And what of Gay Marriages?
- Thread starter hardheadjarhead
- Start date
I used to be against Gay Marriage because it would be so costly for organizations such as the military that it sounded like a bad idea. What will probably happen is that these organizations will take away all the perks they offer to married couples before they finaly allow it. This is a pretty important thing because it will not only hurt married couples, it will in fact diminish marriage in general. I'm not sure its a bad thing because when I was in the military I was single. I wasn't happy that I was taxed the most, I didn't get seperate rats, or an housing allowance. I knew of men and women getting married just for the extra stuff. Who can blame gays for trying to cash in? Why do organizations penalize single people?
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Basically, single people of whatever preference get penalized because our government--back when the country was considered underpopulated, and there was a lot of fear that immigrants from Italy, Ireland, etc. would take over--decided that as a matter of social policy we would encourage family life and children-getting.
In other words, the government got involved, through the tax structure, insurance regs, laws, etc. with pushing the family...
In other words, the government got involved, through the tax structure, insurance regs, laws, etc. with pushing the family...
And people wonder why divorce rates are so high.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
LOL
Funny story as told by a comedian I saw on TV a while ago. This is not word for word, and is censored as best as I can, but he was talking about his friend who is a homophobe:
Comedian: There is no reason to be homophobic...everyone is gay, it just depends on how gay you are.
Friend: What...I'm not gay!
Comedian: Oh yea...well do you ever watch Porno?
Friend: Well yea...
Comedian: Do you only watch girl on girl porn, or do you watch guy on girl also?
Friend: I watch guy on girl too.
Comedian: And do you want the guys (member) to be small and flacid when he trys to take her?
Friend: No! I want him to have a big hard (blank)! Oh....I guess we all are sorta gay...
:rofl: :rofl:
btw: I don't think that the idea of being straight is a fantasy, but I just thought this was a funny story and reminded me of this conversation. I hope I censored well enough!
PAUL
ABN
Green Belt
PAUL,
YOU HAVE VIOLATED THE ATTEMPTED CENSORSHIP MORALITY ORDINANCE. YOUR NAME, IP ADDRESS, AND ISP INFORMATION WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE PROPER AUTHORITIES AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE CONSIDER YOURSELF ON DOUBLE SECRET PROBATION.
///S///
JOHN ASHCROFT
ATTORNEY GENERAL
YOU HAVE VIOLATED THE ATTEMPTED CENSORSHIP MORALITY ORDINANCE. YOUR NAME, IP ADDRESS, AND ISP INFORMATION WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE PROPER AUTHORITIES AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE CONSIDER YOURSELF ON DOUBLE SECRET PROBATION.
///S///
JOHN ASHCROFT
ATTORNEY GENERAL
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Uh..."defect," isn't negative? Science has exactly the same value as moral interpretation based on religious belief? Say what?
My point was this: all the grounds for opposing everybody being allowed to git hitched are religious. We shoudn't be imposing our personal religious beliefs on anyone else. Therefore...
Impressive conversation, fellow kids. Who knew martial arts harbored so many rationalists and decent people?
Oh yeah. I think that ALL these categories--straight, gay, lesbian, white, black, etc.--are, in the end, based on bizarre combinations of biology, history, culture and fantasy. Like tonight, driving home from The College of the Burnin' Desert, I heard some guy whose last name was, I think, Garza, argue that Thanksgiving should be for white people like him only.
Given that he claimed to have a black son-in-law, and given his last name, I damn near pulled over, called in, and asked just what it was that made him dream he was, "white," whatever the hell THAT word means. I mean, when I was a little kid in the 1950s, this guy was one of the "them," that we were told not to play with...
My point was this: all the grounds for opposing everybody being allowed to git hitched are religious. We shoudn't be imposing our personal religious beliefs on anyone else. Therefore...
Impressive conversation, fellow kids. Who knew martial arts harbored so many rationalists and decent people?
Oh yeah. I think that ALL these categories--straight, gay, lesbian, white, black, etc.--are, in the end, based on bizarre combinations of biology, history, culture and fantasy. Like tonight, driving home from The College of the Burnin' Desert, I heard some guy whose last name was, I think, Garza, argue that Thanksgiving should be for white people like him only.
Given that he claimed to have a black son-in-law, and given his last name, I damn near pulled over, called in, and asked just what it was that made him dream he was, "white," whatever the hell THAT word means. I mean, when I was a little kid in the 1950s, this guy was one of the "them," that we were told not to play with...
M
MisterMike
Guest
Perhaps anomaly would have been a better word for you?
Hopefully that wasn't my quote. But since it's out there, some religions do not recognize science, others do, and others even place it below their beliefs.
Opposing and imposing are 2 different things. Lots of people are opposed to this but it will still come to be law in some fashion.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Ah yes, the victimization of the majority by the minority.
And yes, "anomalous," which would be the correct word here, is still insulting. Try this sample sentence: "It is peculiar, and indeed anomalous, for an adult to continue to fantasize that there is a fatherly, protective figure who lives in the sky and watches over him." See my point?
I don't expect to convince you of a thing, nor should you change your mind about things like this. However, I'd be interested in an answer to the question: since your beliefs about "gay marriage," are founded on your religious views, why do you think it's appropriate to make eveybody else conform to your religious views? It's a real question: I'm interested.
Again, thanks.
And yes, "anomalous," which would be the correct word here, is still insulting. Try this sample sentence: "It is peculiar, and indeed anomalous, for an adult to continue to fantasize that there is a fatherly, protective figure who lives in the sky and watches over him." See my point?
I don't expect to convince you of a thing, nor should you change your mind about things like this. However, I'd be interested in an answer to the question: since your beliefs about "gay marriage," are founded on your religious views, why do you think it's appropriate to make eveybody else conform to your religious views? It's a real question: I'm interested.
Again, thanks.
M
MisterMike
Guest
There's not need to feel insulted if you believe in yourself enough. Just as I'm sure my statements, although blunt, may come off a bit rough around the edges, it's still factual. Just as I do not take personal insult to your example. Although a better one would have been using the word in say, someone's heart condition. Defective valve or an anomaly in heartbeat.
My beliefs on this subject are based on religious and biological evidence, and I'm not looking for people to conform. Although I do feel it a duty to expose others to the Word, the choice is still up to them.
My beliefs on this subject are based on religious and biological evidence, and I'm not looking for people to conform. Although I do feel it a duty to expose others to the Word, the choice is still up to them.
Mike-
You made some comments about the origins of marriage that I feel were...if not exactly wrong, slightly misleading.
Marriage started out as a political institution. Marriage didn't start to become about "love" and all that until this century or perhaps a bit earlier. Marriage was simply a tool to ensure that inheretence went to the proper person. Its quite simple, really. If a woman is only permitted to um...procreate...with a single man, he can operate with the reasonable assumption that the children of that woman are biologically his, and can therefore inherit things such as land, title, etcetera.
Women were used as political pawns. Peace treaties were often sealed with a marriage.
Marriage had little or nothing to do with religion other than the fact that the churches were the political powerhouses back in that era. Marriage certainly wasn't about love, because oftentimes, the bride and groom's first meeting was at their wedding! Neither bride nor groom usually had much of a choice in who their partner would be.
interesting quotes from the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA:
Until the ninth century marriages were not church involved. Up until the twelfth century there were blessings and prayers during the ceremony and the couple would offer their own prayers. Then priests asked that an agreement be made in their presence. Then religion was added to the ceremony.
As you can see, marriage:
1. hasn't always been about love.
2. hasn't always been about religion.
so, you really can't base your argument on the history of marriage, because the history of marriage doesn't support the current HETERO marriage tradition...
If you go back to the roots of marriage, it was for economic purposes, a blending of assets and an extending of mutual protections. At the moment, not only are homosexuals fighting for the rights to have their relationships recognized, they are fighting for the same economic and social rights as heteros... this sounds pretty in accordance with the "marital tradition" to me.
You made some comments about the origins of marriage that I feel were...if not exactly wrong, slightly misleading.
Marriage started out as a political institution. Marriage didn't start to become about "love" and all that until this century or perhaps a bit earlier. Marriage was simply a tool to ensure that inheretence went to the proper person. Its quite simple, really. If a woman is only permitted to um...procreate...with a single man, he can operate with the reasonable assumption that the children of that woman are biologically his, and can therefore inherit things such as land, title, etcetera.
Women were used as political pawns. Peace treaties were often sealed with a marriage.
Marriage had little or nothing to do with religion other than the fact that the churches were the political powerhouses back in that era. Marriage certainly wasn't about love, because oftentimes, the bride and groom's first meeting was at their wedding! Neither bride nor groom usually had much of a choice in who their partner would be.
interesting quotes from the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA:
Gosh... this really sounds like the ideal...
Until the ninth century marriages were not church involved. Up until the twelfth century there were blessings and prayers during the ceremony and the couple would offer their own prayers. Then priests asked that an agreement be made in their presence. Then religion was added to the ceremony.
As you can see, marriage:
1. hasn't always been about love.
2. hasn't always been about religion.
so, you really can't base your argument on the history of marriage, because the history of marriage doesn't support the current HETERO marriage tradition...
If you go back to the roots of marriage, it was for economic purposes, a blending of assets and an extending of mutual protections. At the moment, not only are homosexuals fighting for the rights to have their relationships recognized, they are fighting for the same economic and social rights as heteros... this sounds pretty in accordance with the "marital tradition" to me.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Mr. Mike:
Sorry, but I'm not buying.
In the first place, you may find it a little easier to have a discussion if you stop suggesting that people who disagree with you are suffering from some sort of fantasized (on your part) emotional...ah...anomaly, as in your sentence, "There's not need to feel insulted if you believe in yourself enough." One may perfectly legitimately feel insulted by such a remark, on the grounds that my self-confidence is none of your beeswax: emotional...ah...defects would only come into question if one were to accept such a statement as true.
For example, if I were to say that, "Men who claim to be worried about gay marriage are actually worried about their own sexuality," one might legitimately take offense, without necessarily taking such a silly claim to heart.
I still haven't seen the slightest tad bit of this, "scientific," evidence on who should and should be allowed to marry that you claim to be employing. Where is it? I've seen stuff on the so-called, "gay gene," sure, but it's a pretty big logical jump from there to the civil and religious institution of marriage.
I'm still interested in an answer to the question I asked: since in the end your objections are founded upon your religious beliefs, as they have every right to be, why do you feel that it's appropriate to insist that everybody else has to follow the dictates of your religious beliefs? Does this have to do with what you, "feel," is your "duty to expose others to the Word?" (Incidentally, that word, 'expose...' I'd find another.) Could you explain, and this time leave my emotional status--whatever that is--out of it?
Sorry, but I'm not buying.
In the first place, you may find it a little easier to have a discussion if you stop suggesting that people who disagree with you are suffering from some sort of fantasized (on your part) emotional...ah...anomaly, as in your sentence, "There's not need to feel insulted if you believe in yourself enough." One may perfectly legitimately feel insulted by such a remark, on the grounds that my self-confidence is none of your beeswax: emotional...ah...defects would only come into question if one were to accept such a statement as true.
For example, if I were to say that, "Men who claim to be worried about gay marriage are actually worried about their own sexuality," one might legitimately take offense, without necessarily taking such a silly claim to heart.
I still haven't seen the slightest tad bit of this, "scientific," evidence on who should and should be allowed to marry that you claim to be employing. Where is it? I've seen stuff on the so-called, "gay gene," sure, but it's a pretty big logical jump from there to the civil and religious institution of marriage.
I'm still interested in an answer to the question I asked: since in the end your objections are founded upon your religious beliefs, as they have every right to be, why do you feel that it's appropriate to insist that everybody else has to follow the dictates of your religious beliefs? Does this have to do with what you, "feel," is your "duty to expose others to the Word?" (Incidentally, that word, 'expose...' I'd find another.) Could you explain, and this time leave my emotional status--whatever that is--out of it?
M
MisterMike
Guest
No, I didn't. I said:
But I can, because even arranged marriages were between a man and a woman.
As for what they are fighting for, the only thing they can shoot for legislatively is equal taxation as the rest of us married folk. And I'm fine with that.
Most other policies other than child custody are up to the public/private institutions.
M
MisterMike
Guest
Robert, I can realllly cut this short for you by saying:
I never felt that it's appropriate to insist that everybody else has to follow the dictates of my religious beliefs.
Not once in this discussion thread, not once in any conversation I've ever had.
I'm also finding it very easy to have this discussion. What might make it easier for you all to understand it is to stay on topic and not suggest things I did not say. If I do say something, please quote it for myself and all to see. Because if you cannot, I cannot continue to discuss points I never made, and will not reply again to it.
I never felt that it's appropriate to insist that everybody else has to follow the dictates of my religious beliefs.
Not once in this discussion thread, not once in any conversation I've ever had.
I'm also finding it very easy to have this discussion. What might make it easier for you all to understand it is to stay on topic and not suggest things I did not say. If I do say something, please quote it for myself and all to see. Because if you cannot, I cannot continue to discuss points I never made, and will not reply again to it.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Uh...Mr. Mike...if you'll look, I quoted you repeatedly. Could you explain why my reading of your quotes isn't accurate?
And again: my question's very simple. You rely on a claim of scientific and religious ground for your argument. OK, fine. I merely want to know what that scientific evidence is. Did I miss it? I also want to know why you feel that it's legitimate to insist that everybody must live by the rules of your perfectly-legit religious beliefs.
I must add that I think you're avoiding those questions with a lot of other stuff. There's no need for any of it; I don't even care that we disagree. I'd just like to see the evidence you claim to have, and I'd like to hear the explanation of determining public policy--and private relationships--with a particular set of Christian ideas.
And again: my question's very simple. You rely on a claim of scientific and religious ground for your argument. OK, fine. I merely want to know what that scientific evidence is. Did I miss it? I also want to know why you feel that it's legitimate to insist that everybody must live by the rules of your perfectly-legit religious beliefs.
I must add that I think you're avoiding those questions with a lot of other stuff. There's no need for any of it; I don't even care that we disagree. I'd just like to see the evidence you claim to have, and I'd like to hear the explanation of determining public policy--and private relationships--with a particular set of Christian ideas.
M
MisterMike
Guest
Well Bobby, you had your chance. But in true Liberal fashion, you ignored my replies and changed focus from the topic. I guess this is why conservatives dominate talk radio.
Buh-bye, Bobby. Thanks for playing
Buh-bye, Bobby. Thanks for playing
Its the second statement I was taking issue with... MARRIAGE WAS ORIGINALLY A LEGAL AGREEMENT, WITH NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION. As you can see by the quotes I gave you in my previous post, one should really be asking the question of "should RELIGION be throwing the term marriage around?" since, after all, the roots of marriage lie in economics, not in religion.
M
MisterMike
Guest
Sorry, I think you'r more misled than Bobby. Marrying for money is what women do in the present. :rofl:
