The "Same-Sex Marriage" Debate.

• Phunkie wrote on 2010-05-04 02:54

  Quote from Trigger;27693:

  Yes, and I'm also saying that if society changes, so does the definition of "right".

  
  
  I wouldn't tolerate someone's racist remarks about someone else.
  
  That's just wrong.
  
  A few decades ago, they would have been tolerable, however.
  
  
  But nobody ever taught me that racism was right. Likewise, nobody ever taught me that homosexuality was wrong.
  
  So why does religion do it?
  
  It makes me shake my head.
  
  It's all about love, man.
• Mrlucky77 wrote on 2010-05-04 02:55

  Quote from Trigger;27693:

  Yes, and I'm also saying that if society changes, so does the definition of "right".

  
  
  And the norm will be changed, therefore a different society (as in the populace).
• Trigger wrote on 2010-05-04 02:59

  Quote from Phunkie;27696:

  I wouldn't tolerate someone's racist remarks about someone else.
  
  That's just wrong.
  
  A few decades ago, they would have been tolerable, however.

  
  
  So are you in favor of tolerance or are you not? You can't say "I'm a tolerant individual" out one side of your mouth and express intolerance of someone else's beliefs out the other side. That's called hypocrisy. =P
  
  Like I said, if I'm intolerant of you, will you tolerate my intolerance like a more mature, more rational individual? If everyone were tolerant of those intolerant people, eventually they'd either learn to shut up (because no one pays any attention to their views) or change their views to be a little more accepting. If you really wanted to take it to the extreme, you could say that eventually "survival of the fittest" would kick in and the intolerant people would cease to exist altogether (dunno about you but I sure wouldn't want to make babies with someone who hates my lifestyle openly -- fewer intolerant people means fewer children being raised with intolerant viewpoints, which keeps repeating over time until there are none left).
  
  You can't change everyone's beliefs, but you can get them all to be accepting of people with differing beliefs.
• Phunkie wrote on 2010-05-04 03:07
  I am in favor of tolerance, of course. I mean, as much as I hate your beliefs, I'm gonna have to deal it, especially since I can't change them.
  
  But you are right with what you last said:
  
  

  You can't change everyone's beliefs, but you can get them all to be accepting of people with differing beliefs.

  
  
  And I guess that's the best thing anyone can really do.
  
  I don't hate you. I hate what you believe in, but I appreciate your tolerance.
  
  I'm sorry I've overlooked that.
• Criticalxhit wrote on 2010-05-04 03:09

  Quote from Phunkie;27696:

  I wouldn't tolerate someone's racist remarks about someone else.
  
  That's just wrong.
  
  A few decades ago, they would have been tolerable, however.
  
  
  But nobody ever taught me that racism was right. Likewise, nobody ever taught me that homosexuality was wrong.
  
  So why does religion do it?
  
  It makes me shake my head.
  
  It's all about love, man.

  
  
  Like Chocklit was saying earlier (sorry to use you as an example :P), he felt disgusted when he saw the Gay Pride parade; and most people feel the same way inwardly, I would think, because it's unnatural. However, today's society is slowly leaning towards accepting something homosexuality (Chocklit mentioned he feels ashamed for feeling disgusted @ 6). But like Trigger and I both said, God gives you a choice, so "So why does religion do it?" and if you think homosexuality is unnatural is based on faith and morals respectively - and no one but yourself is in the position to change either beliefs.
• Juno wrote on 2010-05-04 03:38

  Quote from Rime:

  By that logic, gay Christians should either renounce their faith or stop being gay. Both choices sound ridiculous.

  
  
  Christians are allowed to sin without renouncing their faith, and no sin is worse than any other sin. Furthermore, we've all sinned. That being said no Christian is any better than any non-Christian. As for how being a gay christian plays out it's kind of an unexplored topic. There's been so much prejudice that few have taken the time to actually find out. As far as I can tell they don't have to pretend to be hetero, but they do have to abstain from gay sex.
  
  

  Quote from Criticalxhit:

  However, there is one popular story... Essentially, an angel visited Job, and when the citizens of Sodom realized that he was accepting Job's hospitalty and staying over, they demanded that they bring out the visitor so that they could rape him, even though they too were men. To make a long story short, everyone but Job's family perished at the hand of God. Unfortunately The wife looked back at the destruction of Sodom (the aforementioned city) and became a "pillar of salt"... but that definitely doesn't apply to nowadays, it more applies to how God feels about about homosexuality.

  
  
  Whooooa there.
  
  That wasn't Job, that was Lot. The account is found in Genesis 19 and the two cities were bound for destruction well before any mention of homosexuality. The angels were visiting as sort of a last chance for the towns; If they found 10 righteous people the destruction would have been stayed. Even if there wasn't any homosexuality going on the end result would have been the same. So...it's misleading to use that to portray how God feels about it.
• Hiccup wrote on 2010-05-04 04:17

  Quote from Trigger;27693:

  Yes, and I'm also saying that if society changes, so does the definition of "right".

  
  
  Society has been changing. In the next 50 years expect Same Sex marriage to be legal across the country and maybe Internationally (or at least starting to be). If "all men are created equal" why are gays discriminated against, they are equally as good/bad as a straight person.
  
  If society starts favoring Same Sex marriage will you change your views on it?
• Haydrian wrote on 2010-05-04 04:30

  Quote from Osayidan;26846:

  I can't say that I agree with marriage, since I consider religion one of the worst inventions of humanity, and marriage is a religious thing.
  I do feel that any consenting bunch of people can be together and do whatever they want together, and that it isn't anyone's business but their own.
  
  If they want to do all the legal stuff, I'd support a civil union as opposed to marriage, since it doesn't involve any sort of religious nonsense. I'd say the same for any couple though, be they hetero or not.

  
  
  This.
  
  To add on...
  
  
  My disclaimer: I'm NOT Christian I am Absurdist. There is a difference.
  
  
  I am against same sex marrage in that marrage is religious. It does in fact mean something different than that of a civil union. To be married is to be joined under God not to sign a piece of paper. As per the base definition of marrage homosexuality in any form whether it be as innocent as bi-curious to flamboyant is an outrage under the eye of God. Thus for a marrage of such a couple is an even greater insult to his name.
  I am not Christian but I will respect their right to believe this.
  
  On the other hand.
  
  A civil union I am all for. If you wish to be bonded by law and change your name with your partner of either gender you should have the right to do so. I however see it to be rather pointless myself. If you truly love someone I see little reason to have to sign a contract for it. Just live and love, who cares about all the excess. I gave my girlfriend a ring as a symbolic gesture that i was hers forever, and we both don't really care if we ever get some shiny piece of paper to prove we're a couple. If we ever choose to do so later down the line then hurrah we'll get some friends together and have a shin-dig and sign the pretty paper then celebrate. There is no need for God interfere with one's right to celebrate one's love for another.
  
  For adoption I see no reason not to allow anyone without a criminal record or severe health problem to do so. Whether they be heterosexual, homosexual, transexual, whatever. If they are a law abiding civil human being they deserve the right to adopt in my mind. There is no level of discrimination that a child raised under a homosexual roof that could not be reached by some other means.
  
  While I may not agree with what most religions state they have the right to do so. To say they don't and that i do is unjust.
  
  
  Honestly they should abolish marriage as the mainstream form of courtship. Other religions get wed in their own special ceremonies some with different terms you just don't hear about them due to the major Christian fundamentals that North America has. We were fall founded by prudes that strictly followed either Catholicism or Christianity and our civilization from those 200+ years has evolved into a division of agnostic beliefs and christian. It would be best for us to remove religion from any form of law. Such things should never have been combined in the first place.
• Axx wrote on 2010-05-04 04:35
  Who knows, unless a major backlash occurs against the 'progression of liberal society' (I don't want to use that term, as it has positive connotations and the 'converse' side carries negative connotations, when I really want to express the same idea but where both sides have completely neutral connotations, but there exists no suitable term to do so....continuing on)
  [COLOR=Black]
  a a few hundred years from now there may be no such things as a 'family' as children are raised communally (basically everybody raises everybody's kids together), thereby eliminating any need for existing relationship structures. The 'free love' movement of the what...60-70-80's, whichever one, comes to mind.[/COLOR]
• Kyouria wrote on 2010-05-04 04:38
  ^ Whoa LOL, I'm reading a book in English: Brave New World where "everyone belongs to everyone else" (promiscuity).. Satirical piece but anyways--
  
  

  Quote from Osayidan;26846:

  I can't say that I agree with marriage, since I consider religion one of the worst inventions of humanity, and marriage is a religious thing.
  I do feel that any consenting bunch of people can be together and do whatever they want together, and that it isn't anyone's business but their own.
  
  If they want to do all the legal stuff, I'd support a civil union as opposed to marriage, since it doesn't involve any sort of religious nonsense. I'd say the same for any couple though, be they hetero or not.

  
  I remember my friend once said marriage was an economic union. In that case, I don't see why same-sex couples can't get 'married'. Or a civil union, as you put it.
  
  As much as I'm not against same-sex marriage, I would say I'm against same-sex couples raising kids.. The debate on same-sex marriage leads to more debates concerning their kids, location of the marriage (as I've heard some same-sex couples want to get married in churches), etc. @.@
• Phunkie wrote on 2010-05-04 05:05
  People, there are such things are civil marriages. You go to City Hall or something and get married.
  
  You are legally wed there. In the eyes of the law, not God.
  
  If we can have legal marriages and religious marriages, we can have legal gay marriages.
  
  I don't care if I'm not married in the eyes of God. I just want my title: "married." Not "united" (civil union).
  
  
  The hell?
  
  Religion doesn't own marriage.
• Justified wrote on 2010-05-04 07:16

  Quote from Trigger;27647:

  God did give us free will, the capacity to make our own choices as we please. JUST BECAUSE WE CAN CHOOSE TO DO SOMETHING DOES NOT MEAN WE SHOULD.
  
  And before someone says "but whatever is normal should be accepted", let me remind you that society itself is abnormal. It is an invention of humanity to prevent people from doing whatever they feel like doing and promote personal safety. It is intended to bring equality to humans instead of forcing us to live by "survival of the fittest" (which is truly "normal").

  
  
  It can be argued that the social contract is indeed natural. It's natural to want to look out for oneself, and the collaboration to build a governed society greatly increases a person's safety and productivity. More protection and more luxuries, it's an obvious choice to take society over a stick and some berries.
  
  I don't get where the "natural things should be accepted" comes in though. Farting is natural, but I certainly don't want everybody running around farting in public.
  
  

  Quote from Phunkie;27683:

  I certainly wish I could control who I felt attracted and at what instance I do, but I can't. Just like you can't. A physical attraction is not something we should condemn. And we should allow people who are in love to get married, same sex included.
  
  We should always support young love and people wanting to get married and wanting to be happy, no?
  
  You can't say one thing, then have exceptions. It's silly.

  
  
  
  I love this 12 year old girl and she loves me. I love my sister. I love both of them, and 5 other women. I want to marry them all, and they all consent to it.
  
  Let me be a pedophile, incestuous, and polyandrous; there's nothing wrong with that. We should always support young love and people wanting to get married and wanting to be happy, no? You can't say one thing, then have exceptions. It's silly.
  
  

  Quote from Trigger;27689:

  What is a moral, anyway? Who says what's right and what's wrong? Are morals inherently based in religion or would there still be a universal right and wrong in the absence of an almighty deity? These are the real questions at the heart of any moral debate, but addressing them would take an entire book (hell, I took a college course on the subject and barely scratched the surface), so I'll refrain from tackling those here.

  
  
  For me, morality would be something like "the action a person should take so that, if everybody chose that same action, the outcome would be desirable." Morals are universal, and we are born with the ability to distinguish right from wrong. Whether or not we follow our morality is another issue. This is a mostly philosophical definition.
  
  In this case, not allowing SSM is immoral. If gays were given the choice to make hetero marriages illegal we wouldn't want them to, and thus we shouldn't do it to them.
  
  Personally, while I don't really approve of homosexuality (probably due to religious influence), I honestly don't care what they do. But, I don't really want to allow gay marriages either, because as stated before, marriages are mostly a religious ritual, and this goes against the religion.
  
  Part of the problem lies in that non-religious people take over religious things and kind of twist them. Look at Christmas and Easter. They are religious holidays that have been adapted and marketed so that even atheists or other non-Christians celebrate it. Traditional marriage is the same way, it's even held in a church and run by a pastor, you can't exactly say it has nothing to do with religion.
• Phunkie wrote on 2010-05-04 07:42

  Quote from Justified;27990:

  I love this 12 year old girl and she loves me. I love my sister. I love both of them, and 5 other women. I want to marry them all, and they all consent to it.
  
  Let me be a pedophile, incestuous, and polyandrous; there's nothing wrong with that. We should always support young love and people wanting to get married and wanting to be happy, no? You can't say one thing, then have exceptions. It's silly.

  
  
  Oh gosh. I feel like people always use these same arguments.
  
  "Oh, you wanna let gays marry? Why not let adults marry kids and have sex with animals too?"
  
  There's a difference.
  
  Marriage has been commonly between two people. In certain parts of the world, men have more than one wife, but that's a different story. Let's keep it between two people. I don't care if it's your sister. You love her? You should be able to marry her. Just know the possible complications in having children.
  
  And I have been saying legally consensual throughout this whole thread. So that throws the pedophilia out the window.
  
  
  You might ask, so why change this religious institution if it's always been between a man and a woman?
  
  Well I'm not trying to change the religious institution.
  
  I don't care if the Church will never marry gays. I just want my government (state or federal) to allow it.
  
  They are the ones who regulate marriage laws, not the Pope, not the Church.
  
  And they have all the power to change them.
  
  
  I think it's unfair to deny marriage to two, legally consenting individuals. Not pedophiles, not polygamists, but two people who love each other and just want to get married.
  
  There should be no exceptions there.
  
  Like I said, religion isn't the sole owner of marriage.
• Cide wrote on 2010-05-04 08:00
  there are a startling amount of logical fallacies, slippery slopes, and homophobia up in this thread, yo.
  
  that being said, if i wanna marry my lady i should damn well be able to but arguing this **** is like beating a dead horse by now. no one is going to change anyone's opinion on it on an internet forum, and especially not on a mabinogi fansite.
  
  silly debate is silly.
  
  edit: spelling is cool
• Justified wrote on 2010-05-04 08:15

  Quote from Phunkie;27997:

  Marriage has been commonly between two people. In certain parts of the world, men have more than one wife, but that's a different story. Let's keep it between two people. I don't care if it's your sister. You love her? You should be able to marry her. Just know the possible complications in having children.
  
  And I have been saying legally consensual throughout this whole thread. So that throws the pedophilia out the window.
  
  I don't care if the Church will never marry gays. I just want my government (state or federal) to allow it.
  
  I think it's unfair to deny marriage to two, legally consenting individuals. Not pedophiles, not polygamists, but two people who love each other and just want to get married.
  
  There should be no exceptions there.

  
  
  Detail helps everything, I can't really argue with you now that you've elaborated your points.
  
  The incest thing was a key thing for me, seeing as how the argument for SSM really does apply for incest as much as they try to deny/ignore it, and yet nobody was willing to take up the stance for that. To me, they're sort of the same thing. Uncommon relationship between two people, both having serious flaws over a traditional couple.
  However, that doesn't answer the question for people who approve of SSM and yet disapprove of incest.
  
  Also, why is polygamy illegal?
  You state that polygamy shouldn't be allowed because it is illegal, but...
  

  the Supreme Court based its rejection of polygamy on the claim that the United States is a Christian nation. In the nineteenth century, it was a legal commonplace to claim that Christianity was part of the common law of the United States. It was only in the past fifty years or so that this claim has been seriously challenged. Today, no court would declare that America is a Christian nation.

  
  
  You said screw religion, so now polygamy should be allowed. Assuming each relationship is consensual, would you now be okay with polygamy?
  If yes, doesn't that mean that the legality of marriage between unique pairings is slightly arbitrary?
  
  Also, interesting tidbit...
  

  William Galston, in Public Matters, notes that the Defense of Marriage Act, which was written to prohibit a federal recognition of same-sex marriages, specifies that legal marriage joins one man and one woman. If the law is challenged successfully, both the man and woman part, and the one and one part, could be rejected.

  
  
  Gruntled Center: Why, Exactly, is Polygamy Illegal?