Thread: Gay Marriage Amendment

Originally Posted by redspy

I have a question that hopefully one of you anti gay marriage folks will be able to address:-

Answers Embedded:

If gay people marry one another how does it affect sanctity of heterosexual marriages?

Please answer this in logical terms, not with bible quotations.
Here are the things I think debase heterosexual marriage:-

• Rising divorce rates and people's inability to solve marital problems with patience and counseling.
  Marriage is more emotional than "logical" but hopefully we can get to some logical answers. Rising divorce rates are a result of an impedance mismatch between expectations, ideals and a couples spirituality and maturity. That may be an over simplification in the general sense but it gets us to about 75% IMHO
• Reality TV shows with money/fame motivated whores marrying morons on screen
  I suspect that most descent people are deeply offended by these kind of reality Shows - I am and do not watch after I find out what they are.
• High levels of infidelity among men and women.
  Tough problem. Society has always had this problem and it is even more invasive today due to daily bombardment of western sex marketing in daily advertising and media and frankly that there are so many people who know how to present themselves extremely attractively and also know how to project themselves in alluring ways without giving thought to the idea that they are enticing and tempting people in ways that can be hard to ignore. Also, both spouses now work and are often on the job in the presence of other sexes for a period longer than they are home with their own spouses and they bond more at work than at home simply because of the 'Time on the clock' interacting with each other. Also, both spouses are much more affluent now and financially independent and able to have flexibility in relationships that previously were not pragmatically available due to the dire consequences of risking the core relationship.
• People marrying to gain immigration rights to their desired country.
  repugnant and an obvious failure of government to regulate properly.
• People who marry others for their wealth and influence.
  A valid business and personal decision rooted in survival. It's all part of the mix and chemistry and the proportions acceptable are a personal thing and often a function of morality and religious values held by the individual.
  

OD

Originally Posted by Pepper

It did, you just didn't know it

I always find it ironic that the non-religious are so blind to the gifts God gives when they are given in such circumstances where one is a believer and one is not. How little he realizes that everyting in his life is about to change in dramatic and good ways...


OD

Originally Posted by OceanDude

I always find it ironic that the non-religious are so blind to the gifts God gives when they are given in such circumstances where one is a believer and one is not....


OD

Ah, the irresistible and overwhelming urge to call non-believers 'blind'. What next? Will I be cast into hell's fires for the sin of logical thinking? Where you see gifts I see scientific laws, logic and rationality. We live in different worlds.

Originally Posted by Pepper

I actually support some kind of legal relationship - civil unions, for example. I believe that gays SHOULD be allowed visitation in the hospital, for example. Basically all of what I consider to be the contractual parts of marriage. It only makes sense.

However, I don't think this should even be mentioned in the same sentence as marriage and employers should NOT be required to offer benefits to whatever we call this "spouse."

Then it would have made some sense for states to engage their statutes about contractual arrangements instead of rushing into a paranoid plethora of constitutional amendments preventing any kind of protection at all. The original complaints that gays had was over the restrictions placed by those statutes, and it was the government who would neither bend the rules or consider expanding their definition. The only answer they would ever provide is "you have to be married." After two decades of that, it looks like gay Americans didn't have much choice. And it appears that, once again, governments ignored the real issue and went into persecution mode.

Originally Posted by OceanDude

I always find it ironic that the non-religious are so blind to the gifts God gives when they are given in such circumstances where one is a believer and one is not. How little he realizes that everyting in his life is about to change in dramatic and good ways...


OD

No offense here, but frankly I've seen a lot more of the dramatic and not very much of the good during this past year.

Originally Posted by Pepper

I actually support some kind of legal relationship - civil unions, for example. I believe that gays SHOULD be allowed visitation in the hospital, for example. Basically all of what I consider to be the contractual parts of marriage. It only makes sense.

However, I don't think this should even be mentioned in the same sentence as marriage and employers should NOT be required to offer benefits to whatever we call this "spouse."

This reasoning should also include that employers not be required to provide spousal benefits to anyone whose spouse is gainfully employed. Dependent children should be covered no matter who is involved.

Originally Posted by redspy

We live in different worlds.

Truer words have never be spoken.

Originally Posted by Pepper

I was trying to avoid the name calling.

Jefferson's views I will not argue with you on. However, saying that Biblical principles were not at the core of our laws and constitution is simply incorrect.

Perhaps I'm mistaken here, but is there some book of the bible that doesn't refer to kingdoms and hierarchy? There must be some large section that, for some historical reason, caused religion to be unable to create a republic or democratic system of government for hundreds of years.

Ignoring the contribution of English common law and asserting that our laws our based solely on religious text makes absolutely no sense.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

... based solely on religious text .

That's a RedSpy tactic...who said soley?

Originally Posted by kbm8795

Ignoring the contribution of English common law

And this was influenced by what?

That's right. Don't forget that Pepper has ownership of the truth.

Like this truth

I, Pepper, hereby solemnly swear....
...not to post or even enter any political or religious thread on IronMagazine.

I enjoy this site, I enjoy nearly all of you e-friends. The only thing I don't enjoy is discussing politics and God, so seems logical to just quit it cold turkey.

I will be glad to discuss exercise, dieting, hot chicks, GOGA, gambling and whatever non-sense you want.

None of these amendments were ever about religious marriage. Civil ceremonies do not invoke the name of God, engage in any religious ritual, or embrace a religious viewpoint. It is the State who uses the word "marriage" to describe a 15 minute ceremony in the judge's chambers. Civil marriage IS nothing more than a civil union. No one ever asked for anything more than that...a contract with the state to participate in all the benefits and responsibilities assigned by statute.

It appears that those constitutional amendments should have changed the state's right to use the term "marriage" and attach it to so many documents.

Originally Posted by redspy

Ah, the irresistible and overwhelming urge to call non-believers 'blind'. What next? Will I be cast into hell's fires for the sin of logical thinking? Where you see gifts I see scientific laws, logic and rationality. We live in different worlds.

Not really Red. I live in both worlds and see science and natural phenomenon as a natural instrument of what many call "God's Will" that were set in motion through a mechanism and formation of Natural laws that are perfectly consistent (even when science's models are perplexed at finding the unifying theory). So I am fairly ambidextrous and agile with respect to interacting in both contexts. I am certain you, being a "man of science" and logic are familiar with the concept of "blindness" or "blind-spots" (and strengths) that are attributed to certain personality alignments (e.g. Briggs-Myers: judgmental, introspective, extraspective, intuitive etc.). I accept this harshness on a personal basis for this reason since you really have no choice in this kind of behavior (unlike some other elective behaviors). Due to your particular personality type you are blind to the fact that you are as or more judgmental as anyone else but can not "see" it. That's not a bad thing because you have strengths and specialty in other areas and a focus that serves other purposes. Coming from the perspective of someone who has spiritual insight, training or awareness it can be even more profound to others who have the strengths to see things that you think are simple illusion or claim do not exist. Try to tolerate the spontaneous giddiness when such others react for no outwardly apparent reason to you. We laugh not at you we just laugh at the notion and certainty as in "oh boy here we go again". We others, with strength in other domains know, or strongly suspect that there is an entire domain of perception that lies beyond the simple electro-magnetic spectrum of physical sensory perception. Such fathom it's presence and influence by means of "experiencing" impressions (for lack of a better term) of recurring and beautifully consistent patterns of cause and effect behavior (and consistent denials ). We have our weaknesses too since we grow weary of the petty stuff and long for the grander things that await us out there. Welcome to the club - you don't know it yet but you are one of us.

OD

Originally Posted by kbm8795

No offense here, but frankly I've seen a lot more of the dramatic and not very much of the good during this past year.

Through projection of one's own inadquacies they often see what they are familiar with in themselves in others. Perhaps this explains it with or without the drama?
OD

Originally Posted by redspy

That's right. Don't forget that Pepper has ownership of the truth.

Can you not discuss anything without being a dick?

OD. While you are no doubt a good person we did not share any kind of club membership, our only similarity being we are both carbon-based life forms who frequent IM. I am more than willing to acknowledge the existence of things I cannot see, e.g. quarks or gluons and other sub atomic particles and to some extent that is a leap of faith. I don't consider myself blind to religious and spiritual power, I’m not looking for it and think that it's essentially a weakness of the human mind. It's a crutch and something to absolve yourself from decision making and confronting brutal facts. It's hope that you'll forever live some kind of existence, physical or otherwise. IMO there's no hell or heaven, you just cease to be.



You can debate me all day with your elegant prose but I'd advise you to spend you time more productivity. I respect the views of those who embrace religion, assuming they don't look down on me and attempt to convert my beliefs. We'll just agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by Pepper

Can you not discuss anything without being a dick?

Not with you, no.

Uhm Pepper I need to point out a problem with that statement bro..
People are gonnna think you are "funny" if you start arguing with what you think are dicks my friend. If he spits in your face like one in reply its gonna be really bad for all of us to have to watch...

OD

OD, if you were the intellectual you say you are you would see that with our exponentially expanding population homosexuality is a survival tactic that could keep us from overloading our planet and sucking it's resources dry like a plague.

Originally Posted by redspy

[font=Verdana] IMO there's no hell or heaven, you just cease to be.

If this is your real belief, I would love to hear your ideas on how we are created

Hey, if redspy will permit me one more question..and this is a real question, not a smart ass remark...

If homosexuality is something you are born with and not a choice AND we are all a product of evolution..how are these two "facts" both true? Would not evolution kill the trait that makes one gay?

Even though redspy thinks that I think I know everything, I actually realize there is much I don't know. So if someone could answer this w/o being a dick, I'd appreciate it.

Originally Posted by maniclion

OD, if you were the intellectual you say you are you would see that with our exponentially expanding population homosexuality is a survival tactic that could keep us from overloading our planet and sucking it's resources dry like a plague.

Hmm, how do I respond to this one? Firstly, I do not think I never claimed to be an intellectual. I consider myself to be pretty average actually. On the other point of exponential growth. Are you intimating that homosexuals are natures disease which automatically correct the time constant of the exponent's radical when some triggering threshold is reached? That is an interesting notion that I had previously only considered to be built into nature's weather patterns. It would be extremely clever of Nature to use a subset of the human species as a control mechanism since it would be highly selective on the species and not harm the lower lifeforms. The notions of simultaneously balancing justice, hierarchy of life forms and selective checks and balances is pretty intriguing. I wonder what the behaviorally sterile human "germs" think about this concept?

OD

Originally Posted by Pepper

If homosexuality is something you are born with and not a choice AND we are all a product of evolution..how are these two "facts" both true? Would not evolution kill the trait that makes one gay?

No. Why should evolution kill a trait that is neither harmful nor beneficial, but just is? Besides, as someone pointed out, it's more likely that the sequence or combination of genes that make one gay are only expressed under certain circumstances.

Traits get passed on that have no function; why do whales and snakes still have vestigial leg bones? Neither of those species has walked in millions of years (whales, approx 35 million; snakes, 100s of millions).

Why do genetic conditions like Down's Syndrome or cyctic fibrosis still exist when victims of those conditions do not reproduce? Why hasn't evolution weeded those genes out?

It's not all cut and dried or black and white. Evolution doesn't have a master plan.

Originally Posted by Minotaur

Traits get passed on that have no function; why do whales and snakes still have vestigial leg bones? Neither of those species has walked in millions of years (whales, approx 35 million; snakes, 100s of millions). .

Imagine seeing a whale walking around...

Originally Posted by OceanDude

Through projection of one's own inadquacies they often see what they are familiar with in themselves in others. Perhaps this explains it with or without the drama?
OD

Nope. . .just a few doses of the "Coral Ridge Hour," the "700 Club" and a rather un-christian video of Jimmy Swaggart saying he would kill a "homosexual" if one looked at him "that way." to a loudly applauding congregation.

Originally Posted by du510

Imagine seeing a whale walking around...

My wife did for years. Now, not so much, but I was pretty much a whale before.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

Nope. . .just a few doses of the "Coral Ridge Hour," the "700 Club" and a rather un-christian video of Jimmy Swaggart saying he would kill a "homosexual" if one looked at him "that way." to a loudly applauding congregation.

What is interesting to me is that you guys constantly pick the WORST examples of Christians to condemn the entire group. If we characterized all homosexuals as pedophiles because SOME are members of NAMBLA, you wouldn't stand for it. Yet I have to be beat up b/c some televanglists are crooks.