Canada, it does, and im fine with that.

 

[amrtin77]

goddamn your good... wow be you posted fast. i was talkin to forged, lemme reply to you now.

edit again

forged beat me to it.

the problem is that the government CANT marry anyone legally. and religions are stopping the government from marrying homosexuals because its against their religious beliefs.

religion is pushing itself on government, not the other way around BE. i think your argument is based on a misunderstanding.

 

[Forged]

In the US, the state can already marry homosexual, right

No, they can't.

 

[B~E]

I'm saying the goverment shouldn't be partisan to what one religous group says over another... The way a religon deciphers its' text is its' own decisions not the goverments.

I'd tend to agree with you, but... well, its not because a state is secular that it can't take a side on a religious issue, because the people who are ruling that state are already partisant to a religion.
So to say that the state is secular is false, because the state is supposed to do whatever the majority of the people wants, and they whant the preserve the religious caracteristic of marriage....

Ok let me try thing again...

hehe

 

[B~E]

the problem is that the government CANT marry anyone legally. and religions are stopping the government from marrying homosexuals because its against their religious beliefs.

religion is pushing itself on government, not the other way around BE. i think your argument is based on a misunderstanding.

Oh, it is the case in canada, so I naturaly assumed that it was also the case in the USA, sorry...

 

[Forged]

They can be as partisan as they want, but last I checked the people where not allowed to decide on civil rights issues, if they were we would still have segregation... We have a constituion and bill of rights that must be upheld no matter what.

 

[amrtin77]

you have to give people as much freedom as possible while still protecting them from themselves... our democracy isnt so radical as it may be made out to be.

Oh, it is the case in canada, so I naturaly assumed that it was also the case in the USA, sorry...

i agree with canadian laws when it comes to social rights more than americas alot of the time..

 

[B~E]

They can be as partisan as they want, but last I checked the people where not allowed to decide on civil rights issues, if they were we would still have segregation... We have a constituion and bill of rights that must be upheld no matter what.

But if citizens arent allowed to decide on civil rights issues, what is the political force behinde this whole same-sex marriage thing ? Who's pushing it around ?

EDIT : longest topic of the forum so far, and not much of what could be called flames yet. Thats good. =)

 

[amrtin77]

they can decide, but they decide WITHIN the limits of our constitution. if ABSOLUTELY needed, we can amend our constitution. but our constitution is the framework of our country, every law passed MUST be constitutional.

and the constitution states that the government must be secular so that this shit doesnt happen and we dont turn into a theocracy.

are you starting to turn to the dark side BE...?

 

[Forged]

you would think our supreme court, but...

if citizens arent allowed to decide on civil rights issues

That was badly worded on my part. They should not be able to decide on civil rights issues, the rights of the few outway the wants of the many.

 

[Lights]

I have no idea why the church would bless this marraige.

This is where your problem is. I dont give two shits about any church blessing on any marriage. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about a State issued marriage. A State that is separated from the Church. A marriage that cannot allow religious bias to dictate who can and cannot be married. There are already laws in place that say who can and cannot be married. Yet, two consenting adults should be allowed to decide for themselves if they wish to marry.

I respect your opinion that gays shouldn't be married. That's great. I respect that a large number of people in America, perhaps even the majority in America, think that gays shouldnt marry. To each his own. However, I am rather certain that the large majority in America believes that old Thelma shouldn't eat off of her dirty floor. Yet, it is not their place to say that she is not allowed to. This is America and its citizens have freedom, and that includes freedom from religion (ironically, one of the major reasons why the colonists came here). If two gays want to marry, I am happy for them, that is theirs and theirs alone choice to make.

The gay ammendment should never have even made it to a place where people could vote for it. It is a ridiculous notion. That is not liberty at work. Freedom for every man, no matter race, gender, background, or sexual orientation; so long as the rights of others are not infringed. THAT is what the government is here to do, to protect, not use such abusive power.

 

[Tipsy]

thats the wrong because. it should be illegal because it HURTS people. not because a document says so.

This statement was based on the logic of Forged argument's base. I agree with you 100%, but according to the logic of Forge's argument's base it should be legal.

which brings us to the origional topic. what gives you the right to stop someone from doing something that affects you in NO way, only because "thats your opinion."

Back to where we were two pages ago :loopy

im sorry, thats not strong enough a reason to oppress someone. i could see if gay marraige hurt you in some way. but you simply dont agree with it. it doesnt really hurt anything.

Gay marriage does not hurt anyone, but it does hurt something. It hurts the Roman Catholic understanding of the sacrament of marriage.

I'm saying the goverment shouldn't be partisan to what one religous group says over another... The way a religon deciphers its' text is its' own decisions not the goverments.

How can a government not be partisan when their theistic views effect many of the things you do, whether you're an athiest of a theist.

Ok let me try thing again...

Religon says murder is wrong
Goverment says murder is wrong

The reason religon says murder is wrong I don't know

The reason Goverment says murder is wrong is that you are infringing on another persons rights. It has nothing to do with religon. If religon did not exist murder would still be illegal because you are infringing on another persons rights.

I still don't see how the government is not choosing from church doctrine considering it has been around since those commandments came down on Mt.Sinai. It does not matter why the government says it is wrong with this, the argument is that your argument's base is flawed.

Marriage on the other hand is a diffrent issue.

A religon has the right to say (in my opinon) I will not marry this person. If it is against that religons moral beliefs so be it. However if another religon that interpruts their holy book diffrentlly steps in and says hey we will marry you then I don't see how the goverment can side with one over the other. The people obviouslly aren't trampling on the sactity of marriage for the religon marrying them, and last I checked marriage was older than christianaity.

Just to point this out. Marriage's first records are in 2500 BC when women in nomadic Hebrew tribes entered short term marriages with men of other tribes. Marriage was first used by the Hebrews and then spread throughout the world. The Hebrews are considered to be the ancestors of Christainity, as it is implied by the Hebrew Scriptures being in the bible, (aka the OT). Marriage then developed from that into the marriage similar to what is seen today (except theirs was more stable). Marriage continued developing as the Hebrews became the Jews, and then Christainity was made from Judaism. So if you follow all of that, it is accepted by historian today that marriage was created by the Hebrews. So if you follow all of this, marriage is a Christain, Islamic, and Jewish created thing. All three of these religions have the same patriarch.

As for the government choosing who to be able to marry and who not to marry, the founding fathers found the United States on Christain values and from their writing you can see that they assumed that the values would stay with the United States even in this time.

As for trampling over the sanctity of the sacrament of marriage, for this you have to look at it through the eyes of the party you are arguing against.

They can be as partisan as they want, but last I checked the people where not allowed to decide on civil rights issues, if they were we would still have segregation... We have a constituion and bill of rights that must be upheld no matter what.

They can be partisan if they ignore all of their beliefs/morals/values/opinions whether they are religious or not. Last time I checked that is a hard thing to do.

Edit: Quoted wrong person (sry Lights)

 

[Forged]

This statement was based on the logic of Forged argument's base. I agree with you 100%, but according to the logic of Forge's argument's base it should be legal.

You must just be pretending to not understand what I said, I explained it in the most detail I possiblly could. Murder has nothing to do with religon, nothing to do with a religous doctrine at all other than some say it is bad...

 

[Lights]

So do you think that the law that says that you have to be 18 to be married should be abolished? (One example of many)

Uhh.. there is no such law. Persons under 18 can be married with parental consent. And, no, I do not think that should be abolished. I am not quite certain where this question came from.. An example of what, might I ask?

 

[Forged]

I think it is an example of him not understanding adult consent.

 

[l33t 0n3]

Since when could you be legally[/b] married under 18? There's "for fun" fake marrages, but they're not legally binding. I personally think that legalizing ga marrage would deface marrage itself, and turn it into a joke. Nothing more for me to say about it, really.

 

[Forged]

There's "for fun" fake marrages

Your parents can let you marry whenever they want.