HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
When I said Christian morality I was implying the morality that results from the teachings of Christ, and hence what Christians should be exercising. The Old Testament histories that you are thinking of are not meant to be followed, but are examples of what not to do.
What I should have said was whether or not you are a Christian, you cannot deny that the teachings of Christ provide a sound moral foundation for its followers.
Some gay people are weird. They already have "civil unions" which in most, if not all cases are like marriages. Basically, I think gay people are trying to change the definition of marriage to suit their wants while ignoring the whole population.
"Marriage" throughout human history has always been between a man and a woman. Trying to change this definition to allow marriage to be define as between a man and man goes against what a perception of marriage should be... It is wrong. Its like saying the defintion of a "cat" should now be defined to include "fish". Yes, we could start calling a fish a "cat" ... but why? Books and perception has already been created for what a "cat" is....
Marriage has a long tradition. Everyone knows what it suppose to mean. It is revered by most. Some gay folks are trying to piggyback on this term... They should create their own term.. for instance call their "civil unions" "xyz"... in course of due time, if civil unions are truely like "marriages" their word, "xyz" will have the same meaning as marriages... don't co-op the meaning of marriage.
"Marriage" throughout human history has always been between a man and a woman. Trying to change this definition to allow marriage to be define as between a man and man goes against what a perception of marriage should be... It is wrong. Its like saying the defintion of a "cat" should now be defined to include "fish". Yes, we could start calling a fish a "cat" ... but why? Books and perception has already been created for what a "cat" is....
Marriage has a long tradition. Everyone knows what it suppose to mean. It is revered by most. Some gay folks are trying to piggyback on this term... They should create their own term.. for instance call their "civil unions" "xyz"... in course of due time, if civil unions are truely like "marriages" their word, "xyz" will have the same meaning as marriages... don't co-op the meaning of marriage.
pnad
Senior member
- May 23, 2006
- 405
- 1
- 0
Lots of people don't like SUVs so they buy small cars.
Lots of people don't like meat so they eat veggies.
Lots of people don't like cold weather so they move south.
If you don't like mansex, don't marry a man.
Does the idea of men kissing in public disgust you? Seeing fat people eat disgusts me. Just because it is legal doesn't mean you have to like or accept it. You are free to ignore your gay neighbors. You are free to disown your gay children.
Someone's Mom I know said this, "We shouldn't allow gays to marry because it will keep God out of the bedroom." I responded, "Most gays don't have God in the bedroom already." I started to laugh inside after she didn't respond. It's crazy what a Baptist church will do to some people.
SarcasticDwarf
Diamond Member
- Jun 8, 2001
- 9,574
- 1
- 76
You misunderstand the history of marriage. Initially, marriage (man/woman) was something done strictly by religious institutions. It was not until later that governments started defining rights that accompanied it. Therefore, the rights are completely seperate from the religious aspect, hence "civil unions". The government has every right to grant those rights to other types of couples since the rights themselves are not a part of the religious aspect.
By the way, if we let gays marry gays, blacks might be able to marry whites. We can't have this.
Ryan
Lifer
- Oct 31, 2000
- 27,519
- 2
- 81
If the definition was so clear and evident to everyone as you are saying, then why are we even having this discussion?!!? Also - they don't have unions. I really can't stand when people argue over the semantics of the situations - calling it a union or marriage is not the crux of the debate, it's whether a certain group should be afforded those rights. Call it what you want, when they share the same rights, it's the same damned thing.
Now - about the definition. You do know that at one time interracial marriages were illegal in the majority of the country? By your standards, isn't a definition of marriage being between two people of the same race contradictory to what is accepted today? Has the definition of marriage always been constant?
I don't understand why people need to use one person's guidance on morality from 2000 years ago. Use your own intelligence and experience and use your own morality. Not some outdated book. Why does someone else need to tell you what your morals should be based on life 2000 years ago?
Do you need a book from 2000 years ago to tell you that killing, stealing, and breaking your marriage oath is a bad thing? Morality is something that is completely logical. You shouldn't have to quote a 2000 year old book to people to justify your morals.. you should believe in them for your own reasons.. not because some old book tells you to.
People are followers, not leaders... which is why religion works so well. The masses eat it up because they are unwilling/unable to think for themselves. They also feel the need to be "a part of something."
"They already have "civil unions" which in most, if not all cases are like marriages. "
No they don't and that is the problem. Let's see if you know what you are talking about here... tell us how many states offer marriage-like rights in the form of civil unions.
You do not have to be a Christian or Christ follower to "follow" such precepts as "Thou shalt not kill," etc.
Semantics, semantics.
pnad
Senior member
- May 23, 2006
- 405
- 1
- 0
Making same sex marriage legal won't create more gay people. In fact I have a theory that it will create LESS gays. If it turns out that gayness is genetic and can be passed down to your children, wouldn't it be better to NOT force/shame gays into 'normal' heterosexual relationships? They are spreading their evil gay genes!
If you hate the gays, let them marry and darwinism will sort them out.
If you hate the gays, let them marry and darwinism will sort them out.
GTaudiophile
Lifer
- Oct 24, 2000
- 29,776
- 31
- 81
I think if the debate were over Gay Civil Unions it would be far less heated. This is what they call it in Europe.
Marriage = Holy matrimony between man and woman according to Christians.
Marriage = Holy matrimony between man and woman according to Christians.
Wow, great arguement, telling everyone you disagree with they are wrong. Riveting.
How about this, the Bible does imply marriage between a man and a woman is the only accepted pairing, religious organizations (ones that claim the only way to know God's will is through what they decide) took that and used their political influence to make gay marriage illegal in many parts of the country, a direct violation of the seperation between Church and State.
A lot of religious people do hate gays, just like there are non-religious people who hate gays, how can you tell someone this is "wrong"? Use some common sense.
One of the many rationalizations for being against gay marriage IS the "Not being able to procreate" arguement, how are they "wrong"?
There are hundreds if not thousands of religions in this world, are you honestly telling me that not 1 of them allows same sex marriage?
Think before you post, or in your case, try thinking period.
Ryan
Lifer
- Oct 31, 2000
- 27,519
- 2
- 81
I have a feeling that the people who use the sanctity of marriage argument really just cannot accept the fact that two men or women can have a monogamous, happy, healthy, and successful relationship which has many parallels to a traditional marriage. Legitimizing it, and making it equal somehow devalues marriage to them. They use this argument as a ruse to cover their own hatred and nonacceptance of gay people in general, even if they aren't vocal or want to admit to that viewpoint. The vast majority don't want to admit to the decision making - they will blame it on religion or some other unaccountable entity.
Shadow, history has proven that utopian social experiments such Brook Farm, New Harmony, the Rappite Community, the Oneida Community, etc. have all ended miserably due to the nature of man. If given to an existentialistic ideology, men would be left to formulate their own laws and morals based on what they think is right. I believe we all can agree that man is inherently evil, as seen throughout history. What would happen if there were no absolutes to provide a foundation for right and wrong? The conflict between individual dogma of "what is right and wrong" would lead to the demise of society.
Proverbs 21:2
Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.
Proverbs 14:12
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
Yes, I am aware of that. There are Unitarians, Transcendentalists, ____arians/ists/isms, that promote the idea of man being essentially good.
Either way, did you just see the basic truth that every man is right in his own eyes?
pnad
Senior member
- May 23, 2006
- 405
- 1
- 0
Whoa! I just read this article.
What would be the point of a gay support group in school? Wouldn't that basically be a 'hook-up' club? Gay is a SEXUAL preference after all. It seems wrong for young children to be declaring sexual preference because they aren't supposed to be having sex.
At one time I was concerned that being gay was becoming the 'cool' thing to do. More and more celebrities coming out and Hollywood injecting gay characters into just about every movie and TV show. But then I realized if you were just fashionably gay, it wouldn't stick. Similar to the college girls who kiss or munch carpet for attention, it would eventually just be tossed off as 'experimenting' and the true sexual preference would take over.
Platypus
Lifer
- Apr 26, 2001
- 31,053
- 321
- 136
Because people hate things that make them uncomfortable so they try to legistlate their morality for the rest of the country to suffer through. See also: the prohibition of alcohol.
The fact that this is even an issue shows that this country has a LOT of growing up to do.
The fact that this is even an issue shows that this country has a LOT of growing up to do.
Those against gay marriage believe the definition of the term "marriage" is, to put it simply, the strongest relationship commitment between a man and a women. This isn't entirely unreasonable, as marriage has traditionally been thought of as being a union between a man and a women (regardless of whether or not homosexuality was accepted in society at the time).
This gets tricky when you have special rights for married people. Now homosexual couples want to be entitled to those rights, which come from being married. However opponents to gay marriage say that it goes against the very definition of marriage to have two men or two women marry one another. Homophobic motivations aside I think this is where they make their strongest case.
Personally I think that civil unions are somewhat of a cop-out, but neither side can really put up too convincing of an argument against them. The opponents of gay marriage would then only have moral high ground (or what they think is moral high ground) to stand on, and homosexuals would be fighting over a label and likely just happy to get the equal rights that a married couple gets.
This gets tricky when you have special rights for married people. Now homosexual couples want to be entitled to those rights, which come from being married. However opponents to gay marriage say that it goes against the very definition of marriage to have two men or two women marry one another. Homophobic motivations aside I think this is where they make their strongest case.
Personally I think that civil unions are somewhat of a cop-out, but neither side can really put up too convincing of an argument against them. The opponents of gay marriage would then only have moral high ground (or what they think is moral high ground) to stand on, and homosexuals would be fighting over a label and likely just happy to get the equal rights that a married couple gets.
AreaCode707
Lifer
- Sep 21, 2001
- 18,440
- 101
- 91
I think the government needs to get out of the marriage business entirely, for heterosexual AND homosexual couples. How do you build legislation on love?
"Marriage" in terms of romance, sex and relationships is such a fuzzy undefined concept where no two people ever quite agree. I would much prefer to have the government issue cohabitation licenses, where any two people, regardless of romantic attachment and gender, could apply and receive the license, and dissolve it the same way. You could legally cohabit with a roommate, a partner, a spouse, whatever. Leave marriage to the individual to define in the way they want, whether that involves religion, a ceremony or nothing formal.
<--- Conservative Christian
"Marriage" in terms of romance, sex and relationships is such a fuzzy undefined concept where no two people ever quite agree. I would much prefer to have the government issue cohabitation licenses, where any two people, regardless of romantic attachment and gender, could apply and receive the license, and dissolve it the same way. You could legally cohabit with a roommate, a partner, a spouse, whatever. Leave marriage to the individual to define in the way they want, whether that involves religion, a ceremony or nothing formal.
<--- Conservative Christian
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter