Same sex marriages

[Ranger]

I joined an Alias forum on Sunday and came across this topic earlier today - still got 52 pages of controversy to read. What are peoples opinions on this topic here? Do you think this should be legalised?

[Gil Galad]

Well i actually don't, for a few reasons

1. If it is a loving caring relationship between two people comfortable in there relationship, then there is no need for it.
2. I do believe that the reason for marriage is to allow a child to be born into a stble environment
3. Marriage, i do believe in its purest form, can be defined as an unbreakable bond between to people, with divorce in most countries that kinda rules out what i think mariage is, so for me to say that same sex "marriages" should be allowed, would need for divorce to be goten rid of.

i could go on but i wont. oh excelent topic Ranger, gauranteed to cause controversy

[Catz]

yeah well ideals have to be tempered with reality tho................and the reality is that many people go into a marriage for all the wrong reasons, and to keep people in that state without any way out is just cruel to my mind
i think that anyone who wishes to celebrate their bond publically and legally HAS to be allowed to...................it isnt even a matter of the quality of the relationship to me............merely that 2 beings, wish to enshrine thier commitment to each other in a public and binding way......its also important when children are involved, since it would then allow a persons partner right of guardianship, which is not the case now in most countries........its a rite of passage granted to those who are not gay, so i dont see why it should be denied to those who are, IF they wish it
:catz:

[Melian]

The bottom line is that we should not create second class citizens by denying them the basic right to legally commit to one another. I don't understand this talk about the santity of marriage, how can gay marriage demean or degrade your marriage? It would seem, that with so much hate and violence in this world, the celebration of the love of two people would be welcomed, not comdemned.

[Cuiel Rilwen]

Hear, hear!

[Bramblerose Bunce]

I agree that it should be legalized. I see marriage as a symbol of two persons love for each other and a tradition to bond two people together.

[Gil Galad]

Well Catz touched on something there that is important, people entering marriages for the wrong reasons. now i think that divorce encourages that <no divorce no way out, divorce way out, so why not give it a try> divorce has made marriage allot more trivial then it should be (im not saying that same sex marriages would do the same)

just for the record, homosexual people have the same rights as hetrosexuals.

people can easily celebrate there love for eachother without getting marriage, they can put stuf in there will to give there partners rights wit there children.

but marriage is much more then a symbol BB, it is a sacred bond which should not be entered into lightly by anyone, no matter what there disposition is. i think the true meaningof marriage has to be looked at to get a real understanding of it before much more in conversed on the subject

[Saruman]

just for the record, homosexual people have the same rights as hetrosexuals.
people can easily celebrate there love for eachother without getting marriage, they can put stuf in there will to give there partners rights wit there children.

but marriage is much more then a symbol BB, it is a sacred bond which should not be entered into lightly by anyone, no matter what there disposition is. i think the true meaningof marriage has to be looked at to get a real understanding of it before much more in conversed on the subject

If homosexuals have similar rights, surely they too are able to decide whether they want to enter marriage, just as much as male/female couples?
I can see what you may be getting at, but marriage is not solely for the purpose of producing legitimate children; it is because the couple love each other. A woman might love a woman, or a man might love a man, in the same way that a woman might love a man. Therefore I am in favour of the legalisation. They all have the same rights, so I do not see anything particularly terrible.

[Catz]

i think Gil that had you ever been in an abusive marriage you might have a different slant on divorce
i dont think any person should treat marriage lightly, but i also dont think that anyone is perfect and they SURELY shouldnt be made to suffer for a genuine mistake
and you cant say that gay people have the same rights as hetros if they cannot marry if they so choose
in a hetro marriage, the partner is automatically the guardian of any children involved............in a gay relationship this is not the case, and there have been several cases of children going to abusive ex spouses rather than the gay partner of a person simply for that reason..........which is insane
the religious aspects of marriage are entirely seperate from the civil aspects here, and its the civil issues im addressing...........the religious aspects are for each to decide on thier own
no one is checking up to see why hetro couples are marrying..........and for hetros its so easy to get married that id imagine that theyre FAR more likely to have the wrong reasons than a gay couple whove had to face much more usually to be, and stay together
i think its well past time that we stopped marginalising long term, stable gay relationships
:catz:

[Fëalossë]

the religious aspects of marriage are entirely seperate from the civil aspects here, and its the civil issues im addressing...........the religious aspects are for each to decide on thier own
Which is why I believe in civil unions for gay couples, without calling it "marriage." I think it would solve a lot of problems if our Canadian government would leave churches out of this. They've closed more than one is British Columbia because the pastors have simply refused to marry gay couples... So much for religious tolerance. I think gay couples should be allowed to have "married" benefits, but make it a justice-of-the-peace thing and leave it to seperate denominations to decide whether they will allow it or not. And honestly, I think churches should have the right to decide not to marry hetero couples, too, if they're going into it for the wrong reasons or without understanding of it.

[Tar-Vanimelde]

Hmm, I never thought about it as a religious thing at all. To me, this issue is based on civil liberties and descrimination. I think it is wrong that a government can regulate love and the expression of love between two people. Marriage has legal implications for things such as next-of-kin, and I think ignoring the aspects of marriage beyond just the family unit issue is harmful to the homosexuals, making it harder for them to have the same rights as heterosexuals. Basicly, I just thing that this should not be regulated at all- whoever said marriage was between two different sexes in the first place?

#Vani

[Catz]

but Fea, why should a person be denied the right to marry within their religion either?
you may say that many religions say that homosexuality is wrong...........but then, many churches also say that man is made in Gods image....are they saying that God is wrong?.......and theyd have no problem marrying a murderer..........and thats wrong too isnt it?
myself, i feel that civil union would solve a lot of the problems, but it wouldnt address the underlying sense of exclusivity that is given to hetero marriage and thats a pity.........why as has already been mentioned, people feel that it would in some way "degrade" the institution of marriage is beyond me
:catz:

[Cuiel Rilwen]

Civil unions would solve the legal issues, but not the religious issues of a christian homosexual coupple ofcourse. However I don't think you can force priests to go against their own belief, that is equally wrong. Neverthleless there ARE priests and churches who don't think this is wrong, and who will wed homosexuals. The hazzle then consists of finding out in which church one CAN get wed. Figuring things out today is easy tho...I bet you there is a website somewhere where you can find such info ;)

[Mirkgirl]

*leaves the church alone*
I don't want to go there... Im not a member, so I don't feel in place to tell them what to do. If anyone wants to marry in the name of a religion that says they're sinnersit's their problem too.

Actually I don't believe marriage is that important... if one relationship is strong, it's strong, the marriage just makes the suffering longer when it doens't work. The other point tho is the property, inheritance, etc etc. Money for the children, money for the wife that gave up work. While the money for children is not a problem in the samesex marriages, the rest is, including that one of the people might give up their work and should be able to get money for it, if the other decide he's no longer interested in living together. And telling them they can't have this is against their rights. I don't see who it might hurt either? If you think that marriage is sacred why would a gay marriage getting married make it less sacred for you? And if so... don't the men who beat their females make it less sacred too? As catz said.... those people who marry from jail after raping and killing little girls... don't they make it less sacred too? Each couple makes the marriage sacred or not sacred for itself, it doesn't define the institution.

Plus... I can't see anything sacred in a ritual which was used years after years to win from the daughters and bind royal families together. And in newer history more often than not, to get money out of the other. However it gives some feeling of union I guess and it does have it's juridical side. So if we accept the gay people for real people, why not letting them do it? And don't answer "RELIGION" to me. Married before the state, not god. Case closed. As to religion - they can decide for themselves. The state cannot say no, without discriminating. The religion can choose. The same way we can choose religion easier than choose state.

[Keverzwijn]

marriage sacred or not sacred for itself, it doesn't define the institution.

Plus... I can't see anything sacred in a ritual which was used years after years to win from the daughters and bind royal families together. And in newer history more often than not, to get money out of the other. However it gives some feeling of union I guess and it does have it's juridical side. So if we accept the gay people for real people, why not letting them do it? And don't answer "RELIGION" to me. Married before the state, not god. Case closed. As to religion - they can decide for themselves. The state cannot say no, without discriminating. The religion can choose. The same way we can choose religion easier than choose state.

The bottom line is that we should not create second class citizens by denying them the basic right to legally commit to one another. I don't understand this talk about the santity of marriage, how can gay marriage demean or degrade your marriage? It would seem, that with so much hate and violence in this world, the celebration of the love of two people would be welcomed, not comdemned.

I totally agree with what the people above me said. I think it's totally okay that gay people marry each other. It's legal in Belgium. there's gonna be alot of debate on this Topic....excellent ;)

[Melian]

Thanks, Keverzwijn. I know this is off-topic but I love your sig. The big Lebowski is one of my most favorite movies.

[Bramblerose Bunce]

but marriage is much more then a symbol BB, it is a sacred bond which should not be entered into lightly by anyone, no matter what there disposition is. i think the true meaningof marriage has to be looked at to get a real understanding of it before much more in conversed on the subject

I agree that marriage is something that should not be done lightly. We see how many divorces there are today. Too many do not know what they will face once they have done it. They believe married life to be a certain way, but then it turns out to be much different. There are so many should have, would have and could have, but to take away the ability to right a wrong?

Honestly, marriage is something that you do not have to go through. There are always other ways to take, but you do have the choice. If you take away that choice then it is wrong.

The true meaning of marriage sounds good, but as always defining this is not as easy as it sounds. To me marriage is a symbol of two peoples love to each other, it is a symbol for their love and their decision to stand together through thick and thin. A marriage is to finalize that you are mine and I am yours. But..that's me. It is not up to me to say why people get married. At the end of the day it's about choice.

[Bawax]

yes i think same sex couple should be able to get married just the same as hetrosexual couple. :)

i personally can't see the need for getting married now, i think it'd be much easier to just live with a partner rather then going to all the expense and trouble for a bit of a ceremony. :huh:

[Gil Galad]

Well Bawax, the par-tay is one of the only alluring things to marriage i usually see.

but back to the point, Catz, i see your point on abusive relationships, but that is generall a case of someone entering into mariage lightly before they fully know there, busive, partner (not always though and i accept sometime people make mistakes, but that is what anulments are for, they allow you to get out of such marriages, atleast in the Cathoic Church)

now if its the legal entitlements of the marriage that same-sex couples want, they can get them in other ways then by marriage, a civil contract can be written up giving them all those things. and for children, well they aint going to have any by themselves, and im not sure that adoption should be an option for them(like its not for two, say hetrosexual men, living together, despite teh fact that they may have a much more stable, loving and suitable environment then what is within a same-sex relationship), but im goin of point now. children, or rather custody of children, can be written into a will or so a civil contract

so the only thing that remains, since all legal rights of marriage can be given without marriage, is a religious blessing for the couple, and i think we would all be out of our depth is that debate.

oh Catz, man made in Gods image, but given freewill, so although we are made in Gods image we can direct our lives from there for good or evil

ok people in prison getting married (i should note here that i dont see killing someone as all that serious of a crime<depends on the situation, but we all gotta die anyway> and so i would be more lenient toward them) i think that the person that marries them is making a decission and they know exactly what the person is capable of and so it in no way diminishes marriage(altho it can be quite sick to see women wanting to marry peadofile and rapist b*****ds) and then there is the case where the man may well be innocent of the crime he is imprissioned for or that he has changed and become a good man

anyway, this could be a very interesting convo, oh could people stop using the word "gay" when they mean "homosexual" it really perverts (i dont mean that in a bad way, just that it changes) the meaning of gay(=happy)

[Mirkgirl]

okay... so if I just don't feel good in a marriage and find a better guy, I should shoot the bastard and get redemption... and marry again from jail. Cause divorce is too big of a sin.

I think I'll stick to divorce and be a sinner.

[Gil Galad]

i never said that divorce was a big sin and killing someone just so you can marry again would be a slightly bigger sin i would think, and if thats the only reason you killed its unlikely that redemption would be so easy for you, perhaps in the eyes of the law you would pay your dues, but i would imagine it would be harder to appease yourself.
oh and Mirky, i would like to hear your views on the Church, being outside of something can give you quite a good, unbiased, view of it.

[Bramblerose Bunce]

ok people in prison getting married (i should note here that i dont see killing someone as all that serious of a crime<depends on the situation, but we all gotta die anyway> and so i would be more lenient toward them)

I'm sorry,but this is something that I got stuck on. I know it is a personal view, but to see murdur as not all that serious of a crime? Cutting short someones life? When you write that I think of all the people who are killed every day and all those left behind. People who lose their mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, sisters, brothers because of drunk drivers, abusers or just any fool with a gun. Just because it happens alot and we are going to die anyway does not lessen the crime.


oh Catz, man made in Gods image, but given freewill, so although we are made in Gods image we can direct our lives from there for good or evil

Meaning that people have a choice of who they fall in love with?

[Gil Galad]

firstly, im Catholic, and its my belief that people go to Heaven when they die, or hell if thats what they deserve, and so if they were good people they will have gone to a beter place, and yeh i know il miss them but to accept death i think is a sign that i accept Heaven, and so death is not a mournful thing its perfectly natural, and since we all gotta die, what does it matter how we die,or even when, we are only on this earth for the blink of and eye, in cosmic, eternal terms, anyway.
sure its ok to miss someone after they are dead, but you will meet them again in the after life, the final resting place, in a matter of years and you'l be with them forever then, so whats a few years. and plus you should be happy for them, they have gone to that beter place and so have no longer to deal with anything bad.

secondly, i was just answering Catz remark about people who think that homosexuality is bad, but that God created man in his/her image, and so God must be wrong.
but now that you mention it, it can be controlled to a certain extent, like any force of nature (or rather its effect on you)

[Keverzwijn]

Murder sounds like bliss the way you put it. The victims go to a better place and well they would die some day anyway. Sounds awfull wrong in my ears.
The other thing that bothers me is that you basically said that homosexuality isn't something that god planned, since he created man in his image and that would be a heterosexual right?

[Catz]

well i was raised catholic and im pretty sure theres nothing in the catechism about accepting murder just cos weve all gotta go sometime
murder is wrong.....no matter what religious beliefe you ascribe to.....and when you compare it to homosexuality well lets be honest, ones sexual orientation runs a very VERY long way behind the taking of a life on the scale of things to worry about......i seem to recall "thou shalt not kill" being pretty high up there on the commandment top ten ;)
and while it MAY be possible to deny ones orientation, why should one?
its possible to starve yourself for months too............is that a good thing?
no ofc not............if you accept that god is the all powerful, then you must also accept his creations, and trust me, every gay person that i know has known that they were gay from a very young age..............this isnt something that you just "decide" to be.........it is something you are
:catz:

[Melian]

The whole idea of comparing same-sex marriages and murder as two crimes (?) is ludicrous. If we used your logic, we might as well all kill ourselves and be done with it.

[Gil Galad]

whoa, stall a minute here.
1. i never compared homosexuality to murder
2. i never said that murder was not wrong

and after rereading what i wrote, which is my opinion, which i am allowed to have, i cant see where you all go that from.
Melian that is a terible thing to say, and it is completly contradictrary to my logic, i do believe there is a "if you lived a good life ...."thing up there in my statments, and in my opinion, as iv said, murder is not good, and as Catz has pointed out teh third (? i think) comandment says "thou shalt not kill" and so killing oneself would be a bad thing and so would not end you up in heaven.
Catz i never said murder was just to be accepted, but i do recall that it is said in the Bibble that death was not seen as bad until the devil perverted our view of it(Tolkien says something similar aswell, but thats an aside, oh and i just looked at your Sig Catz). Sexual intercourse is not a physical need for us Catz(sure it has medical benefits), food is, to compare the two is quite pointless. and who said that people should deny there orientation anyway. and i do think my "desicsion" thing above was about what they do about there orientation, not about the orientation itself. oh and the homosexual people i know only knew they were homosexual in there early twenties, so we have to different experiences on this(but i do accept that some people know they are homosexual at much earlier ages).and just because the creator is infalable, it does not mean the creations are, perhaps the Almighty decided to put flaws into us as a test to see if we deserve eternal life in splendor at his side, but im not in a position to say
Keverzwijn, i am in neither a position to know or to say what God planned for us to be, to do, or to end up, i was merely saying that we were given freewill and so all our choices and the results of them can not be ascribed to "God's image" and therfore the right thing to do.

now back to the point at hand, since the legal entitlments of marriage can be granted without an actual marriage, and they can have a big party if they wish. i dont think that there is an issue and if there is it is only around a single word, and one which can easily be seen as immaterial, if one choses to look at it that way.

well i hope i cleared up the little misunderstandings you all took from my previous posts,and a very good day to you all

[Tirithel]

I think as far as legalities go, the government has no right to deny at least a "civil union" to a same-sex couple. That's discrimination based on gender. This shouldn't even be an issue in Congress. Churches, however, have their own sets of 'laws' and can go ahead and do as they please. But the government must remain , oh crap, what's the word I'm looking for...unbiased? Objective? :huh:...whatever, due to the seperation of Church and State. Heh heh...I picked up some tid-bits of knowledge in my ethics class...do I sound smart yet? lol

[Catz]

well actually i never said that death was to be feared either....just that to take a life is a sin in the minds of all who value life.............sure accept death...its a natural part of the cycle, of the wheel, but unnatural death........that is death caused unneccesarily is NOT a part of the cycle
and just because a person only becomes AWARE of something at a certain age, does not mean that it hasnt been there all along does it?
and the "decision" i referred to was the idea that many people have that you "decide" to be gay...............you do not........you simply are, or are not
lol and thats ok then.............its fine to be homosexual as long as you never experience what its like to love another person fully in all their aspects, if theyre the same sex as you...............mmmmm pass i think.....i think that god gave us ALL the capacity for loving and pleasure and that its a god given right to exercise that in a loving adult relationship....but there i guess we differ.
and now ill get off my high horse and get this puppy back on topic lol
:catz:

[Gil Galad]

mmmmm, you just made me think of something quite interesting(well i think it is) there Catz,
ok we are all told that looks dont matter, and its the person inside that realy counts, especially if you want a long term relationship with them, since the looks fade (im not sure if im articulating this properly, but bear with me). so by that train of thought there is no hetrosexual or homosexual is there, there is just people who you like and dont like. ah but that also brings the topic of the need for those people to have a physical relationship, since two men can be closer then they are with there wives without ever doing the whole physical thing. mmmm, i shud stop thinking out-loud(well not out loud but onto the comp) its probably not making for an easy read.

oh i agree that murder is a sin(i just think that there are alot worse things)and i apologize if i misquoted you ma'lady, and a debate about Life is far to big to be a side topic in a tread. so if there are differences in our opions on it, we shall aggree to disagree (if you aggree to that) for now

oh Catz, just because some people are aware of it being there at an early age is doesnt mean that it is there for everyone from an early age, and indeed if they are aware of something from an early age they mite get it wrong and just assume that its was that particular thing that was there when in fact it could have been something else, if you follow me. and i dont think iv heard people say that they think peopl edecide to be homosexual, so perhaps that was where i lost you. and as for "experience what its like to love another person fully in all their aspects" i dont see the need to if the love is deep, and pure, enough

and to marriage. it is not needed, in anyway i can see(please educate me if you think im being ignorant), in same sex relationships.

[Mithril]

I see nothing wrong in same sex marriages, many couples of the same sex have more stable relationships than heterosexual couples. Besides, when a same sex couple is allowed to adopt a child, then that child is going into a relationship where it is wanted. I'm not saying all same sex couples have matches made in heaven, but surely they should be given the same right as others to stand up and make a commitment to each other.
It would not have bothered me in the slightest if any of my children had been gay, and I would have been happy to have been there to celebrate their marriage with them. :)

[Keverzwijn]

and to marriage. it is not needed, in anyway i can see(please educate me if you think im being ignorant), in same sex relationships.

We're not demanding that you marry a homosexual man, we're just stating that it's wrong that homosexuals can't choose to marry their loved ones. And they should be able to do that if they want to. No one should be able to tell them they can't do that.

[Gil Galad]

haha, thanks for that Keverzwijn, i was getting worried there.

but i was just saying that there is no need for same sex marriages, so why bother having them.

Mithril, do you think that two hetrosexual men who live together should be allowed to adopt children?

[Mirkgirl]

Gil, there is no need for marriage at all, for anyone. It's just a symbol that makes two people feel happy. If you have something against people being happy in a way you think is wrong, even tho they're not doing anything to you, then it's your problem.

As to the children, that's a bit strange grounds. I don't see the problem, when in normal couples the children become gay, children in gay families to become straight. The problem I see is that we might face the same thing that happens with many gay children who are pushed in the "normal" way by their parents, which is wrong, might grow vice versa which is not nice. Also the society is cruel. At any rate I don't see how a gay couple would be worse than life in an orphanage.

[Gryffonheart]

I must say that I feel we are going backwards. I mean, this is segregation, like when we separated Blacks and Whites. Gay and Lesbian people are really no different than Straight people. They just have different preferences as to who they feel affection and love for. And they cannot help being gay. It is the way they are born, and no one should say that they cannot be the way they were born to be.

There are those who say that it goes against the Bible, allowing gay couples to marry. But I wonder, sometimes. Cause if every person is made the way they are by God, then isn't it God's will that gays are the way they are? Sorry, this may be getting into a touchy area.

I think that gay couples should have the right to be married. Then they can have a child (adopt it, I mean) and have it be both of theirs. Gay and Lesbian couples that get children are probably less likely to give them up, because they have to go through the whole process of adopting. They CAN'T have an accidental pregnancy, and they'll be able to know when they really want a kid, because they'll be willing to go through with the adobtion process and to pay all that money.

[Mithril]

Yes, Gil, I do. I think its far more important for a child to be in a family whose parents, whatever their gender, love and respect each other. I can't see that it makes a difference if the couple were gay or not, but I can't imagine two heterosexual men wanting to adopt. I would have thought that was a commitment for a couple planning to spend their lives together.
And Gryffonheart, I agree with your comments. I'm not religious, so I'm not in a position to comment on the Bible, but you put the point well.

[Miriel Baggins]

Gosh, this is something of a touchy subject, isn't it? Well, personally, I think that the line should be drawn at civil unions. I mean, isn't that good enough? Why marriage? I definitely do NOT think that same-sex marriages should be . . . "madated," if you will. In other words, I don't think the government should order that pastors must marry same-sex couples, even if it is agains their core beliefs. That's a direct assault on religious freedom. It shouldn't happen, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did. Gil, there is no need for marriage at all, for anyone. It's just a symbol that makes two people feel happy. In that case, how come marriage has lasted through all the thousand years of history? If it's just a feel-good arrangement, what's the significance? Of course, this topic, for me, is really steeped in what I believe religiously, and that's a little out of the scope of the topic. But, basically, I think same-sex marriages are a bad idea. So far, it's statistically proven that children raised in such homes are not able to "cope" in life, as well as children raised in homes with a traditional marriage. I really don't know a whole lot about that, but . . . that's just my $0.02. :grin:

There are those who say that it goes against the Bible, allowing gay couples to marry. But I wonder, sometimes. Cause if every person is made the way they are by God, then isn't it God's will that gays are the way they are? Sorry, this may be getting into a touchy area. I think I can clear you up on that real quick. First of all, you've clearly never read the Bible. Or at least not that part. (You can't pick and choose, you know.) It does clearly state that homosexuality is wrong. Morally. (I can give you the reference if you really want it. :)) Secondly, few people are aware of this, but people aren't born gay or lesbian. It's not the equivalent of a racial issue. People become homosexual through the way they were raised, influences they had when they were young, etc. God (if you believe in Him) didn't create people gay. And even if He did, He also created some people with the tendency to become addicted to drugs. But they can overcome that. So can gay people. Now, that may be an extreme example, but it illustrates my point. The Bible doesn't contradict itself. Remember, don't be picky-choosy. ;)

[Lady Arien]

So far, it's statistically proven that children raised in such homes are not able to "cope" in life, as well as children raised in homes with a traditional marriage

I'm curious...what statistics, exactly, are you quoting here? Are they documented, and by whom? Where can I read them for myself? Sure, it might get a tad bothersome for a kid say "not you Mom, I meant the other Mom..." but in the long run, the people who learn to "cope" are the people who are taught coping skills by parents who love them and take an active role in their lives...judging from what I know firsthand about the number of troubled kids out there who have a "normal" set of parents, having a mom and dad instead of a dad and dad does not guarantee a well-adjusted kid.

People become homosexual through the way they were raised, influences they had when they were young, etc. God (if you believe in Him) didn't create people gay. And even if He did, He also created some people with the tendency to become addicted to drugs. But they can overcome that. So can gay people

Again, where are the statistics that prove this? One of my dearest friends is gay, has always known he was gay, was raised by heterosexual parents, has two heterosexual brothers who grew up to have their own heterosexual marriages. He tried going out with girls as a teenager, but it just didn't work for him...so, in essence, he tried to overcome it, I suppose, and was miserable. I also question the theory of sexual preference being akin to drug addiction...one dictates who you attracted to, the other is a disease that will kill you if left untreated, much the same as diabetes or cancer. I don't profess to know why some of us are born with these challenges and others aren't. I say they are challenges in a sense that neither of them are widely popular, or very much tolerated by society at large, but those who can make a place for these things in their lives...by coming out or by seeking recovery... and walk with their heads held high have developed a strength of character that I truly admire.

I've been to a number of gay marriage ceremonies...although they were called "committment ceremonies" at the time. Some of those partnerships have lasted longer than most "normal" marriages that I know...yet these people don't have the right to health insurance, tax benefits, etc etc that "legally" married couples have, and that's the real issue...and I support it 100 percent...it's a long time in coming. I'm not about to debate the spiritual side of marriage as it means a million different things to a million different people, and that's not really the topic we're discussing here.

[Catz]

there are a good many cultures in this world where it isnt expected that a child would be raised by a mother father male female team- are you then saying that they are ALL going to grow up dysfunctional because of it?
in many cultures kids go to aunties or uncles, grandparents or other family............no one bothers if they have 1 male+1 female............just if they can manage to look after the child
this idea that the judeao/christian/white/middleclass way is the ONLY way, is very dangerous imo............children thrive wherever there is love understanding and nurture................that does not come with a gender attached.........or a sexual orientation
and there is NO scientific proof that children that grow up in single sex households are ANY more likely to be gay than any other child
:catz:

[Keverzwijn]

:gofatty: I love this thread.

[Catz]

youre just a stirrer Kev ;) lol
:catz:

[Gil Galad]

ok here goes,

of course it can be done that children can be brought up by people other then there parents, or two parents, but it doesnt make it right, you can drive with your feet and use your sense of smell to tell where your going, but that doesnt make it a good idea, and more then likely people will get hurt from it. what im saying is, just because we can do things, it doesnt make them the right or best thing to do.

Mithril, the way things are now is that people who are married have a much beter chance of adopting(in most countires i do believe) then people who arnt, and so by allowing same sex couples to marry you would in effect be giving them rights above those of a pair of hetrosexual men or women.

well the couple thing i think would really depend on where the kids grew up, in different countries/areas things would very different. being raised by a same sex couple would really mess a child up in some places, because kids are very much affected by what tehy see in early ages, and so they would be confused atleast by seeing to men, or women, at stuff which they will later learn is foreplay to something that men and women do to create children. also y'all know what kids can be like, imagine what they would be like to such kids, and this cannot be put down to stigma or anything like that, its kids, they can be mean, simple fact of life. and Catz i dont think that Miriel said anything about kids raised by same sex couples being more likely to be homosexual, she just said that they were likely to find it more difficult to cope.

Mirky, iv nothing at all against people being happy, but if it takes marriage to make someone happy in a relationship then the relationship cannot posibly be that strong and so not stable and so not a good place to be, especially not to bring kids into. and while im on this i think that it is quite clear that male and female minds do work differently, and so a male and female couple would have a more diverse range of ways to help a child

Gryffonheart, its very remiss to compare racism to this, since no body is saying that they should be segregated or have any less rights(in fact there rights are protected more tehn those of hetrosexuals in many countries), some people are saying they should have rights beyond that of hetrosexuals, and that is what we are discussing, and its not about "affections and love", two men can have that without wanting to have sexual intercourse with eachother. and it is not clear that it is the way they are born, its very likely that it is nothing to do with genetics and therefore cant be something ur born with. already dealt with the God image thing, they only have to fill out forms and so on so forth, they dont have to go through nine months of pregnancy and then up to days of labour to get the child, so i think they are having it easier there, and so by your logic would be more likely to give up the child.

i dont think you learn "coping skills" i think its more that you learn skills that help you cope, and i dont think that they are "thought" to you, they just kinda get learned. no body said that having a mom and dad gaurenteed a well adjusted kid, there are no gaureentees in this life, but it always helps to stack the odds in your favour. oh and the fact that one child from a family can be homosexual and the others hetrosexual would make me lean toward it not being genetic and so a result of events in his life and not of breeding. oh and there is no way that you can compare drug addiction to diseases that you have no control over, like cancer and diabetics, and i really cant see any connection between them. drug addiction is much closer akin to homosexuality then it is to those diseases, since homosexuality and drug addiction dictate your actions, and are likely to have there origins in your mind, while cancer etc are diseases which can strike anybody at anytime and kill without a thought for what type of person it is.

and id liek to finish this by stating that i am quite religious but i also know when to leave religion aside

[Mirkgirl]

First on the religion, no one says the priests have to be made to marry them... just in the view of state the marriage between a man-woman, man-man and woman-woman should have the same value.
In that case, how come marriage has lasted through all the thousand years of history? If it's just a feel-good arrangement, what's the significance? Of course, this topic, for me, is really steeped in what I believe religiously, and that's a little out of the scope of the topic. But, basically, I think same-sex marriages are a bad idea. So far, it's statistically proven that children raised in such homes are not able to "cope" in life, as well as children raised in homes with a traditional marriage. I really don't know a whole lot about that, but . . . that's just my $0.02. :grin:Because people like it. Back when it started it's only function was to have a good environment for the kids. The same way some birds stay together. Today, you don't need a marriage to be able to raise a kid. You don't need a male to kill the beasts or win the bread and a woman to do the housework. But still the society implies you all the goodies of the marriage and the great wedding day. It makes you believe it's something special. And it kind of makes the people believe it's special. I don't care for marriage myself, but it does have some goodies for estates, taxes and stuff, so even if it's not the romantic side, there's a money one...

Mirky, iv nothing at all against people being happy, but if it takes marriage to make someone happy in a relationship then the relationship cannot posibly be that strong and so not stable and so not a good place to be, especially not to bring kids into. and while im on this i think that it is quite clear that male and female minds do work differently, and so a male and female couple would have a more diverse range of ways to help a child
It's not marrying what makes them happy, it's not being allowed to marry what makes them unhappy. Wouldn't you be frustrated if you couldn't marry your girl just cause her parents have other religion and won't let it happen? But course you can't fall in love in un-christian girl so it doesn't really matter er? As to the ways you can help a child, each person has different range of ways he or she can help a child. Just because someone is female doesn't mean that she can teach the child love, good manners and other "female" things or just because someone is male doesn't mean he can bring the "male" virtues. It's a quite outdated understanding.
and id liek to finish this by stating that i am quite religious but i also know when to leave religion aside
oh please. I guess there's nothing wrong with you being religious, but don't try to sell this to us.

[Catz]

and are likely to have there origins in your mind, while cancer etc are diseases which can strike anybody at anytime and kill without a thought for what type of person it is.
"type of person"???
how many addicts do you know??
how much experience of addiction do you have?
addiction can strike ANY "type of person" .....................it is a DISEASE..............not a moral judgement
addictions are NOT "in the mind" and you can check that out with ANY doctor.............they are physical states, and ANYONE can fall prey to them, just as anyone can get cancer or a cold
and how is the right to marry giving anyone rights above that of hetros?? sounds like its goving them the SAME rights
and i dont see what children would be having to "cope" with??
that thier family is different?? well heres a news flash...............ALL families are different in one way or another............we learn to deal with that..........its a part of growing up, and i dont think a child of same sex parents would have any more trouble copeing than say a red headed child, or a fat child, or a child of a broken home...............in fact if the parents are loving and supportive, id say they had a BETTER chance of learning to "cope"
oh and the fact that one child from a family can be homosexual and the others hetrosexual would make me lean toward it not being genetic and so a result of events in his life and not of breeding.
in any species with multiple young, the characteristics are mixed between the offspring..............this is how you get families with children of different colouring.....the genes for that colouring might be generations in the past , but the conmbinations of genetic factors can bring it to the fore, so that arguement is spurious
:catz:

[Gryffonheart]

I think I can clear you up on that real quick. First of all, you've clearly never read the Bible. Or at least not that part. (You can't pick and choose, you know.) It does clearly state that homosexuality is wrong. Morally. (I can give you the reference if you really want it. :)) Secondly, few people are aware of this, but people aren't born gay or lesbian. It's not the equivalent of a racial issue. People become homosexual through the way they were raised, influences they had when they were young, etc. God (if you believe in Him) didn't create people gay. And even if He did, He also created some people with the tendency to become addicted to drugs. But they can overcome that. So can gay people. Now, that may be an extreme example, but it illustrates my point. The Bible doesn't contradict itself. Remember, don't be picky-choosy. ;)

Thanks for telling me, Miriel. Sorry bout me being picky.:blush: I guess I just get a bit touchy and worked up when we talk bout things like this. I cannot change my mind, though. I still believe gay marriage should be allowed. (I know you're not trying to make me change my mind)

[Melian]

IMO, what the bible says or doesn't say about gays, has absolutly nothing to do with it. No one knows why people are gay; whether it is something that they are born with or if it is a choice. It doesn't really matter. All that matters is that they are people just like everyone else.

[Keverzwijn]

Isn't there something called 'the seperation of church and state', the bible shouldn't influence decisions that the state makes.

[Gil Galad]

Definitly Kev, there should be practically no influence between state and church, and Church and state, but unfortunatly they do at times. and Melian, i do agree, the Bible or Koran or Torah etc shudnt have any bearing on this since the religious and legal ,matters are very different.

Mirky you cannot compare Religion to sexual oreintation(for many reasons). "But course you can't fall in love in un-christian girl" iv no idea what you mean here, do i sense a lil sarcasm. and anyway this is not a question of love, i love my friends, male and female, i dont wana marry them all. "love, good manners" female things? thats a very curious thing to say so it is. but let me make this a lil scientific, male bodies produce testosteron, female bodies produce estergen and (?), as the main hormones in there body, these hormones are very different from eachother, they affect the way people think, so therefore men and women will think differently. but i do agree that different people within the same sex can think very differently.
and i aint trying to sell anything, im looking at this thing purely scientifically

Catz mon chere, i know a few. none personally, i dont seem to get addicted to substnces which others claim to be highly addictive. ok , how many people do you know that are addicted to heroine, who have never taken it, how many tee-totalers do you who are alcoholics, how many nicotene addicts do you know who have never smoked. addictions can only affect people who, usually due to a conscious decission, take the substance, so addictions cannot affect any "type of person" and so is not a disease(although certain types of people have beter defences against certain diseases) some addictions do have physical sides to them, but some are just in the mind (Nicotene:if it was physical, smokers would not be able to sleep without a source of nicotene coming into there system). and even Heroine(which is physically addictive) can be overcome with will power (or just locking urself into a room and going cold turkey) which cannot be said for a brain tumor, or HIV. if you give same sex couples the privilage to marry, then they would have more chance of adoption then two hetrosexual men, or women, who live together, therfore giving them more rights in that dept anyway. yes all families are different, and that is a great thing, all people are different. but kids are mean and will not hesitate to give a kid a hard time cos his mother is and man or his father is a women. and i do believe that a kid would take that sort of thing worse tehn gettin picked on for being fat or red haired, just imagine it. kid slags red-haired kid "noi body likes you cos uv got carrot hair" red-haired kid replies "well atleast my mothers not a man". and imagine if the same sex couple adopted a kid who turned out to be a fat red-haired kid? i didnt say that it was conclusive, just that it made me lean toward it not being genetic. and anyway, all my family have the same features(but we act very differently), my friends families are the same for the most part.

[Keverzwijn]

What you say is true, the kid will have a hard time in school. But then again, alot of people have a hard time at school and made it through . Let me put it this way, if you find out that your baby has a handicap, would you abort it just cuz the child would be bullied by the other kids. No! Everyone deserves a 'normal life'. Just because you're different, doesn't mean you can't live a normal life. I think that a homosexual couple could create a stable and loving home for a child. No matter what the kids in the schoolyard do or say.

[Miriel Baggins]

Yeah, but the "kids in the school yard" aren't the only factors that will make children growing up with homosexual "parents" lead difficult lives. If you follow (that was a bit of a mouthful :)).
All that matters is that they are people just like everyone else. Woah!!! Hold on! Did anyone say they weren't people? No, absolutely not! Of course gays are people! And, as such, they deserve the respect and dignity given to any other human being. Please don't misconstrue what Gil or I or anyone else says into something as horrible as dehumanizing homosexuals.

Okay. Let me take a moment to show you what I see in the future if same-sex couples are given the "rights" to marry.

Obviously, they'll be adopting kids. These children will grow up with either two mommies or two daddies, completely muddling their view of the different sexes. And the sexes are different, guys. Gil made that point above. Women and men are different -- and they complement each other as such. Together, they reproduce and raise a family. As a girl, I have pride in being female. There is a sense of worth and importance in that identity. That I am different from a male -- that I am capable of different things, etc. Now, if, in this new culture we seem to be creating, children grow up having no sense of this vast difference . . . where's anyone's value anymore? What's my value, as a woman, if I know that a man can take my place just as well? What's a man's value if a woman can fill that gap in another woman's life? We have no value. That's not a culture I want to raise my kids in. Or live in myself, for that matter. Nature has given us the boundaries, and there are pretty good reasons for those boundaries.

I also can see that, if homosexual marriages come to be legal, despite all this "separation of church and state" stuff, they aren't going to stay separate. It's already happened in Canada, and maybe other places. The government is mandating what can or can't be said in religious places. It'll happen here in America (where I live), too. Pastors and leaders in other religions will be outlawed from speaking what they believe, if it has anything to do with homosexuality. I understand your concerns about separation of the church and state (that the Bible or the Koran, etc. shouldn't mandate what goes on in the government) --- I completely agree with y'all there. But these are my concerns. It can go the other way. Already, the government has crept close to exeeding its rightful place, and this issue (of homosexual marriage) could be the deciding factor in the fate of "separation of church and state." Church should be kept out of the government, yes, but don't you see that the government should be kept out of the church, as well?

Okay, those are just some common-sense reasons that I believe same-sex marriages should not become legal. I understand, though, that many of you differ on that subject, and I'm not trying to change your minds or conform you to my beliefs. Just explaining myself a bit. :grin:

[Keverzwijn]

Obviously, they'll be adopting kids. These children will grow up with either two mommies or two daddies, completely muddling their view of the different sexes. And the sexes are different, guys. Gil made that point above. Women and men are different -- and they complement each other as such. Together, they reproduce and raise a family. As a girl, I have pride in being female. There is a sense of worth and importance in that identity. That I am different from a male -- that I am capable of different things, etc. Now, if, in this new culture we seem to be creating, children grow up having no sense of this vast difference . . . where's anyone's value anymore? What's my value, as a woman, if I know that a man can take my place just as well? What's a man's value if a woman can fill that gap in another woman's life? We have no value. That's not a culture I want to raise my kids in. Or live in myself, for that matter. Nature has given us the boundaries, and there are pretty good reasons for those boundaries.

Same sex marriages are allowed in my country, and our society did not collapse because of it. I don't think I fully understand what you're trying to say. I read it a couple of times, but I can't grasp you viewing on this 'new future'. I'm not sure how many people are gay, but I think it's about 5 % or so. That ain't alot, and they're not going to get married in masses if it's allowed cuz well...marriage ain't that popular these days. Anyway, then there'll be a few couples that struggle thru the proces of adopting a child. I guess what I'm trying to say is that they're will not be a new culture because of that. The effect on our society would be very very small.

[Miriel Baggins]

Of course society is not going to change overnight. But (read my post again ;)), it will change. With children being adopted into those homes and becoming used to "no difference in the sexes" ideas ("Your mommy's a lady? Well, my mommy's a man" all of a sudden there's no difference) --- with this happening, over time, a majority of the people are going to think that way. And, as I said, if there are no differences in the sexes, there is no value in being a man or a woman. So what's the point? What ever happened to anything any of us believed before?

Which brings me to another thought. Where do you yourself get your core beliefs, your moral standards? Anywhere? If not the Bible or the Kuran or something like that, where? And, if nowhere, then why have standards at all? Because we have to. You see, there's got to be a point where we stop ourselves. Where we use our common sense and judge when we've gone too far. Men and women abandoning their natural instincts and natural places in nature might be a good place to consider.

[Keverzwijn]

Well, as I said. that 'problem' about kids having 2 mommies or daddies will not occur alot. A very small minority of the population. Not enough to change this society or the way it thinks.
And to answer the other question, I got my beliefs by using my common sense...I used to be a nice little christian raised boy and now ...well I'm still a nice boy, but I do not have any christian beliefs left.During my communy (don't know how to say it in your language...help), I had to think about all the religious things and I just decided that I did not believe what the pastor was telling me. (age 11) I couldn't see the point in believing in God, couldn't see the prove, couldn't feel 'god' around me and pretty much hated everything concerning the catholic church considering the awfull things they did and do to people in the past and present. (long sentence,I know).
I don't have a proble with gay peopepl cuz I don't consider them that different from all the rest of mankind. I'm not a racist cuz I refuse to believe that some races are bad and some are not. Call me naive or whatever you want....(I'd prefer openminded actually) As openminded as a person who had the top of his head removed lol

[Catz]

oh good grief you cannot possibly believe that people are going to think there are no differences between males and females (note i said MALE and FEMALE)...........that is the biological difference...........man and woman is culturally dependant.................and the FACT is that that doesnt happen
as i have already stated, there are cultures where single sex parenting os considered perfectly normal..............they all seem to manage
and if it takes being "different" from a man to make you secure as a woman, id say theres a problem.....................humans are PEOPLE first, male or female second.............there is NO intrinsic value in being either one or the other, its what that person DOES that counts
we offer marriage to any fool that walks in off the street as long as they are hetro...........to be truly fair, this shouldnt even be a debate............it should be automatic to offer this to all adults
i say again..............a child needs security love and nurture............NONE of this comes with a gender
*hands Kev a brolly to keep his brain dry if it rains..........and did you mean communion or confirmation?? *
:catz:

[Catz]

Gwaihir i would really rather you DIDNT post such imflammatory stuff that has NO providance thank you
if its backed up with quotes from recognised authorities or established facilities then fine...........that is just hearsay and derogatory hearsay at that
if you wish to FIND providance for it, then i will replace the post..........until then it has been removed
thank you
i will remind you all..............back up what you say cos if you dont its no better than urban myth..........and also this thread is not to debat the rights and wrongs of homosexuality as you see it..............it is to debate same sex marriage
thank you
:catz:

[Keverzwijn]

And I mean communion, thanks Catz.

[Mirkgirl]

Mirky you cannot compare Religion to sexual oreintation(for many reasons). "But course you can't fall in love in un-christian girl" iv no idea what you mean here, do i sense a lil sarcasm. and anyway this is not a question of love, i love my friends, male and female, i dont wana marry them all. "love, good manners" female things? thats a very curious thing to say so it is. Where did I compare religion to sexual oriention? I just said that you'd feel unhappy if you are denied marriage for some reason and the first reason that came to my mind was religion, it might as well be money, position in society or any other. I meant love in the couple, partner, marrying sense and I believe I made it quite clear, it's not my problem that it is also used in other senses. As to sarcastic, yes I was, but I was also right, I believe.
but let me make this a lil scientific, male bodies produce testosteron, female bodies produce estergen and (?), as the main hormones in there body, these hormones are very different from eachother, they affect the way people think, so therefore men and women will think differently. but i do agree that different people within the same sex can think very differently.
and i aint trying to sell anything, im looking at this thing purely scientifically
I think you are a bit ahead in the science than the rest of the world, where can I read your work? Science still is struggling over the complexity of human character and while many chromosones are discovered which make you be able to run longer, have keener eyes or burst into anger or tremble with fear the whole pic is far from clear. The main function of testosterone, progesterone and estrogene are the secondary sex characters of the body and the affection on the character are in tight connection to that too. Like a woman would curl when there's danger to protect the possible fetus. It's not like that's crusial to bringing up a child.
Obviously, they'll be adopting kids. These children will grow up with either two mommies or two daddies, completely muddling their view of the different sexes. And the sexes are different, guys. Gil made that point above. Women and men are different -- and they complement each other as such. Together, they reproduce and raise a family. As a girl, I have pride in being female. There is a sense of worth and importance in that identity. That I am different from a male -- that I am capable of different things, etc. Now, if, in this new culture we seem to be creating, children grow up having no sense of this vast difference . . . where's anyone's value anymore? What's my value, as a woman, if I know that a man can take my place just as well? What's a man's value if a woman can fill that gap in another woman's life? We have no value. That's not a culture I want to raise my kids in. Or live in myself, for that matter. Nature has given us the boundaries, and there are pretty good reasons for those boundaries.Firstly I see myself first as a human being, whose sole purpose is NOT being someones partner or filling any gaps in anyones life. This whole idea makes me sick. There's way much more to live than relationships no matter what the movies and the magazines say. From where I'm standing your idea that my sole purpose is filling someone's gaps and getting my own filled is loss of value. If that's all I can be, I better shoot myself.
Taken this aside. A man cannot take my place in a gay relationship. I never had a place there for a start. All I could be to that man was something he can show to the society, while in private he has the contacts that make him feel good. And that's a problem many women have, being married to someone who uses them just as a screen to the society. This is the society you want to keep. This is the society you want to grow your children in.

I also can see that, if homosexual marriages come to be legal, despite all this "separation of church and state" stuff, they aren't going to stay separate. It's already happened in Canada, and maybe other places. The government is mandating what can or can't be said in religious places. It'll happen here in America (where I live), too. Pastors and leaders in other religions will be outlawed from speaking what they believe, if it has anything to do with homosexuality.
Well I agree that the church shouldn't be allowed to spread hatred to gays. Sorry hon but the way you say it we should allow the Inquisition as well cause we shouldn't meddle in religion's business. No religion should be allowed to spread hatred.

[Miriel Baggins]

Firstly I see myself first as a human being, whose sole purpose is NOT being someones partner or filling any gaps in anyones life. This whole idea makes me sick. There's way much more to live than relationships no matter what the movies and the magazines say. From where I'm standing your idea that my sole purpose is filling someone's gaps and getting my own filled is loss of value. If that's all I can be, I better shoot myself.
Taken this aside. A man cannot take my place in a gay relationship. I never had a place there for a start. All I could be to that man was something he can show to the society, while in private he has the contacts that make him feel good. And that's a problem many women have, being married to someone who uses them just as a screen to the society. This is the society you want to keep. This is the society you want to grow your children in. Okay (and, Catz, you can listen in, too, 'cause you had the same problems with what I said), first of all, let me state: my complete self-worth and ultimate value are not rooted in the fact that I'm a woman. Sorry if it sounded that way. As you said, I'm a human being, first and foremost. Obviously. But next in the little tree-thingy you've built is the different sexes. Look, you just can't ignore the fact that women have pride in being women and men have pride in being men. I'm sorry, but have you been missing the whole feminist movement? Although that's a whole can of worms in itself, the original point that was there was the separate identity of women and that they are their own "units" free and intelligent, different from men, but not inferior. I totally agree with that. And, no, it's not a woman's place in life to fulfill a man's desires, or anything like that. How degrading. My point here was that, biologically, our bodies were created to complement each other: as male and female. "Nature's boundaries" . . . (Any little bells ringing?) SO, as intelligent human beings, who have to use common sense plus maybe a pinch of wisdom (if anyone has it these days) to lay out boundaries and laws by which to govern this crazy world, we have to decide where the stopping point is, right? I don't think anyone has a right to deny homosexual couples the rights of civil unions. I wish we could, personally, but that's a whole different matter. But when we go so far as to legalize marriage --- where will it ever stop? Using the exact same arguments that have been used to try and legalize same-sex marriages, we could pass laws to allow pedophiles to have sex with consenting children. (And if y'all are OK with that . . . woah, we'll never find any common ground, I'm afraid.) And a lot of other ridiculous, culturally horrible things that I won't go into. If there aren't boundaries placed somewhere we could go way too far. And, as I said, when men and women are giving up their natural biological purposes, maybe that's a good place to stop and at least evaluate the situation.
Well I agree that the church shouldn't be allowed to spread hatred to gays. Sorry hon but the way you say it we should allow the Inquisition as well cause we shouldn't meddle in religion's business. No religion should be allowed to spread hatred. Uhuh. Okay, I think you're missing the point. This is where almost everyone misses the point. You apparently aren't quite aware of the "church's" stance on homosexuality. (And, as Catz said, if you can't back yourself up . . . .) "Hatred" and "disagreement" are different things, correct? I (to use myself as an example) believe gay behavior to be wrong. However, I have a few good friends who are gay. Okay . . . do I hate them? No, of course not. Has my church taught me to hate them? No. Actually, it's my church that taught me (along with saying that their behavior is "wrong") to accept them and love them despite their actions. They are wonderful, intelligent, kind people, and I wish the best for them. Okay, there's a little from the side of a "biased, bigoted" Christian. ;)

About the Inquisition: that was church getting involved in the government, darlin', which I already said I disagreed with. It sounds like maybe you're a person who believes that "separation of church and state" means keeping the church out of the state, but oh my! let us keep the church under governmental surveillance or die! It goes both ways. Churches should be allowed to teach whatever it says in their creed-book. (For lack of a better term. :p) What they shouldn't be allowed to do is to insist that they rule everyone's lives through the government or something like that. (That's what the Inquisition was, remember?) And, no, churches (or, at least, the majority of them) don't do the whole "hate speech" thing that people (who have never been in one or heard such a speech) accuse them of. Just to clear that up.

(And, btw, Kev, if I had been raised Catholic, I probably wouldn't have turned out Christian, either. I don't see much common sense in what they teach, though I do respect them, 'cause my grandparents are Catholic.)

I don't have a proble with gay peopepl cuz I don't consider them that different from all the rest of mankind. I'm not a racist cuz I refuse to believe that some races are bad and some are not. Call me naive or whatever you want....(I'd prefer openminded actually) As openminded as a person who had the top of his head removed Will you people stop equating what I'm saying with racism!!! *Ahem* :blush: Sorry. I mean, it's not the sme thing, though! Homosexuals aren't a "race" of people. They're the same as anyone else. And, no, in case you were wondering, I'm not racist, either, though I don't see how this has anything to do with the topic. I don't see anything really different in different "races," and my best friend is an African American. I don't get what's the big deal about all that. We're really no different. Sure, different color skin, big deal! But, anyways, I'm glad you're openminded, that's nice to know. ;)

[Mirkgirl]

Look, you just can't ignore the fact that women have pride in being women and men have pride in being men. I'm sorry, but have you been missing the whole feminist movement? Although that's a whole can of worms in itself, the original point that was there was the separate identity of women and that they are their own "units" free and intelligent, different from men, but not inferior. I totally agree with that.
While I respect the fight for rights for women, I despice feminism. It tries to build in the women that they are something better than men, some other species. just look at your post "separate identity of women". Why on hell? Why don't we just **** the whole male-female thing and look at everyone first as a human and then as an individual. No sex identification is that vital, I don't feel that proud that I'm a woman. What does that mean? I have boobs and pee sitting. I feel proud I am me. Belonging to biological group doesn't boost my selfesteem.

Using the exact same arguments that have been used to try and legalize same-sex marriages, we could pass laws to allow pedophiles to have sex with consenting children. (And if y'all are OK with that . . . woah, we'll never find any common ground, I'm afraid.) And a lot of other ridiculous, culturally horrible things that I won't go into. If there aren't boundaries placed somewhere we could go way too far. And, as I said, when men and women are giving up their natural biological purposes, maybe that's a good place to stop and at least evaluate the situation.
Pedophile is violence. Also is done with minors. Now we are talking for two grown up people loving each other. Don't mix the things.
Uhuh. Okay, I think you're missing the point. This is where almost everyone misses the point. You apparently aren't quite aware of the "church's" stance on homosexuality. (And, as Catz said, if you can't back yourself up . . . .) "Hatred" and "disagreement" are different things, correct? I (to use myself as an example) believe gay behavior to be wrong. However, I have a few good friends who are gay. Okay . . . do I hate them? No, of course not. Has my church taught me to hate them? No. Actually, it's my church that taught me (along with saying that their behavior is "wrong") to accept them and love them despite their actions. They are wonderful, intelligent, kind people, and I wish the best for them. Okay, there's a little from the side of a "biased, bigoted" Christian. ;)
Okay not hatred maybe. But they treat them as people lost their way, people being wrong. It's discrimination and cannot be tolerated. And if you are smart enough to take out what your priest says when you talk to your friends, most people unfortunately arent. I don't see why the priest should talk about that anyway. And in the creed-book as you called it says that they should be killed if they do it. There's one BIG gap between what the Bible says and what the priests preach today. It changes as the society changes and if the society doesn't want to listen how bad being homo is, they might as well shut up about it.

[Cuiel Rilwen]

quote>But when we go so far as to legalize marriage --- where will it ever stop? Using the exact same arguments that have been used to try and legalize same-sex marriages, we could pass laws to allow pedophiles to have sex with consenting children. (And if y'all are OK with that . . . woah, we'll never find any common ground, I'm afraid.)>quote

Ofcourse we're not ok with that...I don't even know how you can compare the two! While saying that we have to use our common sense and know where to draw the line THIS is where any normally thinking and compassionate human beeing draws it...when someone acts out their sexual preferences and hurt someone else in the process! Not at people sharing a mutual love for one another, and bothering absolutely noone else.

Living the lie of a hetero married to a homosexual is a horrible choice of life. I hope this world can put that practice away soon. And speaking of feminism...that whole thing was a result of women being repressed for hundreds of years. It was wrong and we're thankfully done with it...both...mostly at least. But see this is what happens when you repress someone...revolution! And how many people in this world are we talking about anyway...hardly enough to make the world change much. If anything, I think legalizing it, (BUT NOT pushing priests into doing what they believe is wrong, all priests don't have the same opinion about this), will eventually learn people to be more understanding and accepting...and beeing of an open mind has never hurt this world.

[Miriel Baggins]

Firstly, about feminism. I absolutely despise it, too. Imo, feminists are really a bunch of hypocrites who tell women they're "better than men" (where'd they get that?) and should make themselves "free" of them and on and on, but they don't walk the talk . . . at all. My point was that a huge majority of women do have a pride in their sense of womanhood. Now, apparently you don't, and that's just fine. It's just a place where we differ. No, I don't find my ultimate security in the fact that I'm a woman, but I do have pride in who I am. And I can't explain it better than that.

Of course, we can just forget all that touchy-feely stuff if you want (:grin: ): but you can't really deny that men and women aren't different, physically, emotionally, biologically. Try it.
Pedophile is violence. Also is done with minors. Now we are talking for two grown up people loving each other. Don't mix the things. I said consenting children, okay? 'Cause, we can close our eyes to it all we want, but some kids do consent to that kind of thing. And, no, I was definitely not saying that homosexuals and pedophiles are the same. I said that the arguments being used to support gay rights could just as easily be used (maybe twisted in a different direction in some ways -- I don't know) to support the rights of a pedophile to have sex with consenting children. It's sick and wrong and horrible, but it could be done, okay?
Living the lie of a hetero married to a homosexual is a horrible choice of life. Uhh, did I say it was a good one? Or are you just bringing in a new idea? I would agree with you there, though.
And how many people in this world are we talking about anyway...hardly enough to make the world change much. It was enough to get the homosexual marriage issue into courts --- something that never would have been thought of twenty years ago. It was enough to revolutionize a whole generation's way of thinking. Believe me, it's enough to change a whole lot more than you're thinking.

I think legalizing it, will eventually learn people to be more understanding and accepting...and beeing of an open mind has never hurt this world. First of all, there will always be bigots and "racists" out there. Legalizing same-sex marriages won't fix that. Sorry. Secondly, how will it do so? Can you prove that at all?

Okay not hatred maybe. But they treat them as people lost their way, people being wrong. It's discrimination and cannot be tolerated. And if you are smart enough to take out what your priest says when you talk to your friends, most people unfortunately arent. I don't see why the priest should talk about that anyway. And in the creed-book as you called it says that they should be killed if they do it. There's one BIG gap between what the Bible says and what the priests preach today. It changes as the society changes and if the society doesn't want to listen how bad being homo is, they might as well shut up about it. Sorry, but that's not their job. They don't get payed to shut up about it. :p Okay, I was just joking. But, really, they won't shut up about it, because it's something they believe in. Let's see . . . let's say murder was going to be legalized? Would you shut up about it, or would you protest? Protest, of course. Now, I'm not comparing homosexuality to murder. God forbid. But I'm just saying that when you believe something strongly, a stupid culture that disagrees with you isn't going to shut you up. ;)

And saying that a person is wrong isn't discrimination. If it were, we couldn't prosecute rapists, murderers, etc. because it would be categorized as "hate speeches" or something like that. Discrimination is hating someone, or refusing to associate with them because of something they believe, or the way they look, or the way they live. Different things, there, Mirky.

Oh, and, btw, I wasn't "smart enough to take out what my priest said." As I told you, he doesn't think that we should be mean to gays or not accept them. He just believes they're wrong. Of course, if he did tell me not to associate with them and to hate them, I wouldn't listen. I'd probably leave the church, too, and maybe send him hate mail. :p

And, lastly, sorry but it doesn't say in my "creed-book" (mine being the Bible) that we should kill gays. Gee whiz, where do you get that stuff? No wonder you want the government to control the church! I would, too. But, I'm happy to inform you, you are laboring under a delusion: The Bible never says we should kill homosexuals. If you still think it does, find the place and then we can talk about it.

[Cuiel Rilwen]

>quote First of all, there will always be bigots and "racists" out there. Legalizing same-sex marriages won't fix that. Sorry. Secondly, how will it do so? Can you prove that at all?>qoute

Certainly not, and doesn't need proving, it's not based on science...just my common sense knowing that people will, tend to have an easier approach on the issue after a while. Now you may say that this goes to prove what you said about using the means of one thing to accept someting far worse...but there I think we have to give people some more credit than that. If not all then at least the ones passing the laws.

[Melian]

I said consenting children, okay? 'Cause, we can close our eyes to it all we want, but some kids do consent to that kind of thing. And, no, I was definitely not saying that homosexuals and pedophiles are the same. I said that the arguments being used to support gay rights could just as easily be used (maybe twisted in a different direction in some ways -- I don't know) to support the rights of a pedophile to have sex with consenting children. It's sick and wrong and horrible, but it could be done, okay?
I don't understand how anyone can link homosexuality with pedophilia. It would be the same as linking heterosexuality with pedophilia, wouldn't it?? There is no such thing as legally consenting children, that is the whole point. Whoever thinks such a thing is searching for a rationalization for their sickness. Sex requires consenting adults. Period. If it doesn't fit the definition, then it is rape.

[Lady Arien]

Using the exact same arguments that have been used to try and legalize same-sex marriages, we could pass laws to allow pedophiles to have sex with consenting children.

This line of thinking is absolutely unbelievable to me. Pedopheila is a heinous crime, marriage is not. In the US, it is illegal to have sex with a minor, period, whether they are consenting or not...that's where statutory rape laws come in...children have no basis of maturity to decide whether they are consenting or not, so there are laws to protect them against this sickness. There are worlds of difference here, and it's really not a good comparison to illustrate the downfall of culture as we know it because a few gay people wish to marry their partners and have all the legal marriage benefits that heterosexual couples take for granted.

I suppose the same sort of thinking was prevalent when those damm pesky suffragettes decided to fight for the woman's right to vote.

And saying that a person is wrong isn't discrimination. If it were, we couldn't prosecute rapists, murderers, etc. because it would be categorized as "hate speeches" or something like that.

Rapists and murderers are criminals...we prosecute these people because they break the law. To say that homosexuality is wrong is discrimination (although it masquerades as an opinion) against someone because of their sexual orientation.

A lot of references have been made to what the bible says, and what the church says..I take it all with a grain of salt, but, to be honest, it scares me when people adopt the ideaology of an institution instead of personally exploring an issue and defining their own feelings about it, outside of the institution's doctrine.

[Catz]

Firstly, about feminism. I absolutely despise it, too. Imo, feminists are really a bunch of hypocrites who tell women they're "better than men" (where'd they get that?) and should make themselves "free" of them and on and on, but they don't walk the talk . . . at all. My point was that a huge majority of women do have a pride in their sense of womanhood. Now, apparently you don't, and that's just fine. It's just a place where we differ. No, I don't find my ultimate security in the fact that I'm a woman, but I do have pride in who I am. And I can't explain it better than that.

Of course, we can just forget all that touchy-feely stuff if you want ( ): but you can't really deny that men and women aren't different, physically, emotionally, biologically. Try it.

did i do that? i dont believe i did...........since i have eyes and have actully BEEN married i think i might have gotten that point ;)
and i find that remark somewhat offensive, since you know NOTHING about me, so you have no idea about what my feelings are on being a female OR a woman
i like being female............but im a person FIRST...........and as to the "touchy feely stuff" that is CULTURAL............and if you dont believe ME, just look at the difference between the life of a woman in the western world and that of a "woman" in say, Africa, or Oman or the Pacific Islands......they are all female, but thier experience of "womanhood" differs markedly
i also find it rather ironic that you are using your ability to read and write, in order to run down the very people that gave you the right to that education in the first place.........thats REAL hypocrisy..........those SO despicable "feminists" (and who ever told you that women are BETTER than men? ........feminism simply says that a woman should have the same chances and opportunities as men......why is that wrong? )who btw, also won for you you the right to own your own property, travel where you will on your OWN passport, earn and keep your own money, not be the chattel of your husband..........oh and marry who you choose
thats a right..........a HUMAN right as far as im concerned and denying that to gay couples is discrimination, just as denying it to a black couple would be
:catz:

[Cuiel Rilwen]

In an ideal world we would all instantly understand what was right and wrong. Feminism as the ideal consept was/is not wrong...what went wrong was some women ending up hating men. Isn't it always like that, some go to the extreme? BUT it was the means to make women independent, and had to be.

[Miriel Baggins]

In an ideal world we would all instantly understand what was right and wrong. Feminism as the ideal consept was/is not wrong...what went wrong was some women ending up hating men. Isn't it always like that, some go to the extreme? BUT it was the means to make women independent, and had to be. Okay, I agree with you, though I don't exactly see how this has to do with the topic. But I would like to point out something you said in particular: "what went wrong was some women ending up hating men. Isn't it always like that, some go to the extreme?" Exactly. That was my point when I said that there will always be people (bigots and racists) who go to the extreme and hate others no matter what the law says. Thanks for affirming it. ;)

And, Catz, when I said that there are obvious differences in men and women (physically and psychologically) I was talking to Mirky, who seemed to feel differently. Not you. Mirky had expressed her feelings on the topic, you hadn't. It's nice to know yours now, though.

This line of thinking is absolutely unbelievable to me. Pedopheila is a heinous crime, marriage is not. In the US, it is illegal to have sex with a minor, period, whether they are consenting or not...that's where statutory rape laws come in...children have no basis of maturity to decide whether they are consenting or not, so there are laws to protect them against this sickness. There are worlds of difference here, and it's really not a good comparison to illustrate the downfall of culture as we know it because a few gay people wish to marry their partners and have all the legal marriage benefits that heterosexual couples take for granted. OK, guys, this isn't going well, but I'll try to explain myself one more time, alright? Hear me out! The same arguments I've heard even a lot of y'all use to support rights for homosexual marriage can be turned around to support pedophilia. Okay, I already said that I don't think they are even at all similar. OKAY?! Don't get me wrong, I think pedophilia is horrific, awful --- one human being taking advantage of the other. Homosexuality is completely different. But here's the argument. *goes into a high voice* "Pedophiles were born with a sexual preference. They can't help it, they can't change it. So why the heck should we violate their rights? Who are we to say that they can't live out their sexual preferences, as long as the kid agrees? It's 'racism' and bigotry to say they can't pursue their happiness just because they're different from us." That's the best I can do. If you still don't get what I mean, drop it, okay? I've been known to explain myself badly before, and people just learn to ignore me. :p
There is no such thing as legally consenting children Neither is there such a thing as legal homosexual marriage. :rolleyes: Not quite the best argument.

i also find it rather ironic that you are using your ability to read and write, in order to run down the very people that gave you the right to that education in the first place.........thats REAL hypocrisy..........those SO despicable "feminists" (and who ever told you that women are BETTER than men? ........feminism simply says that a woman should have the same chances and opportunities as men......why is that wrong? )who btw, also won for you you the right to own your own property, travel where you will on your OWN passport, earn and keep your own money, not be the chattel of your husband..........oh and marry who you choose Along with the point that CR made, I don't despise the ideas that started suffrage and all that. Not at all. But feminism today has gone completely over the top. Anyone with eyes and ears can see that. Gloria Steinham (sp?), Ms. Feminism herself, parades around proclaiming her ideals: "Women are equal to men; are free units, and shouldn't have to go to men for anything! We are completely indepent of men! We are better than men! Who needs men?" blah, blah, blah, then the minute she's low on money, she finds a rich male friend and sleeps with him. Problem solved, more money; but no credibility anymore. The woman sells herself to a man for money, while a minute before she was proclaiming her utter independence from the male race. That's why I despise feminism. As it shows itself today. The idea that women are equal to men, though, I completely agree with.

BUT! Feminism is way off topic, so . . . . I suggest we stop discussing it about now.
To say that homosexuality is wrong is discrimination (although it masquerades as an opinion) against someone because of their sexual orientation. No it isn't, as long as you don't treat them any differently.

I take it all with a grain of salt, but, to be honest, it scares me when people adopt the ideaology of an institution instead of personally exploring an issue and defining their own feelings about it, outside of the institution's doctrine. Sorry you feel that way. If it eases your mind at all, I'll let you know that I've thought through this issue and come to my own conclusions. I like to do my own thinking, and try to never let someone else do it for me. Of course, I listen to others' ideas (especially people older than me, which is, like, everyone :grin: ), but I take them with a grain of salt, as you said. I'm sorry that you jumped to the conclusion that I just believe whatever some guy wearing a robe in the pulpit chooses to tell me.

[Mirkgirl]

Well the same way your argument that the state has nothing to do in the religion might be diverted and stand to protect some "new religion" (or well forgotten old one) that has ritual killings in it's creed book. But that's beyond the point, every argument can be also used for other purposes, it's common sense to see when it goes around human rights and when it goes around abuse of human beings.

[Lady Arien]

If you still don't get what I mean, drop it, okay? I've been known to explain myself badly before, and people just learn to ignore me.

I'm sorry, but on a topic this sensitive, in a forum of public debate, you will be called on to define and defend your position, and I don't understand the line of reasoning that says if we legalize same-sex marriages, someone will eventually be able to legislate that my next door neighbor can choose to marry Jane, or another Joe, or ignore both of them and take more than a second look at my daughter...surely you see the extreme here? Given your stance, one could say that the hate crimes comitted against homosexuals aren't really bigotry...it's just someone's way of saying that they think someone else's sexual preference is wrong?

[Catz]

Anyone with eyes and ears can see that. Gloria Steinham (sp?), Ms. Feminism herself, parades around proclaiming her ideals: "Women are equal to men; are free units, and shouldn't have to go to men for anything! We are completely indepent of men! We are better than men! Who needs men?"
i assume we have providance for this? ;) cos otherwise its just hearsay and YOUR opinion, which i think we might agree is a little biased?.....since youve already said that you "despise feminists" ;)
besides, one person does not a movement make..........should we judge catholics on a few peadophile priests?
no............so you cant use one persons comments to trash a whole movement.........no matter HOW distasteful you find it
oh and btw what is so wrong about not having to go to men for anything? seems reasonable to me unless youre a helpless mental deficient who NEEDs help..........and we ARE equal to men.......different, but equal..........i wouldnt say better.........just people just like men, some good, some bad
and you think that without the feminist movement that your situation would be any better?............women used to be no better than bargaining chips to be traded and used
but yes thats beside the point, other than again to say that marriage to a partner of ones choice is a right and to deny that right to an adult is to discrimate........end of story
:catz:

[Cuiel Rilwen]

One of the many reasons this law is none excistant is ofcourse that if passing it, to some it might be considered a presedence for other groups that CONSIDER themselves equal to homosexuals. But passing a law that allows homosexuals to marry WILL NOT lead to other laws allowing pedophilia or other abnormities. Simply because if it gets passed all these "holes" have to be filled. Have a little faith in people...your government is also able to think for themeselves! They will never pass such a law without being precise about what criteria has to be filled by another group in order to claim the same.

[Miriel Baggins]

lol Is this situation tickling anyone else? I feel like I'm stuck in the middle of a storm in the ocean, just trying to keep afloat, with all of you tearing apart my arguments. :grin: Okay, anyways, that was off topic, but it just struck me . . . .

Well the same way your argument that the state has nothing to do in the religion might be diverted and stand to protect some "new religion" (or well forgotten old one) that has ritual killings in it's creed book. Umm, can you show me what you mean? I don't see at all how that would follow. That some "new religion" could be created that killed people? :huh: Could you explain yourself more in detail? Where exactly did you get the "ritual killings" and how does it follow from keeping government out of church matters, that suddenly the church will rule the government? It doesn't follow. And even if it did, there's nothing you can do about it in the US, 'cause separation of church and state is in the Constitution.

But that's beyond the point, every argument can be also used for other purposes, it's common sense to see when it goes around human rights and when it goes around abuse of human beings. Yes, of course it is. But some people these days (I think we've all met them) have gone way beyond common sense. In the present craze over "tolerance" and "equal rights for all" (which, btw, I agree with, but these terms have been twisted and exaggerated way too far) many people aren't thinking anymore. They just keep going without a thought to consequences, and these people could carry the same arguments over to pedophile. It's not a perfect world.

I'm sorry, but on a topic this sensitive, in a forum of public debate, you will be called on to define and defend your position, I don't know where you were, but I did already. And, in a forum of public debate it's usually somewhat important to stay considerate of others, and to remember that they don't want to hear the same thing over and over again. If they don't get it, maybe it's best to drop it. If you want me to try again, though, I will.
Given your stance, one could say that the hate crimes comitted against homosexuals aren't really bigotry...it's just someone's way of saying that they think someone else's sexual preference is wrong? As I asked Mirky: How exactly would that happen? What in "my stance" would make that logically follow? I've been saying over and over again that hate IS bigotry and it's wrong. Please don't just pick and choose whatever you think is easiest to attack in my stance. Listen to everything that I say, okay? How do you define "hate crimes"? If you mean someone, in private conversation, saying that they believe homosexuality to be wrong, then I completely disagree with that. For you to say that is to be discriminating against them for their religious beliefs. Period. If, though, you mean violence acted out against homosexuals, or verbal attacks, or anything of the sort, I agree that that is completely wrong (as I already said). There is a difference between having an opinion and treating others badly because of that opinion.

i assume we have providance for this? cos otherwise its just hearsay and YOUR opinion, which i think we might agree is a little biased?.....since youve already said that you "despise feminists"
besides, one person does not a movement make..........should we judge catholics on a few peadophile priests?
no............so you cant use one persons comments to trash a whole movement.........no matter HOW distasteful you find it I don't care what Gloria Steinham said, okay? I was giving you the gist of her ideas. It wasn't a direct quote. I don't have any problem with what she says, that wasn't my point. (Actually, I do have a problem with the fact that she often proclaims women as better than men, but other than that . . . . :rolleyes: ) My problem was her hypocrisy which I already illustrated. The fact that she says women should be free from men (and I agree) and then goes and sells herself for money makes her a hypocrite. I think we can all agree on that? That's why I have very little sympathy for the feminist movement. The women heading it all act like that, and it's not something I'd want to be associated with.

But, like I said. Nothing's wrong with saying that women are equal to men. I completely believe we are. And some women are more 'equal' than some men. More intelligent, they work harder, etc. Just as some men are more equal that other men or women. The only thing I don't agree with, as I said, is that women, as a sex, are somehow better than men, as a sex.

to say that marriage to a partner of ones choice is a right and to deny that right to an adult is to discrimate........end of story That depends on your definition of marriage. (I sound like Bill Clinton. :rolleyes: :p)

One of the many reasons this law is none excistant is ofcourse that if passing it, to some it might be considered a presedence for other groups that CONSIDER themselves equal to homosexuals. But passing a law that allows homosexuals to marry WILL NOT lead to other laws allowing pedophilia or other abnormities. Simply because if it gets passed all these "holes" have to be filled. Have a little faith in people...your government is also able to think for themeselves! They will never pass such a law without being precise about what criteria has to be filled by another group in order to claim the same. notworthy Of all the things I've heard so far, that was probably the most convincing. I can tell that you actually listened to what I said. ;) But I'm afraid I have little faith in some people of power in the government. Many of them do things just for the power. If it means giving rights to an often wealthy but utterly wrong group of people (pedophiles), some people will do it. As I said above to Mirky, this isn't an ideal world, and not everyone strives for true ideals, although you might. People who have their own advancement in mind could very easily use the same 'holes' in the law --- the same arguments used for same-sex marriages --- to pass a law legalizing something as awful as pedophile. We can talk high ideals and common-sense government all day, but you can't blind yourself to the facts: some things just aren't that way. And that's why we have to be extremely careful in what we legalize --- be it same-sex marriage or whatever.

:o That was long . . . . :blush:

[Cuiel Rilwen]

Why thank you! And yes it was long.

Tho I still believe that as long as we have a democratic rule that will not happen, I don't either think people in the government are perfect of ideal or whatever...but I do think they use their commons sense. Just look at the stuff that is dug up about polititians in order to have them removed from office. I really don't think anyone would be so stupid as to propose such a law on pedophilia, it would be political murder to even mention a positive stand on such an issue, don't you think?

[Miriel Baggins]

Oh yes, absolutely! At present. Just as it would have been political suicide to suggest legalizing same-sex marriage about twenty years ago. Times change. And I, personally, don't want to take any steps closer to legalizing such things as pedophile. But, imo, legalizing homosexual marriage would seriously open some doors.

[Cuiel Rilwen]

I totally see your point, but do you really mean to say that you think our perception of the wrong in hurting others, and particularly children, will change like that? I totally think not, if anything our society has moved closer to ensuring everyone's right to be protceted from harm. Tho this does not work always in the real world, and we're experiencing increesed crime rates, that is due to more people and more people breaking the laws, not the lack of laws or the wrong laws.

[Catz]

please tell me HOW you manage to link peadophilia with homosexuality?..............cos ive missed that totally since there IS no provable link...........yes there have been cases of homosexual peadophiles..........the are FAR more HETROSEXUAL ones...........ooops maybe youre right!!!!maybe we should stop HETROS from marrying!!!!
yes thats stupid..........and yes its sarcastic, but really, youre basing this on a house of cards
and how do YOU define marriage?
i define it as a legally binding contract between 2 persons to acknowledge their commitement to each other publically
how the HECK you get from the marriage of two consenting adults, to legalising child abuse totally beggars me, but it sounds like scare mongering to me
"dont legalise this or the nasty homo pervert will get you or your kids!!!"...........and ofc theyre all just WAITING to get us arent they???
im sorry, i know im not taking this seriously, but PLEASE!!!! GET real here
lets be honest, if youre going to stop same sex marriege because the agruments FOR it COULD POSSIBLY be used to justify peadophilia............you might as well ban EVERYTHING.............cos ANYONE who has debated knows that ANY argument can be turned to ANY POV...........so what youre saying has NO validity, and what you are preaching is in fact anarchy, since there is no arguement that cant be turned to support a legally and/or morally deficient cause
:catz:

[Mirkgirl]

lol Is this situation tickling anyone else? I feel like I'm stuck in the middle of a storm in the ocean, just trying to keep afloat, with all of you tearing apart my arguments. :grin: Okay, anyways, that was off topic, but it just struck me . . . .
Don't get into the water if you don't want to get wet.
Umm, can you show me what you mean? I don't see at all how that would follow. That some "new religion" could be created that killed people? :huh: Could you explain yourself more in detail? Where exactly did you get the "ritual killings" and how does it follow from keeping government out of church matters, that suddenly the church will rule the government? It doesn't follow. And even if it did, there's nothing you can do about it in the US, 'cause separation of church and state is in the Constitution.
Well the step from the church being separated from state to the church (or new church) being allowed to kill people for the Gods is not bigger than the one from allowing two gay people to celebrate their union in marriage to allowing a pedophile to abuse children.


Anyway I can't understand why you fear change so much. If the mankind was thinking like you, we'd never change a single thing fearing that it might grow into something awful.

[Bramblerose Bunce]

ok..I'm going to add my voice to this once again. Personally I have a hard time saying if something is right or wrong, because there are always situations where things change.
There have been so many reasons given explaining why homosexuality is wrong and they have all been challenged. You say that it is according to nature wrong, well in that case why are there homosexual acts in nature? It is morally wrong to love someone of the same sex, well is it morally right to deny your love? And the wonderful argument..what of the children? When the children are raised there are two important factors. Parents and society. There have been studies both for and against parents being homosexuals, but there has not been anything acutally stated as THE truth. The one real problem according to me is society. Why do the children pick on kids with homosexual parents? Because the image of it as different is printed on them from society.
One could then say that we should not allow children to be raised with homosexual parents until society is ready. but when will it be ready? Honestly, sometimes you have to make the law change before. It takes time to change peoples minds and traditions, but it is worth it. It has now been allowed in one of the states in USA to marry two of the same sexes. I have however heard that Bush will be trying to legislate a law against this.
Deciding to get married is between two (hopefully) grown up individuals who believe that this is what they want. What marriage symbolises differs from person to person, but legally it should be allowed for these two to decide what is right for them.
According to religion, well it is a belief and each religion has its set of rules and initiation rites. (I apologize if this sounds like a fraternity house thing, but I hope you understand what I mean) As long as it does not hurt anyone then that is fine. As I understand they have a "board" deciding what should be allowed and what should not.
Also..can I say something about quoting the bible or koran..or whatever text you like. Usually it is not as straight forward as you might first thing. It all depends on how you interpret the text.
About feminism. I know this is a little off topic, but it was brought up. There is a difference between feminism, feminist and feminine. When the feminist movement started it was to give women the same rights as the men. In literature writings of women were automatically strewn aside because women of course cannot rationalize and understand in the same way as men do! And we are still fighting this battle. In Sweden I can say that we are doing rather well. Look at our parlament..half women and half men. But there is still the problem with payment. There are instances where men and women are doing the exact same job, but the men get a whole lot more paid. There has been a snag however and the movement is scattering. The one thing that we are having problems with is how we are to define what being a woman is. Is it just biological or is it something more?

[Cuiel Rilwen]

I'll drink to that! entdraught

[Melian]

If you want to quote the bible, how about "judge not, lest ye be judged". I'm not a particularity religous person, but that about says it all.

[Lady Arien]

Also, depending on the spiritual path you follow...

"An it harm none, do what ye will."

BB...I couldn't have said it better myself...well, maybe..but you beat me to it! ;) Well done! :rock:

I also want to add that I understand where Miriel is coming from with the pedophilia line...legalizing same sex marriage is a revolutionary concept, and, like any other ground-breaking legislation, the thought is overwhelming, even frightening, to a lot of people. I remember not so long ago being seriously alarmed when my state (California) wanted to pass a law allowing driver's licenses to illegal aliens...the main thought in everyone's mind was "If they can pass this law, then what's to stop them from passing laws allowing them to (fill in the blank)?" and there was a lot of anger resulting from the fear of the government's power where this is concerned. Granted, legalizing pedophilia is a far cry from allowing Juan Doe to drive, but the essential fear is the same...if we allow this, where does it end? Quite a few of us, myself included, have really taken Miriel to task on her reasoning, jumping off on the issue only on its outward appearance, and not looking at it for what it was. I think a step back and a deep breath is called for here, because this is starting to get a tad ugly and more than a bit uncomfortable, and we need to remember that this thread, like any thread that debates the pro and cons of an issue, is a forum for public opionion, not public persecution.

[Cuiel Rilwen]

*stepping back* point well taken!:) Sorry if I was being harsh, I didn't mean to attack anyone!

[Catz]

yeah fair enough, tho i have to say that i DO see the point Miriel is trying to make..........i just dont think its valid, since that arguement could be used about ANYthing.....and frankly i dint think the best reaction to change is fear
:catz:

[Bramblerose Bunce]

BB...I couldn't have said it better myself...well, maybe..but you beat me to it! ;) Well done! :rock:

Thank you! :smooch:

I also want to add that I understand where Miriel is coming from with the pedophilia line...legalizing same sex marriage is a revolutionary concept, and, like any other ground-breaking legislation, the thought is overwhelming, even frightening, to a lot of people. I remember not so long ago being seriously alarmed when my state (California) wanted to pass a law allowing driver's licenses to illegal aliens...the main thought in everyone's mind was "If they can pass this law, then what's to stop them from passing laws allowing them to (fill in the blank)?" and there was a lot of anger resulting from the fear of the government's power where this is concerned. Granted, legalizing pedophilia is a far cry from allowing Juan Doe to drive, but the essential fear is the same...if we allow this, where does it end? Quite a few of us, myself included, have really taken Miriel to task on her reasoning, jumping off on the issue only on its outward appearance, and not looking at it for what it was. I think a step back and a deep breath is called for here, because this is starting to get a tad ugly and more than a bit uncomfortable, and we need to remember that this thread, like any thread that debates the pro and cons of an issue, is a forum for public opionion, not public persecution.

You bring up a couple of good points, LA. Fear of change is a common occurance among us. We are habitual creatures and therefore change is not always seen as a good thing. However, everything changes and to avoid change by fearing what may come is just not worth the energy. Of course we must be cautios with how our laws are written! Peoples opinions will not change over night, but the law is here to protect our ideals. There is nothing wrong with the ideals, but usually the law. Miriel seems to me is worried to what is to come if we change this one law and she does make a point. However I feel that it is a little far fetched that if we allow gay couples to marry then the next step is that we will allow pedophilia, but theoretically..sure. I see the link that you are trying to make Miriel, but I hope that you see how the two differ as well. Homosexuals that are to marry are two grown up individuals that both know what they are getting into. I doubt that there will be any shotgun marriages here! I must also say that I would doubt it because the stream does not seem to be going that way. It is mostly about the childrens rights. Not just in certain countries, but all over the world.

You are right that this is a debate and not a public persecution. Even though people may get a little hot under the collar we must remember that this is peoples opinions and their thoughts and who knows..we might learn something. Also..there are not that many so far that have voiced their opinion against same sex marriage, so it might feel to those individuals like what ever they say is being torn apart.

[Keverzwijn]

notworthy , Wel put BB

[Miriel Baggins]

Don't get into the water if you don't want to get wet. Actually, I enjoy getting wet, which is why I'm in the water. ;) But, Lady Arien, good point, and thanks. Things were getting a bit tense. :)

Okay, there's a whole lot here that I'd like to reply to, but if I miss something important, feel free to bring it up again.

Anyway I can't understand why you fear change so much. If the mankind was thinking like you, we'd never change a single thing fearing that it might grow into something awful. Actually, it's not really a fear, it's more like what we call caution. If we're going to make a revolutionary legislation legalizing same-sex marriage, we need to do it thoughtfully, looking at both sides of the issue. And, granted, just because a lot of people (or even a majority) believe something to be "wrong" doesn't mean it shouldn't be legalized. But when that many people believe something - firmly - others shouldn't brush them aside as people who are afraid of change or stubbornly stuck in the past.

If you want to quote the bible, how about "judge not, lest ye be judged". I'm not a particularity religous person, but that about says it all. Good point, Melian! Glad to see someone's read it. :p Unfortunately, though, that verse is taken out of context. If you read the passage around it, you will see that it applies to people who are sinning themselves and then judging others for the same thing. In other words, if I were living with a lesbian partner, I would have absolutely no right to tell other gays that what they are doing is wrong. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" That's the context.

Well, I'm glad to hear that y'all at least basically understand what I was trying to get across about pedophilia. I wasn't sure I wanted to try that again. :grin: But, anyways, this has been blown out of the proportion I originally intended for it. I listed a lot of reasons why we might want to hesitate before legalizing same-sex marriage --- that was only one among others. I don't base my whole argument on the fact that "Oh yeah, if we legalize homosexual marriage, pedophile will definitely become legal, too." (And, btw, I never said that only gay people involved in pedophile were the problem. I never made a distinction. Homosexual, heterosexual, whatever. Pedophile is pedophile.) It's just something that could very suddenly rear it's ugly head, given the legislation involved in legalizing same-sex marriage. The link is in the argument, as I think you guys can see. It's a possibility. Not one that should put a stop to all progress (though I don't believe same-sex marriages can be called progress --- but that's opinion). Just one that should be considered seriously.

I define marriage (obviously) as a union between one man and one woman. Isn't marriage really a religious thing in the first place? So why can't homosexual couples be satisfied with civil unions? Why marriage? Just so they can "feel good"? I don't see that that's a strong enough reason for the drastic legislation that it requires.

However I feel that it is a little far fetched that if we allow gay couples to marry then the next step is that we will allow pedophilia, but theoretically..sure. I see the link that you are trying to make Miriel, but I hope that you see how the two differ as well. Oh gosh, yes! Please don't misunderstand me. As I've said repeatedly, I DO NOT think that homosexuality and pedophile are the same thing, or even similar. As I said a moment ago, it's in the argument that similarities start to pop up. Similar themes of argument could easily be used to support pedophile. The inherent "rights" of every human being (young or old) to decide what to do with their lives, etc.

Okay, hope I covered everything! :)

[Cuiel Rilwen]

I define marriage (obviously) as a union between one man and one woman. Isn't marriage really a religious thing in the first place? So why can't homosexual couples be satisfied with civil unions? Why marriage? Just so they can "feel good"? I don't see that that's a strong enough reason for the drastic legislation that it requires.

Err well because there actually are christian homosexuals...if feeling happy means having their unions blessed by God, the church is the only place they can get that happiness. That can't be difficoult to understand eh? If this wasn't the case civil unions would do just fine...like for any non religious coupple.

[Miriel Baggins]

Like I said, does the issue of someone "feeling good" justify something as huge and revolutionary as legalizing same-sex marriages? There are other ways to find happiness. And the percentage of homosexual people in the world is extremely small --- even fewer of them are Christians. A lot of awful things could be legalized on the basis of making a few people happier. It's not a good enough argument.

[Cuiel Rilwen]

Let me ask you then...are you a christian?

[Bramblerose Bunce]

Actually, it's not really a fear, it's more like what we call caution. If we're going to make a revolutionary legislation legalizing same-sex marriage, we need to do it thoughtfully, looking at both sides of the issue. And, granted, just because a lot of people (or even a majority) believe something to be "wrong" doesn't mean it shouldn't be legalized. But when that many people believe something - firmly - others shouldn't brush them aside as people who are afraid of change or stubbornly stuck in the past.

True..because the last time someone did that the americans ended up having a civil war.

Good point, Melian! Glad to see someone's read it. :p Unfortunately, though, that verse is taken out of context. If you read the passage around it, you will see that it applies to people who are sinning themselves and then judging others for the same thing. In other words, if I were living with a lesbian partner, I would have absolutely no right to tell other gays that what they are doing is wrong. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" That's the context.

I think there are several people here who have read the bible but who decide not to to bring it up. I have another interpretation on that quote and to me it means that basically we are all sinners and if we judge others then we must be prepared to be judged ourselves.

I define marriage (obviously) as a union between one man and one woman. Isn't marriage really a religious thing in the first place? So why can't homosexual couples be satisfied with civil unions? Why marriage? Just so they can "feel good"? I don't see that that's a strong enough reason for the drastic legislation that it requires.

Because it has not been allowed. We are not (as far as I know) talking about the churches allowing it yet, but so that it can be done as a civil union, as you put it. That is not allowed yet..well except that one state. Goodness...the churches still have a hard time accepting women priests...I doubt they would be ready for anything like that in a while.

Homosexuals should have the same rights that a heterosexual has and that includes the choice of marriage.

And Mirial, you said that you have more arguments? Please state them.

[Mirkgirl]

Actually, I enjoy getting wet, which is why I'm in the water. ;)
Don't moan about it then. Or you enjoy moaning too?

Actually, it's not really a fear, it's more like what we call caution. If we're going to make a revolutionary legislation legalizing same-sex marriage, we need to do it thoughtfully, looking at both sides of the issue. And, granted, just because a lot of people (or even a majority) believe something to be "wrong" doesn't mean it shouldn't be legalized. But when that many people believe something - firmly - others shouldn't brush them aside as people who are afraid of change or stubbornly stuck in the past.
Sometimes that's the way it should go. Many people believed (and still believe even) that black people are not people. Same with women and so on. And firmly believing in something which according to the majority is part of the past raises some suspicions.

Good point, Melian! Glad to see someone's read it. :p Unfortunately, though, that verse is taken out of context. If you read the passage around it, you will see that it applies to people who are sinning themselves and then judging others for the same thing. In other words, if I were living with a lesbian partner, I would have absolutely no right to tell other gays that what they are doing is wrong. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" That's the context.
No hon that's not the context. The context is that you have many other sins, even if not that one in particular, and shouldn't judge anyone who hasn't done harm to you or someone else. Just cause you're straight it doesn't mean you can judge the gays.

I define marriage (obviously) as a union between one man and one woman. Isn't marriage really a religious thing in the first place? So why can't homosexual couples be satisfied with civil unions? Why marriage? Just so they can "feel good"? I don't see that that's a strong enough reason for the drastic legislation that it requires.
This is yours and the christian church's definition. And I don't see why you shouldnt give a part of the society, no matter how small it is, a little treat taken that it won't hurt you.

Oh gosh, yes! Please don't misunderstand me. As I've said repeatedly, I DO NOT think that homosexuality and pedophile are the same thing, or even similar. As I said a moment ago, it's in the argument that similarities start to pop up. Similar themes of argument could easily be used to support pedophile. The inherent "rights" of every human being (young or old) to decide what to do with their lives, etc.
The full version of that is the inherent right of every adult human being to decide their life, as long as they are not hurting anyone in the process. You are the one perverting the arguments right now. And hell yeah it's working all right.

[Cecilwen]

Stating my opinions about same-sex marriages:
Personally, I have no objections about it. Marriage is after all about love, and if 2 people love each other, regardless of their sex, they should be allowed to get together and not be rejected by society because of this. After all, everyone is entitled to human rights.

I believe many people are actually not against couples of the same sex falling in love with each other and getting together. But we had a discussion about this topic in class, and my teacher was saying that some people disagree with homosexual marriage because they feel that it violates the policy of marriage. According to some definitions of marriages in some religions, it is deemed as inappropriate. ( I don't know why its deemed as inappropriate, I wasn't really paying attention) So my teacher was saying that churches and other religious institutions could perform ceremonies to recognize legally a 'bond' formed between a homosexual couple, but not term it as 'marriage'.

Just my opinions and some additional info... Like I said, I have no objections because it doesn't affect me... but I just hope people are not being denied of rights that they are entitled to. Thats all.

side note: Mirky, now I know what you meant in the chatroom ;)

[Miriel Baggins]

Okay, first I'd like to clear up the seeming confusion about the "Do not judge" verse in the Bible. "Context" is what's around the verse, okay? Not personal interpretation. And the Bible's not up for extreme personal interpretation. Take it from someone who knows. ;) (Btw, Cuiel, yes, I am a Christian.) The context of the verse is that we should not judge others if we are doing the same thing ourselves. That's what the verses around this one say. You can't just pull out one verse and say that it's sufficient unto itself. We could get a lot of wacky ideas that way. As I've been saying: you can't pick and choose. Either take the whole Bible, or leave it out. I was trying to leave out for everyone else's sakes, but someone else brought it in.

If we were to take this verse simply for what it seems to say "Do not judge lest ye be judged" we would all be offending every moment of our lives. Or a lot of us. You can't live without judging certain things about people. "Oh wow, he's not the sharpest pencil in the box," or "She could use some serious counseling." Whatever. We judge people. Intentionally or not.

Don't moan about it then. Or you enjoy moaning too? I'm really feeling the love right now, Mirky. :rolleyes: Actually, if you want to go back and read my post, I wasn't moaning, I was enjoying myself. Having a laugh, wondering if anyone else wanted to join in, etc. But, since you asked, no I don't enjoy moaning. I usually don't moan. But, if you want me to start, I've got ample reason to. :p I'm sure we all do.

I believe many people are actually not against couples of the same sex falling in love with each other and getting together. But we had a discussion about this topic in class, and my teacher was saying that some people disagree with homosexual marriage because they feel that it violates the policy of marriage. According to some definitions of marriages in some religions, it is deemed as inappropriate. ( I don't know why its deemed as inappropriate, I wasn't really paying attention) So my teacher was saying that churches and other religious institutions could perform ceremonies to recognize legally a 'bond' formed between a homosexual couple, but not term it as 'marriage'. Hi! :wave: Welcome to WotR, Cecilwen! :hooray: It's nice to have a new 'face'! veryhappy

Anyways, to get to the point, that's pretty much exactly what I think, which is why I said I think civil unions should be made legal, but not same-sex marriages. What is marriage, in the first place? How is it different from civil unions? In that it is, in essence, a religious practice: a vow made before God. That's basically the only difference. And, as it is religious, and religious finds homosexual behavior to be wrong, it's sensible to stop at legalizing civil unions. Or else you're stepping on the rights of thousands of religious people all over the world. And I know you wouldn't want to do that. :rolleyes:

And, Mirky, who says legalizing same-sex marriages won't hurt me? I personally don't want to raise my kids in the culture you've supported in this debate. A culture in which religious rights are thwarted. A culture in which I can't tell my kids what I believe or raise them in my own manner because I will be branded as a "hater." A culture in which the male and female sex have no intrinsic value or difference. A culture in which the highest good is the warm-and-fuzzy feeling --- in which helping a few people to "feel good" can justify drastic and controversial and revolutionary legislation. That is something I will honestly tell you that I fear. Not blindly. But it does scare me.

[Melian]

And, Mirky, who says legalizing same-sex marriages won't hurt me? I personally don't want to raise my kids in the culture you've supported in this debate. A culture in which religious rights are thwarted. A culture in which I can't tell my kids what I believe or raise them in my own manner because I will be branded as a "hater." A culture in which the male and female sex have no intrinsic value or difference. A culture in which the highest good is the warm-and-fuzzy feeling --- in which helping a few people to "feel good" can justify drastic and controversial and revolutionary legislation. That is something I will honestly tell you that I fear. Not blindly. But it does scare me.
Wow.......... I have been trying to follow all of this and it frankly amazes me why anyone thinks that same-sex marriage would be infringing on anyone else's rights. Why is it any of our business?

[Lady Arien]

What is marriage, in the first place? How is it different from civil unions? In that it is, in essence, a religious practice: a vow made before God

Does that mean that civil ceremonies...such as those that take place in city hall, are not really marriages because they didn't take place in a church? My beloved Illu and were not married in a church...I don't belong to one and his religion prohibits us getting married because his first marriage has not been anulled...something we'd have to wait a couple of years for. Is our marriage any less valid because it wasn't performed by a priest? Should I say we're coming up on our sixth civil ceremony anniversary because we didn't make our vows in a religious way? Maybe there are no mainstream religions that will perform marriage ceremonies for homosexual couples, but the real definition of marriage is in the hearts and souls of the people who choose to bind their lives together in whatever way is appropriate to them, whether it involves a bible or not....which leads me to a question...


And the Bible's not up for extreme personal interpretation

Is that not what a priest does when he gives his sermon? He may quote verse and text, but the rest of it his own personal interpretation...some more extreme than others, depending on the priest and the church. All the great books of religion...the Koran...the Torah, etc. have always been open to personal interpretation...the bible itself, even, is a collection of a number of personal interpretations, especially the gospels, and a dozen people can read the same verse and each will have a different perspective on what it means to them. I don't get into debates about "the word" and what's true or not because I wasn't there at the time.

A culture in which religious rights are thwarted

How are they being thwarted? Just because some don't agree with the concept of same-sex marriages doesn't mean that they aren't free to hold their own beliefs and adhere to the edicts of their particular religion.

[Cuiel Rilwen]

I'm really feeling the love right now, Mirky. :rolleyes: Actually, if you want to go back and read my post, I wasn't moaning, I was enjoying myself. Having a laugh, wondering if anyone else wanted to join in, etc. But, since you asked, no I don't enjoy moaning. I usually don't moan. But, if you want me to start, I've got ample reason to. :p I'm sure we all do.

What is marriage, in the first place? How is it different from civil unions? In that it is, in essence, a religious practice: a vow made before God. That's basically the only difference. And, as it is religious, and religious finds homosexual behavior to be wrong, it's sensible to stop at legalizing civil unions. Or else you're stepping on the rights of thousands of religious people all over the world. And I know you wouldn't want to do that. :rolleyes:

And, Mirky, who says legalizing same-sex marriages won't hurt me? I personally don't want to raise my kids in the culture you've supported in this debate. A culture in which religious rights are thwarted. A culture in which I can't tell my kids what I believe or raise them in my own manner because I will be branded as a "hater." A culture in which the male and female sex have no intrinsic value or difference. A culture in which the highest good is the warm-and-fuzzy feeling --- in which helping a few people to "feel good" can justify drastic and controversial and revolutionary legislation. That is something I will honestly tell you that I fear. Not blindly. But it does scare me.

Let me tell you that all of us are not out to hang you! I certainly don't want you to feel that way and I am sorry if I did.

This is however so selfcontradictory to me that I have to comment it. While you specific marriage as a religious practice, why aren't christian homo's gonna have the right to practice that? Granted there are amongst homosexuals, like amongst hetero's, people who marry in church out of tradition and not out of their beliefs. I am not referring to this group. Surely if you are christian you can understand that a christian homo wants this blessing as much as you did when you stood before the priest? Secondly, while there are priests who don't find the task of marrying homo's a horrible thing, why can't they do it and the rest of the priesthood carry on with their business?

While there is such a small number of coupples we're talking about I doubt that a lot of people outside this inner circle will notice it happening. It's sad that you think your religious rights are lessened by another, very small group having their rights bettered. And as you clearly can see you are not branded as a hater by all in this disgussion, but all these reactions will come whether or not this law is passed. I'm sorry that you feel that you will have lesser value as a woman, but certainly you're the only one who can fix that. At least I wish you wouldn't feel threatened in that aspect. After all it's not like all hetero males are gonna hop on a homo-car to desire and forget all about the joys of the female sex. ;)

[Catz]

Take it from someone who knows.

ok i think that sentence says it all really doesnt it?
you KNOW and we dont is that it?
ill tell you what Miriel................THAT sentence scares me FAR worse than ANY marriage ever could
:catz:

[Cecilwen]

This looks like a really interesting discussion. lol

Well, like Miriel says, I'm a new face here, and I haven't really have much time to read all the replies, so ignore me if anything I'm saying here seems unrelated to whatever you guys have been discussing about, or have already been repeated. Plus my English isn't all that great... so yeah...

Anyway, from the replies I read, I noticed there was this bit about children of homosexual couples having a hard time in school and understanding their own family background and such, and the society is going to deteriorate because of homosexual marriages.
I don't know what other religions about marriage, but personally I feel people marry because they love each other, not for the sake of producing really wonderful children or something. Anyway, there's always education there to educate the children about the conventional type of marriage. The parents could tell them. Just because they are homosexual doesn't mean that they don't know about heterosexual marriages. They could explain to their children, and get their children to understand and accept their own family background. I'm sure most schools teach sex education and civics as well. No doubt parents are important role models to their children, that does not mean all the children will follow their parent's footsteps, hence causing society to deteriorate. Anyway, if the anti-homosexual-marriages are worried about their kids growing up in a 'defective' society/culture, well, educate them about your own views so they will grow up in a culture that you want them to grow up in! That's what education's for, ain't it?

It is true that some religions do condemn single-sex marriages, but what about free-thinkers and people who practise atheism (spelling?). They do not adopt the beliefs of others, yet are they going to be denied the choice of a homosexual marriage because a certain religion (probably the national religion of the country) states that homosexual marriage is wrong? Like some people stated couple of replies ago, 'religion should not interfere with the state's policies'. I agree with that. After all, there are many believers of different religions in a country. Not all religions condemn homosexual marriages. If some believers of certain religions condemn homosexual marriages, that's fine, cos' no one's telling them to practise it! But they can't deny others the right to. Therefore, I think single-sex marriage legalisation should not actually be linked to religion.

So some people think that civil unions are good enough for homosexuals and they should be satisfied. After all, marriage is only something that makes people happy. But indeed, as Mirky says before, not being allowed to marry makes people unhappy. Indeed, I would see it as a kind of prejudice, even if people feel that it isn't. Some of us here are not homosexuals, but we must put ourselves in their shoes. For eg. If the law states that handicapped people can't marry or give birth because they will pass on defective genes to their children, isn't that some kind of prejudice, even if it isn't a direct discrimination on the handicapped themselves? That's the same case with not wanting to legalise homosexual marriages.

Well, like I said before, the legalisation issue wouldn't affect me in anyway, but homosexuals should be granted equal rights as heterosexual. Whether they are going against their own religious beliefs is another issue.

[Bramblerose Bunce]

Okay, first I'd like to clear up the seeming confusion about the "Do not judge" verse in the Bible. "Context" is what's around the verse, okay? Not personal interpretation. And the Bible's not up for extreme personal interpretation. Take it from someone who knows. ;) (Btw, Cuiel, yes, I am a Christian.) The context of the verse is that we should not judge others if we are doing the same thing ourselves. That's what the verses around this one say. You can't just pull out one verse and say that it's sufficient unto itself. We could get a lot of wacky ideas that way. As I've been saying: you can't pick and choose. Either take the whole Bible, or leave it out. I was trying to leave out for everyone else's sakes, but someone else brought it in.

Alright..I have taken out my bible and found where this quote came from. For those who don't have a bible I will write it down for you.

Matthew 7:1-3 "Judge not, that ye be not judgde. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

Now, you wonder how this could be interpreted in another way than yours. According to you this indicates that only if you are gay are you not allowed to judge another gay. To me that mote is sin and sin is a lot broader subject than just being gay. Basically we are all sinners in various forms and who are we to judge others and if we do we must be prepared to be seen under the same scrutiny. This quote is to me also linked to He who is without sin cast the first stone.

The thing is that we do judge everything around us, and we are judged back in the same way. which also shows the truth of that quote. But perhaps we should drop this, because it is a little of topic Miriel!

However I would like to add... Do not think that you have the only answer, hon. Interpretation is personal because it depends on ones culture, sex, education, environment and experience. And using it with the bible is no difference even with the context which is why there are quite a few religions who base it on the bible (Catholics, Christianity, Judaism etc) There is no single answer.

Anyways, to get to the point, that's pretty much exactly what I think, which is why I said I think civil unions should be made legal, but not same-sex marriages.

Wait just a second! that came right out of the blue! You did not state any other arguments! Where are they?l!

What is marriage, in the first place? How is it different from civil unions? In that it is, in essence, a religious practice: a vow made before God. That's basically the only difference. And, as it is religious, and religious finds homosexual behavior to be wrong, it's sensible to stop at legalizing civil unions. Or else you're stepping on the rights of thousands of religious people all over the world. And I know you wouldn't want to do that. :rolleyes:

I think LA made a good point there Miriel and it mingles with my own. Now if I remember correctly you were one of those that agreed that the church and the state should be held apart from each other. If that is the case then the church should not have that influence on our law making and that comment you made was self contradicting. Try to be a little consequent in your comments. If my mind deceives me however then the church still should not decide over the state.

We have stated before that it is not only a religous practice to get married, there are other aspects as well.

And, Mirky, who says legalizing same-sex marriages won't hurt me? I personally don't want to raise my kids in the culture you've supported in this debate. A culture in which religious rights are thwarted. A culture in which I can't tell my kids what I believe or raise them in my own manner because I will be branded as a "hater." A culture in which the male and female sex have no intrinsic value or difference. A culture in which the highest good is the warm-and-fuzzy feeling --- in which helping a few people to "feel good" can justify drastic and controversial and revolutionary legislation. That is something I will honestly tell you that I fear. Not blindly. But it does scare me.

Wow..and you say that you do not fear this? Please tell me how you religious rights will be thwarted if homosexual couples are allowed to marry? And before you come and say the exact same thing...we are not saying that you do not have the right to an opinion and you are basically allowed to raise your children as you see fit. Also what I do not understand is how you link the diminish of the sexes value to same-sex marriage. That has maybe a more link to feminism because there they are trying to equalize the sexes. But even there they do say that there is a difference, it just does not make one better than the other.

[Cecilwen]

However I would like to add... Do not think that you have the only answer, hon. Interpretation is personal because it depends on ones culture, sex, education, environment and experience. And using it with the bible is no difference even with the context which is why there are quite a few religions who base it on the bible (Catholics, Christianity, Judaism etc) There is no single answer.

I absolutely agree with this point too. Not everyone or all religions condemn Homosexual marriages. Therefore, we should respect the other people who do not condemn homosexual marriages.

Anyway, continuing with my post above, cos' I forgot to add something else:
No doubt parents are important role models to their children, that does not mean all the children will follow their parent's footsteps, hence causing society to deteriorate..
I made a mistake with this sentence. I do not mean to say society will deteriorate because of homosexual marriages. Firstly, homosexuals make up the minority of the world. (obviously right? otherwise, why would we be arguing over this issue) Secondly, as I mentioned in my post earlier on(before Bramble's), education is a major factor that shapes society and people's mindsets. With the desired form of education, anti-homosexual-culture people will not have to worry about the world becoming a homosexual society. Thirdly, homosexual-marriages do not hurt people physically and mentally, unlike murder, prejudice etc. They only urk some people who are against it. And why should 2 people sacrifice their own happiness just cos' other people are against the marriage, when it isn't even those other people's business in the first place.

I think society and values would truly be deteriorating if there are people who are made to feel discriminated against(note: I said feel discriminated against, not be discriminated against. Refer to Post #98 if you don't understand) and if they are denied of their rights that all 'so-called normal humans' are entitled to.

[Miriel Baggins]

Wow.......... I have been trying to follow all of this and it frankly amazes me why anyone thinks that same-sex marriage would be infringing on anyone else's rights. Why is it any of our business? Sorry you can't seem to follow, Melian. I hope it's not an issue of "you hear what you wanna hear," or, selective hearing.

OK, a lot of people brought this up, but Melian basically summarized it well, so I'm going to answer everyone now:

Let's say homosexual marriage is legalized. We've already discussed some of what would follow. It would naturally follow that saying same-sex marriage is wrong would be labeled as discrimination. (Y'all are already doing it.) After that comes the laws against it. It's already happened in Canada. There is a law stating that if anyone says something against homosexual marriage, they can be fined, jailed, whatever. A few pastors have already been fined for stating their own beliefs in their own churches. Some, after refusing to marry homosexual couples (and, Cuiel, this is for you) were jailed. So you can just forget the argument that some pastors who are okay with same-sex marriage can be the ones to carry out the ceremonies. Let's face it: they aren't the only ones that'll be called upn. This is clearly a case of the state getting involved with the church, and stepping all over its rights. That's where religious rights (and my rights as a religious person) are threatened.

Just because a small percentage of people are actually homosexual doesn't mean they don't have a huge influence. Anyone who says they don't is . . . blind, or something. If they had no influence on the culture, we wouldn't be discussing this issue, obviously. If we legalize same-sex marriages, by the time I have kids, the idea that male and female are not different, etc. (which doesn't threaten me, personally, 'cause I'm not insecure, but it threatens both sexes in the essence of what they are) -- and my children, even if I can keep the influence of our society mostly away from them, may have ideas pressed on them that I completely disagree with. Of course, I'm going to talk to my kids about the issue. But at a mature age. I don't want them talking to a teacher in school who will tell them that their Mommy is wrong and biased and 'racist' and that male and female aren't different and that a man could take Mommy's place just as easily. Of course, this has a lot to do with my beliefs. But those are beliefs I want to share with my children. And a lot of this can't be prevented. But I want to insure that the culture I raise my kids in is family-friendly, if you catch my drift.

Hope this is making sense, I've got a whole lot of thougts floating through my brain right now, and I'm just trying to organize them here. :)

Now, about marriage being a religious thing, etc. A few years ago, Arien, I would have said, Sure of course your marriage is valid in a courthouse. (Btw, what exactly did that entail, if you don't mind sharing? Just walking in, grabbing and certificate, and leaving?) But now that this issue has come up, I'm saying that maybe it's time to re-evaluate what marriage is. So, I asked you: what is it? How is it different from civil unions? If you didn't like my explanation, I'd like to hear yours, so I can give it some thinking over.

ok i think that sentence says it all really doesnt it?
you KNOW and we dont is that it?
ill tell you what Miriel................THAT sentence scares me FAR worse than ANY marriage ever could Sorry that scares you. But I see you have your own level of fear, too. ;) But, anyways, I'm off the point. You can stop being scared, 'cause I was joking. Have a look at the post again. See the little winking smiley? That means "Joking, guys, I'm not really that stupid." Hope that settles your mind a bit.

While you specific marriage as a religious practice, why aren't christian homo's gonna have the right to practice that? Granted there are amongst homosexuals, like amongst hetero's, people who marry in church out of tradition and not out of their beliefs. I am not referring to this group. Surely if you are christian you can understand that a christian homo wants this blessing as much as you did when you stood before the priest? Well, Christian homos are kind of in a different . . . category. If they truly are Christian, then they truly are wilfully sinning, okay? Sorry if that sounds harsh, but sometimes the truth is harsh. Homosexual Christians have issues (in a literal sense, not mocking) that they need to work out with their God. And, frankly, it's a bit out of the range of this debate.

Again, about children. I'd first of all like to quote someone who was involved in this debate earlier (where did he go?!):
of course it can be done that children can be brought up by people other then there parents, or two parents, but it doesnt make it right, you can drive with your feet and use your sense of smell to tell where your going, but that doesnt make it a good idea, and more then likely people will get hurt from it. what im saying is, just because we can do things, it doesnt make them the right or best thing to do. I pretty basically agree with that. Raising kids in a homosexual home isn't a very good idea. First of all, male and female minds work differently. It's extremely helpful for a kid to have a mother and a father - male and female. That's the ideal picture of a family, for the child's mental health, etc. Because the parents complement one another in their differences. A little boy needs a mother to teach him and show him something about women so he's not clueless, and a father to be the role model, etc. Same with a little girl, only switched. At least, that's the basic idea. Now, of course, there are families with single parents. Usually, though, they seek out help from others. A child with a single dad may have a role model in his female teacher, and so on. To be well-balanced, it's basically proven that a kid needs strong male and female influences in his life.

About 'education.' Unfortunately, I don't trust the school system. I, myself, have a role in educating my children, obviously, but read above for my concerns.

If the law states that handicapped people can't marry or give birth because they will pass on defective genes to their children, isn't that some kind of prejudice, even if it isn't a direct discrimination on the handicapped themselves? That's the same case with not wanting to legalise homosexual marriages. Only it's not the same thing. Not close. Firstly, handicapped people are born with their handicaps, and there's nothing they can do about it. Secondly, I'm just wondering about your argument. (Not just yours in particular, Cecil, but everyone's.) If it goes, as Mirky said:
"The full version of that is the inherent right of every adult human being to decide their life, as long as they are not hurting anyone in the process." Well, then, you guys are denying handicapped people to have kids right there. "Harming others. . ." ? I don't know. I agree with the concept sort of, but . . . there are glitches.

As an aside: I'm not trying to deny homosexual people happiness or anything. But I'm not completely buying the argument that the only reason that same-sex couples want marriage to be legalized for them is because they'll feel happier. It's basically a money issue. And civil unions cover that.

I have one more thing to say about the Bible, and then I'd like to drop this subject, 'cause I didn't really want to bring the Bible in, in the first place. Bible: "And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?" Sorry if that's a little confusing. But here it says in the Bible we are to judge. Judging meaning not saying "Oooh, listen to her; what a liar: don't talk to her." That's wrong. What it means is we should understand right from wrong and be able to discern this in people, and yet then love people no matter what they do.

However I would like to add... Do not think that you have the only answer, hon. Interpretation is personal because it depends on ones culture, sex, education, environment and experience. And using it with the bible is no difference even with the context which is why there are quite a few religions who base it on the bible (Catholics, Christianity, Judaism etc) There is no single answer. Of course. But there are interpretations that are educated and thoughtful, and others that are wild and guesses in the dark. I said the Bible wasn't open to "extreme" interpretations. I've heard people interpret the fact that Jesus spoke to one prostitute and Mary Magdalene was a follower of his to mean that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, whereas all we know about her was the she was possessed with seven demons. When people jump to quick conclusions without having read the whole Bible, etc., I don't take their interpretations.

And now I guess we can drop it?

Wait just a second! that came right out of the blue! You did not state any other arguments! Where are they?l! Actually, I did. You probably didn't read back far enough. And that's quite understandable, as this discussion has been going on for a long time. I said it in my very first post: post number 37.

I hope this is all clear enough. It's really late here, and I had lots to cover, and my brain is all fuzzy. :blush:

[Lady Arien]

But now that this issue has come up, I'm saying that maybe it's time to re-evaluate what marriage is. So, I asked you: what is it? How is it different from civil unions?

What I said was...

"the real definition of marriage is in the hearts and souls of the people who choose to bind their lives together in whatever way is appropriate to them, whether it involves a bible or not"

What was involved? Our families and friends in attendance, my son escorting me down the aisle, my best friend standing up with me as matron of honour, one of Illu's dearest friends standing up with him as best man, tears of joy in my beloved Illu's eyes as I walked up the aisle to stand next to him, a woman who performed a beautiful ceremony for us, which included various readings including excerpts from Kahlil Gibran's The Prohpet, the exchanging of rings with shaky hands, me hardly able to repeat the vows because I was brimming over with my own ecstatic tears, the kiss that seals the deal, along with a quick grab of Illu's rear (couldn't help myself), and the recession out of that 100-year old courtroom, followed by our friends. According to the state, it was a civil ceremony...to us, it was as perfect a wedding as we could have ever planned.

My definition of marriage is my own...binding my soul to that of my best friend's...looking into his eyes and knowing I am home...promsing to stand by each other through the very best, the very worst, and all in between...honor, fidelity, respect...being partners in raising our children, yet knowing when to give each other space....ask anyone who has ever married, and they will have their own interpretation...all of them correct. Did I mention the community property and the tax breaks ...KIDDING!!!

Btw, Miriel, I prefer to be addressed as "Lady Arien," "Lady" being a title of respect in the circles I travel, including this forum...thanks :)

[Catz]

Only it's not the same thing. Not close. Firstly, handicapped people are born with their handicaps, and there's nothing they can do about it. Secondly, I'm just wondering about your argument. (Not just yours in particular, Cecil, but everyone's.) If it goes, as Mirky said:
"The full version of that is the inherent right of every adult human being to decide their life, as long as they are not hurting anyone in the process." Well, then, you guys are denying handicapped people to have kids right there. "Harming others. . ." ? I don't know. I agree with the concept sort of, but . . . there are glitches

ummmm how???
or are you saying that being handicapped is harmful?
i dont follow your rather shakey logic here
as for the bible, you may WELL not wish to discuss it now..........but you brought it up...........and its open to interpretation just what a "wild" interpretation IS........i would have said your interpretation of scripture is somewhat narrow and blinkered.......and thats MY interpretation........oh and that passage you quoted?
i was always taught that it meant that if you think youre so clever that you can fix the world YOUR way, then fix your own crap first.......tho not obviously in those words ;)
and its not a matter of "feeling good" and i have to say i dislike the way you trivialise a very important issue in that way.........its a matter of being a validated part of society with all the rights of any other adult IN that society......to state as a fact that its a money issue when you are NOT denied that right, and are not a part of the group that IS denied that right strikes me as being rather arrogant
as for raising children in a single sex parented houshold i have a few questions
1: do you have children or a degree in any educational area to do with children that gives you the knowledge to say what IS or is NOT a "good idea" when it comes to child raising?
2: do you yourself KNOW any children of a single sex parented family?
3:do you in fact know any gay couples that WANT children personally?
4 and finally, do you really think that a child cannot GET this POV of the opposite sex from those around them?
and based on the answers to those questions, what gives you the right to judge?
i suppose next youll be saying that we should take children away from widows and widowers...........cos obviously they arent being exposed to BOTH sexes.......isnt that ludicrous?..........but the logic is the same.......but you also say that they have help, so then its alright.........and gay people dont have that???........but if they did then it WOULD be ok?..........just attempting to follow your reasoning to its conclusion
you say strong male AND female role models being NEEDED is proven........by whom? where is your providance?
and one last thing
(Btw, what exactly did that entail, if you don't mind sharing? Just walking in, grabbing and certificate, and leaving?)

Lady A obviously is a LOT more tolerant than i am, because i found that lack of respect of her choice of marriage to be totally offensive......please show some respect Miriel
:catz:

[Cecilwen]

I think Catz covered that pretty well. We don't have the right to actually define what's the right sort of marriage and wrong sort of marriage, especially since there are so many people of different religious beliefs and who are brought up in different environments.

Not everyone is brought up in the same sort of environment as you are Miriel, so honestly, you should stop dragging up stuff from the bible and some of your own assumptions like how children's developments will be affected negatively if they are brought up by homosexual parents. I don't know if everyone is a Christian here, but I'm not. I'm a Buddhist. I don't know what the bible says, so please don't try referring the bible to me. My religion doesn't condemn homosexual marriages, which is why I'm free to say that I support homosexual marriages, so don't anyone else tell me otherwise. ^^

Only it's not the same thing. Not close. Firstly, handicapped people are born with their handicaps, and there's nothing they can do about it. Secondly, I'm just wondering about your argument. (Not just yours in particular, Cecil, but everyone's.)

Actually, what everyone is probably trying to say is that by denying someone the right to do something, you are indirectly (or directly) showing prejudice towards them, just like denying homos of the right to marry. Don't start dragging the handicapped into the issue. We're already pretty much off-topic.You say your brain's fuzzed and all. In that case, please read everyone's posts carefully before you decide to type your reply! Quoting the wrong stuff and arguing against it will not get you anywhere. It's really annoying when you keep misinterpreting stuff and answering out of context!

Like Catz has mentioned in her post, you can't keep making assumptions. It is not true, Miriel, that people are never born homosexual. This kind of thing is all determined by the genes, isn't it? Some males are born to be more feminine (and vice versa) because they probably inherited overdosage of X (female) chromosomes so they have all the hormones that makes them behave female, think like females, and probably fall in love with males like other females (which leads to the case we are discussing about of course.) I would refer you (and all those who don't think homosexuality can be inborn) to this article:
Article about Homosexuality Genetics (http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/em_homosexuality.html). Its pretty long, so read it only when your mind is awake.

You claim that handicaps can't help being handicapped because they are born with their defects, so you are saying that all homos choose to be homo. Let me tell you that you can't simply turn homo overnight. It's all environmental and educational factors, or inborn. So do not assume that people choose to be homos and have homo-marriages, sometimes, they just can't help it. And if you are made to be this way (homo), you can't force yourself to try to be another way(straight). Therefore I think they have every right to have legalized marriages, just as other people born with other sort of defects do.

[Beleg Strongbow]

well, I'm afraid that I have to put my two-bob's worth in here and say my bit.

The whole thing is about love, ducky. It's not political, it's not religious, it's not moralistic or tied to principal.

It's purely love. No one should be bound to rules or even speculation when it comes to loving another. No one can say that no one should be bound to another through marriage if their bonds are so strong that it will hold them together in union for the rest of their lives if they are of the same sex.
No one can tell me that two males or two females cannot bring up a child to live a normal life to make their own choices in life as I know I have and many of my friends have. Adjustment in a family comes from love, not what sex they are. Why shouldn't the bonds of marriage be applied to people who are prepared to raise their child in the best possible interest of themselves and their child? I think I would prefer to have a couple of queens who love each other unconditionally and understanding the needs of the other so clearly, raise a child than throw a child into a speculator relationship between a man and a woman.

Amyway, that's the way I see it. Love is the universal denominator here. Not what sex somebody is.

[Cecilwen]

hear hear! I agree with Beleg. I believe marriage is between 2 people. If I were a homo, I'd rather marry a girl and have a happy family with my kid than marry a man I do not love because I want my kid to grow up in a 'normal' family, which probably wouldn't be a happy one since the parents are unhappy.

[Catz]

agreed........i told you before hon, that i thought you put that very well.........and you ARE right.........in the end it comes down to "do you love this person?"
thanks for reminding us :smooch:
:catz:

[Cuiel Rilwen]

I am sick of this debate. We obviously have different starting points and our nations have different practice when it comes to mixing state and church, and this combined with different religions and little knowledge about others beliefs are acting as large obstructions for us...we simply do not always understand what people mean. At least I don't. And people are getting so hostile, I wish we could tone this down a bit...and I'm not talking about not speaking our minds. What's with the orange types? I don't know if you are aware of it, Cecilwen, but it sure looks super hostile to me, even if I may not be at the receiving end of it.

And this...

quote>Well, Christian homos are kind of in a different . . . category. If they truly are Christian, then they truly are wilfully sinning, okay? Sorry if that sounds harsh, but sometimes the truth is harsh. Homosexual Christians have issues (in a literal sense, not mocking) that they need to work out with their God. And, frankly, it's a bit out of the range of this debate.>quote

...makes me wanna cry. This is one of the reasons why there is war in this world.

I am leaving this debate with this; I sure hope none of the people in here who think homosexuality is something you can choose NOT to be, ever has a child that turns out to be anything else than hetero.

[Catz]

i dont believe that Cecilwen was being hostile Cuiel............youre kind of jumping to conclusions there......i think shes merely highlighting important points. i think she was been quite polite
now its up to you if you dont wish to read this thread any more....that is your choice
but i dont believe it has become hostile......if someone wishes to hold a belief thats up to them, but if they are going to tell others that they are wrong, they had best be able to defend that position, and thats all that Miriel is being asked to do
:catz:

[Mirkgirl]

Okay Cui, maybe you do have right that we went a bit over the border with this discussion, but it is kept within the good tone, even if leaning to the sarcastic side. However I'd rather not have you blaming Cecil for her orange text, which only points out the most important places in her post. If you look at her thread in welcome you'd see it there too and I find it a very nice way to point out the most important places in a post, which is very handy for the ones reading. Every form of formating or smilies can be accepted as hostile if you look at it from that point of view. I can say that your way of quoting posts looks hostile to me, tho I know it's not.

After saying this I want to say I'm sorry to everyone feeling offended of any of my posts in this thread and not only, I don't mean to make it personal, tho I guess it's hard not to do, as, afterall, we discuss from our personal stand. This was one long confusing sentence wasn't it ;)

A few pastors have already been fined for stating their own beliefs in their own churches. Some, after refusing to marry homosexual couples (and, Cuiel, this is for you) were jailed. So you can just forget the argument that some pastors who are okay with same-sex marriage can be the ones to carry out the ceremonies. Let's face it: they aren't the only ones that'll be called upn. This is clearly a case of the state getting involved with the church, and stepping all over its rights. That's where religious rights (and my rights as a religious person) are threatened.
As I said I don't think that they should be jailed for not wanting to marry gays. It's their right IMO. However, living in a society where the gays are accepted as normal people, we cannot have the priests saying they aren't. I'm sorry but the church has to change a bit, it's the way the world goes. At least I don't think it's fair to put the ones that believe in your religion between the state accepting gays and church condemning them. Whom to believe? This means that either your church is not that right as it should be or there's something wrong with your state. It's not fair to place this dilemma on the christians. And it's not fairplay the church to bark against the state, which gives money for it, one way or another.

and 'racist' and that male and female aren't different and that a man could take Mommy's place just as easily.
Oh have some belief in your unborn children! They have common sense, they would never think that the place of Mommy can be taken by a man, they know Daddy is not interested in men, he likes women. However they'd also know that no woman can take John's place in neighbour Jack's heart, because Jack likes men. Just as simple as that. And your son would probably like girls, but if he finds out that actually he likes boys and when he looks at Mrs Johnson in which all the boys from his class are in love he doesn't feel anything, but Mr X (ran out of names heh) looks rather good to him, he won't feel like a sinner, like a terrible mistake in human skin.

Only it's not the same thing. Not close. Firstly, handicapped people are born with their handicaps, and there's nothing they can do about it. Secondly, I'm just wondering about your argument. (Not just yours in particular, Cecil, but everyone's.) If it goes, as Mirky said:
"The full version of that is the inherent right of every adult human being to decide their life, as long as they are not hurting anyone in the process." Well, then, you guys are denying handicapped people to have kids right there. "Harming others. . ." ? I don't know. I agree with the concept sort of, but . . . there are glitches.
Well I think you missed some explaining here... how is a handicapped person hurting others? I'm sure you had something in mind, please elaborate


I really think that Beleg's the voice of reason here, it's all about love, but as usual the mankind has to do it a bigger issue than it is involve the usual political, religious, moralistic and whoknowswhat factors, exhaust them, deny them and go back to the simple truth that it's all just love :)

[Beleg Strongbow]

anyway...can you feel the love?

Don't worry Cuiel, this is not a hostile thread by any stretch of the imagination...and the surprising thing is that it has remained non-hostile...because this subject can be so torn apart by people who can't see past their noses. I'm very happy to read opinion from both sides of the fence. It makes me feel democratic and, in the end, there are some who agree to disagree. That's what makes us who we are. We can still hold an opinion without hurting somebody.

[Bramblerose Bunce]

OK, a lot of people brought this up, but Melian basically summarized it well, so I'm going to answer everyone now:

Let's say homosexual marriage is legalized. We've already discussed some of what would follow. It would naturally follow that saying same-sex marriage is wrong would be labeled as discrimination. (Y'all are already doing it.) After that comes the laws against it. It's already happened in Canada.

It is already discriminating. You do not have to wait for that to happen as you also admit. Now how do you think that the law against that will automatically pop up? It's also a different issue because that is about freedom of speech which I do believe all democratic countries allow and if they don't they should. You do not explain how the law is stated in Canada and I do not know what those priests said or what they did. If you could maybe refer to an article or somewhere where I can find it.

Just because a small percentage of people are actually homosexual doesn't mean they don't have a huge influence. Anyone who says they don't is . . . blind, or something. If they had no influence on the culture, we wouldn't be discussing this issue, obviously.

We are not talking about their influence, we are talking about their rights. They should have the same rights as a heterosexual does.

If we legalize same-sex marriages, by the time I have kids, the idea that male and female are not different, etc. (which doesn't threaten me, personally, 'cause I'm not insecure, but it threatens both sexes in the essence of what they are) -- and my children, even if I can keep the influence of our society mostly away from them, may have ideas pressed on them that I completely disagree with.

It has already been legalized. You say it threatens both the sexes. I disagree with you. We might have to rethink our roles, but they will not disapear. It does sound like it threatens you. How we think of women and men is going to change no matter what and same-sex marriage is not going to blame for it. It has been changing for the last hundred years which is why women can now work, fathers can stay home and watch over the kids.

If you didn't like my explanation, I'd like to hear yours, so I can give it some thinking over.

Most of us already has. You might want to look at earlier posts.

Well, Christian homos are kind of in a different . . . category. If they truly are Christian, then they truly are wilfully sinning, okay? Sorry if that sounds harsh, but sometimes the truth is harsh. Homosexual Christians have issues (in a literal sense, not mocking) that they need to work out with their God. And, frankly, it's a bit out of the range of this debate.

Wilfully sinning. I don't find it a sin, but I suppose you are the expert! (Yes, sweetie. That was sarcasm) It sounds like you have some issues that you have to think about. I have to agree with the other. If that is your opinion then I hope you have hetero children, because if you don't then there is a chance that they will hate themselves and be miserable. But you are young, your opinion might change when you have seen more of the world.

[QUOTE] As an aside: I'm not trying to deny homosexual people happiness or anything. But I'm not completely buying the argument that the only reason that same-sex couples want marriage to be legalized for them is because they'll feel happier. It's basically a money issue. And civil unions cover that.

I know that I have adressed this, but you seem to be skimming over what I have written. It's not just so that they feel better. They have a right to decide over their own lives. It is allowed already in certain countries, and so far the world does not seem to be collapsing.

Actually, I did. You probably didn't read back far enough. And that's quite understandable, as this discussion has been going on for a long time. I said it in my very first post: post number 37.

I have read the entire thread sweetie. I was just thinking that maybe you had some more argument. Maybe make it simple by putting them up one at a time. I have actually answered each and every argument you have, but you have not answered what I have written so they have just been put to the side.

Love..yes..that wonderful madness. It is something that everyone gets smitten by ..from kings to bums...

[Miriel Baggins]

Okay, first I want to say that we are all coming from completely different foundational values, etc., etc. I'm probably never going to agree with y'all, and y'all are definitely never going to agree with me. That said, I'll continue to give my arguments, but this is getting really old, really fast. But, I'd also like to thank most of you for keeping this discussion from being "hostile," most of the time. (Though definitely not all of the time.) Although I don't agree with you, it's nice to hear what you have to say. :thumbs:

What I've basically been doing here is feeling out different arguments against same-sex marriage, as I get told the arguments for it. As I said in my first post, I have an unchangeable opinion on this issue. But I wanted to explore simple, common-sense, or legal arguments on both sides of the issue. My dad and I do it at home (he takes the side I'm arguing now, and I take y'all's side: pro same-sex marriage; and we argue :p ) and I think it's a good way to discover how other people think, and to completely grasp where I stand. Just so you guys fully know what I'm thinking over here and where I'm coming from. :grin:

That's what makes us who we are. We can still hold an opinion without hurting somebody. I wish everyone here felt that way. ;)

I know that I have adressed this, but you seem to be skimming over what I have written. .... I have read the entire thread sweetie. I was just thinking that maybe you had some more argument. Maybe make it simple by putting them up one at a time. I have actually answered each and every argument you have, but you have not answered what I have written so they have just been put to the side. Seeing as I'm basically trying to carry on seven conversations simultaneously, I'm just going to have to ask you to be patient with me. Please put yourself in my place for a minute, and realize that I'm human, and being so, I can't cover every singe thing that each one of you has said. I'm trying to pick out the most important themes in your arguments, and focus on them, 'cause I can't humanly cover everything. Just remember that I'm doing my best. And, yes, do please bring up things that I didn’t get to answering, if you want them replied to.

The way in which handicapped people having children could hurt others would be that their children may be born handicapped. Remember, I believe that handicapped people should of course be able to have children. I'm just trying to hold y'all accountable for what you say.

Also, according to the argument of “adults have the right decide their life as long as they aren't hurting anyone in the process,” and what y’all say the whole issue is resting on: who loves who. Should we dive into polygamy? *ducks to avoid the darts of shock and anger/horror coming from her fellow debaters* ;)

Oh have some belief in your unborn children! They have common sense, they would never think that the place of Mommy can be taken by a man, they know Daddy is not interested in men, he likes women. However they'd also know that no woman can take John's place in neighbour Jack's heart, because Jack likes men. Just as simple as that. And your son would probably like girls, but if he finds out that actually he likes boys and when he looks at Mrs Johnson in which all the boys from his class are in love he doesn't feel anything, but Mr X (ran out of names heh) looks rather good to him, he won't feel like a sinner, like a terrible mistake in human skin. First of all, five year olds actually don't have much common sense. Children (even older ones) often don't know what's best for them, what's right, etc. etc. (An opinion you supported when we were discussing pedophilia.) I think we all agree that each parent has a right to raise their children in the way that seems best to them? So, I'd want to raise my kids in a certain way --- different from the way a lot of you would or do raise your kids. I'm sorry you think I'm gonna guilt-trip my kids into "terrible mistakes in human skin." You must think I'm some kind of monster? :huh:

Not everyone is brought up in the same sort of environment as you are Miriel, so honestly, you should stop dragging up stuff from the bible and some of your own assumptions like how children's developments will be affected negatively if they are brought up by homosexual parents. Excuse me, but please educate yourself on the discussion before you start blaming people like that. I didn't bring up the Bible. I mentioned it in my first post as an aside to someone who had asked a question about it. Melian apparently wanted to bring the Bible in, though, so she quoted some of it to me. I tried to explain to her in what context I saw her verse, so she would understand how I wasn't contradicting myself. Then everyone else took up the theme and kept going with it. I wish it hadn't happened, just so that you wouldn't have judged me so quickly.

Don't start dragging the handicapped into the issue. We're already pretty much off-topic.You say your brain's fuzzed and all. In that case, please read everyone's posts carefully before you decide to type your reply! Quoting the wrong stuff and arguing against it will not get you anywhere. It's really annoying when you keep misinterpreting stuff and answering out of context! Thanks. It’s always nice to hear that kind of stuff. So encouraging. :rolleyes: Cecil, let me remind you that you were the one who brought the handicapped into the issue, not me. (How quickly we forget.) I'll drop it like a hot coal, if you want me to. :) And about it being annoying that I "keep misinterpreting stuff and answering out of context." You have no idea. I'm frankly sick of it, too, but it's just something that happens in an argument of this kind, and so I haven't been commenting. Much. :p I also understand that sometimes it's hard for people to completely grasp the other's case, and so I'm trying to be patient about it. Please treat me with the same respect.

Catz, in answer to your four questions:

1. No, I don't, still a bit young for that. But I've had long discussions with people who do. (Who both have kids and have degrees in an "educational area to do with children.")
2. Nope, I just have a few friends who are gay themselves, but have hetero parents. (How'd they become gay? The way they were raised -- the influences in their lives.)
3. No, not well.
4. I already said they could. If the parent chooses to seek these people out. Here I apply what Cecil said to me: please read my whole post. It's not too much to ask of you, I think, since I'm the only one you're arguing with. Please read my whole post. I understand if you missed some stuff, though, so I'll briefly say it again. Families with single parents can often find someone of the opposite sex to help them raise their kids -- play the role model, etc. Homosexual parents, though, will probably not be aware of this need in kids, and so will not seek this out this help.

What gives me the right to judge? I'm not judging, I'm stating an opinion. What gives me the right to this opinion? (Besides the obvious fact that we all have this right anyways.) I've talked with PhDs in valid areas, and others who are fully qualified to make certain statements.

Lady A obviously is a LOT more tolerant than i am, because i found that lack of respect of her choice of marriage to be totally offensive......please show some respect Miriel I'm very sorry if that came across as rude or disrespectful. I really am. I didn't mean it in that way at all. But I had to speak briefly because my post was long, and so I tried to say it in a way that she would understand what I was getting at. Lady Arien, I'm sorry if what I said offended you in any way. I completely respect you, your husband, and your relationship.

Okay, a few closing thoughts. Homosexuals are human beings, obviously. (Btw, some of you seem to think that being Christian is synonymous with thinking that gays aren't "normal humans." Nothing could be further from the truth. Please don't jump to conclusions in judging me.) As human beings, they have the rights of every other human being. Civil unions give them these rights. Taxation, insurance, etc. What marriage would do is give them the right to feel good. Which, as y'all pointed out, is certainly important. But keep in mind that, using legislation, we can never make everyone feel good, be happy, etc. That's not exactly what government is there for. Now. As we've seen happen, the rights of certain religious groups (and I don't just mean Christians) have been thwarted by homosexual legislation. (In Canada, it's called Bill C-250.) So now it looks like a case of "who's rights?" --- weighing them out objectively. Now, since civil unions can give gay couples all the rights they need, that cuts down the weight of their side a lot. Now it's relative happiness vs. inherent rights of religious institutions. Take your pick, I've taken mine. Just make sure you don't contradict yourself in your support of the inherent rights of all people. (Which I support, too.)

[Bramblerose Bunce]

People have the right to their opinion, it's just difficult at times to accept it at times because it goes in such a different direction than your own. Sometimes you just wish it would be like the Ford commercial. "You can pick any colour you like, just as long as it's black!"
I know that it is difficult to answer everybodys arguments, Miriel, and so you have to pick and choose between the arguments. It is easier for "our side" because there are not many who are arguing against same-sex marriage. However I must say that you more commonly choose to defend and explain what you have said rather than adressing the argument. You are not the only one to do so.
Homosexuality is in my eyes no sin. If it is to certain communities or religions then that is their problem. It's honestly none of my buisness. I would rather see somebody happy and enjoying their lives than trying to be "normal". The law should respect each person and their rights.
We always fear what might happen. That there is a line that we might cross that should not be crossed over. We see this same fear in medicine (take stem cell research or cloning) If you do not believe me then take a closer look at science fiction..where some catastrophe occurs because of some line that we crossed.
How we raise our children could be debated for ages. This varies from nation to nation because the schooling is not the same in all places. Culture, environment, religion..they are all different. I think that we can all agree though that we want what is best for our children and that they grow up feeling safe.
My thoughts to same-sex marriage is in direct oposition to those against. They want to know why..I want to know why not. I believe that what happened in Canada was taking a step too far. Miriel wrote: "Now it's relative happiness vs. inherent rights of religious institutions. Take your pick, I've taken mine. Just make sure you don't contradict yourself in your support of the inherent rights of all people. (Which I support, too.)" I stick to my beliefs as well...I just wish you had not made it sound like a warspeach. ;)

[Miriel Baggins]

I must say that you more commonly choose to defend and explain what you have said rather than adressing the argument. You are not the only one to do so. That's probably true. But, since defending and explaining an argument are all part of debate, I'm not going to stop doing so. And, seeing as almost the majority of everyone's posts seems to be "Could you explain yourself better, Miriel?" I'm trying to make them happy. ;)

OK. The rest of your post was pretty much a restatement of your postition. Which is fine, of course. Helps clear the muddy waters to reassess at times. Obviously we just disagree and there's no changing that.

I didn't follow, though, what you meant about the church's rights, etc. You said that Canada went too far. I'm glad you see that. And then you quoted me and said it sounded like a war speech. :huh: Okay, cool. But what was your point? Did you pick which side you were on? ;)

[Nala Greenleaf]

OK i'm pretty much going to put what i have to say here as a belief and leave everyone to their own beliefs as the debate is difficultly 2 sided here. I believe that if the two people really do love eachother then it should be comfortably open for marriage to occur. but in the other hand marriage is the union of two people under the witness of god. that is what marriage is. its not just a permanent seal so that two people can be together. the problem with that is (coming from an Islamic background) if two people pf the same sex wish to marry it is seen as a sin. i'm not taking sides here i personally dont have a problem with it but my religion and culture does. unfortunatly if i were to tell any muslim i know, that i am in contact with a 'gay' person they would see me as being side by side with the 'Devil'. which is pretty difficult to accept as 'gay' people generally are quite kind and amusing people with great personalities and if they experience love then i think that marriage is acceptable and i think god should too if he is the 'all FORGIVING ruler'. you cannot stop two people loving eachother whether it is right or wrong. think about it a 'gay person might see that being 'straight' is weird the same way some of us 'straight' people see that being 'gay' is weird.

[Elfdaughter]

Nala, I totally agree. Of course though, you can't say that all gay people have the same personality - thier personalities differ as much as 'straight' people's personalitites. Being a pagan, I can understand the prejudices brought against same-sex lovers, and I think they should be able to make the same choice as hetrosexuals. I was brought up as a Christian, and was told that same sex relationships were 'wrong'. I'm afraid I have to question that. There was a theory cast about a while ago, I forget who by, that homosexual relationships came about because one of the partners had been the oppostite sex in a previous life. That's possible, I believe in reincarnation (though it does sound a bit far-fetched to me). But I say - love is given to us by the Gods. It's a gift (ooh...Boromir flashback! lol). If the Gods have decreed that two people of the same sex can, and will, fall in love - then who are we to stop them? Love is one of those things that human mind cannot grasp - where does it come from? What makes it happen? Why can't two people of the same sex get married? Who are we to say it's wrong?

[Catz]

Nala i think my only problem with what you had to say was
but in the other hand marriage is the union of two people under the witness of god.
is it?............id have thought it was under the witness of THIER god............and since the experience of Godhead is different to each individual, who are we to talk ?
besides........marriage may NOT be that to everyone...........it is to you, but thats just your opinion, not a fact.......perhaps even your religions opinion..........that still doesn make it a fact ;)
:catz:

[Lady Arien]

I find myself echoing Catz here...
Our marriage ceremony was conducted in a historic building in the presence of my husband's God (he being Christian/Catholic) and my Goddess (myself a practicing Pagan)...by a justice of the peace who is granted her authority by the state of California...if the tenet of marriage is to love, honour, cherish, and respect each other, we abide by that in spades...more so, in my opionion, than my brother and his wife, who were married in her church (which I will decline to name, since this is not meant to be any sort of disrespect to her religion, only to illustrate that a religious ceremony does not necessarily a good marriage make) and have what is one of the most dysfunctional relationships I've ever seen...my sympathies to my nephew, who's growing up learning all sorts of wonderful things like disrespect, lack of communication, lying, and who knows what else...since civil union appllies to partnerships of the same sex, and provides everything that marriage does, it seems to me that the arguements are all based on semantics...the word "marriage" sounds more "normal" (and I use that only as a relative term) than "civil union," but "marriage" seems to be a term reserved exclusively for the hetero percentage of the population...if I am missing something here, I invite anyone who has more factual knowledge to enlighten me....

[Nala Greenleaf]

Catz: is it?............id have thought it was under the witness of THIER god............and since the experience of Godhead is different to each individual, who are we to talk ?
besides........marriage may NOT be that to everyone...........it is to you, but thats just your opinion, not a fact.......perhaps even your religions opinion..........that still doesn make it a fact.

I guess i will have to agree with you their i've been brought up to be a slight bit orthodox when it comes to subject of God but i will admit that i am doubting the fact there is a God. i guess i'm just turning agnostic. everyone has has different views of God or Gods and they may have a god or gods to suit them.

[Melian]

Putting aside the semantics of what constitutes a marriage (whatever that may be), I think that most of us agree on a few basics. That gay people are the same as the rest of us and deserve the same respect and rights that all of us have. That we have no right to shove our beliefs down other people's throats, regardless of our opinion. That in this world of war and violence, two people loving each other should not be such a horrible thing.

[Onilalle]

Sooo right, Melian.
I'm all for that. Discrimination towards gay people is just out of order- love is love, right? so what if your husband/wife is the same sex? It's not like guys and girls are all on different planets... ;)