This is NOT the point. It's not about the "religious" ceremony acceptance.
That is a church/temple/synagogue issue.
The "gay marriage" is a legal issue. Legal recognition, and the legal benefits that are applicable.
-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8
- Thread starter min0 lee
- Start date
This is NOT the point. It's not about the "religious" ceremony acceptance.
That is a church/temple/synagogue issue.
The "gay marriage" is a legal issue. Legal recognition, and the legal benefits that are applicable.
they are not denied freedom. are you kidding me?
lets talk a little bit about legal recognition then. what legal benefits are being denied
bump
What a nice topic we have going here. Personally, I don't give a crap what other people do, I am too busy over here. If 2 dudes want to plow each other and invest into the sham that is marriage, I wish them the best. If a chick makes a mistake and takes a pill the next day to get rid of the future problem, I don't care, I don't believe life starts at conception. I think where we are at, and what Bio-chem is trying to say, and I agree, is that these are not rights guaranteed to people. We elect officials to do what we believe is right to shape our society, this is the way it was always done. Some people are on one side, some people are on another, and as history plays out, we find out how we, as a society, feel about certain topics. If gay marriage is meant to be it will be legislated, if not it won't.
I do not follow organized religion, I find much more credible evidence in the fossil record than a book written by someone I have never known, nor never seen. But, stating that those who follow religion are foolish would insinuate that I know the answer, which I don't, and no one does. Again, I apply the "Who gives a shit?" rule
I do not follow organized religion, I find much more credible evidence in the fossil record than a book written by someone I have never known, nor never seen. But, stating that those who follow religion are foolish would insinuate that I know the answer, which I don't, and no one does. Again, I apply the "Who gives a shit?" rule
fine and dandy to apply a who gives a shit rule when it doesn't really have any impact on you.
Suppose a brother or sister or family member was gay? would that change your stance?
And I agree with your legislative POV. It will only be a matter of time
Suppose a brother or sister or family member was gay? would that change your stance?
And I agree with your legislative POV. It will only be a matter of time
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 52
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
Fair enough, tenant wasn't the correct word. "Institution" would be the word that I'm looking for.
My point stands.
Absurd reply. It doesn't address at all what I said, which is the underlying truth of the matter: No rights are being denied to gay people, period. They have the exact same rights I do, or any other person does. Tell me where I am wrong.
I have a gay uncle, and a few gay friends. I want them to be able to marry, and believe they will. My uncle went the civil union route up in VT.
The "Who Gives a Shit?" rule, by my definition, means that if you want to do something, and it has no direct impact on my life (i.e., you are not stabbing me or someone I know or dramatically changing my quality of life), you should be able to do it. I don't mean who gives a shit as in, your problem, not mine.
Built actually addressed that on the last page, but everyone seemed to miss that post.
Gay people can marry, I addressed it already. A gay man can marry a woman. A gay woman can marry a man. It is the exact same for me. As a man, I can marry a woman.
The advantages of marriage are available to them, should they choose to do so.
Yep, and straits can marry people with whom they have no intention of partnering. It's a common immigration ploy from what I understand. It's also illegal.
Besides, without consummating the act, it's hardly what I'd call a marriage.
Ya' gotta admit, brogers, it's a bit of an odd argument. I mean, would anyone - gay or strait - want to marry someone he or she didn't love?
biochem, I'm still interested in your reply to my argument. In particular, the analogy to certain aspects of slavery.
For example, it is my understanding that at one point, Blacks were not allowed to marry Whites in the USA, is this not correct? Also, I seem to recall the LDS used to have a policy regarding Black membership in the Church, but I admit my knowledge in this area is scatty at best. I realize that this, like plural marriage, is no longer part of the Mormon faith. I bring it up to demonstrate that just because something has "always been this way" doesn't mean it's always been right. My feeling is that the illegality of gay marriage is an example of one of these historical wrongs that needed to be righted.
People argue "equal protection under law." My question is: What protection is being denied to a gay person?
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 14,833
- Reaction score
- 1,676
- Points
- 113
- Age
- 43
- Location
- In my imagination.
Slow down there Haus. Where did you get that shit from? Not my post. I don't even remotely promote forcing a church to marry gays. I am talking about the right of gays to receive the legal recognition by the state that their union is a legal one, and all the benefits that go along with it.
I don't agree with 99% of anything the ACLU has ever done. I am against the ACLU as much as you are.
If you want to attack my arguments, fine, but don't try and strawman me.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 14,833
- Reaction score
- 1,676
- Points
- 113
- Age
- 43
- Location
- In my imagination.
I wouldn't expect a heartless piece of shit like you to even remotely understand anything in this thread.
Unlike the right to own property the right to marriage is not a universal one. The states posses the right to regulate marriage as well as to pass laws for the betterment of society as decided by the voice of the people. The voice of the people is being determined right now. I think this is needed as it is not the courts dictating but legislation determining this issue.
As to the reason why I believe society will be better off please refer to the article I posted. I will never be able to explain it as well as that article.
For the rest of your post I think we are getting a little off topic to the original point of the topic, but that is almost to be expected. I will have to go back and re-read your posts to find the one specifically regarding the comparison to racism. sorry i don't have time at the moment.
As to any of the LDS faiths past policies or doctrines I would be happy to answer any questions about them specifically, but I'm not really of the belief that this is the thread for that.
And as DOMS has pointed out. This is very much a Pandoras box. what is next? pedophiles and polygamy come to mind as the next groups to be clamoring for the right to marriage. I would love to see someone here argue gays should have this right, but polygamists should not. (as a clarification I do not support either)
You think? of course im using a wild example. it highlights the point of the argument. the point is what is next? Different states have different laws pertaining to right of consent. meaning the line is arbitrary. so why not 16, or 15, 14, 13, 12....The point is a moral judgment is required in these laws. Moral reasoning must be used in the execution of and basis for our laws. whether that be based on a personal belief coming from within, from ones upbringing, or from religious docrine.
you're making a moral judgment. what are you basing it on? what do you think the age of consent should be?
my point is morality is used in our laws. you are saying yes to one thing and no to another. I am doing the same thing. You don't like where i draw the line in the sand. thats fine. people disagree with me all of the time. Im sure there are people on the other side of you saying where you draw the line is wrong.
Strait people have problems with morality as well. Divorce, and cheating are all well documented among strait people. but that doesn't mean we throw open the doors.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 14,833
- Reaction score
- 1,676
- Points
- 113
- Age
- 43
- Location
- In my imagination.
Your right! How could I have not seen this. If we let gays get married today, weeks later we will be letting little Susy the 8 year old marry her pedophile uncle. How could I be so careless. We must save little suzy.
I mean after all, isn't about the children?
c'mon kelju. i've already stated that I'm using a wild example to prove a point. you don't like Christianity voting for laws based on their version of morality. But isn't there also someone on the other side of you saying that they don't like your version of morality?
If you don't like the pedophile argument lets go with polygamy. why shouldn't consenting adults be allowed to marry more than one person? Gay/Strait doesn't matter. polygyny or polyandry?
I could care less if consenting adults want to practice polygamy.... I say for it
We already know that you consider marriage little more than a business transaction.
Polygamy doesn't trouble ME personally, but there are tremendous financial implications to its practice - for example, how would an insurance co-pay like it if I had three husbands putting in dental claims, or if they outlive me, three survivors claiming pension benefits?
In the current situation, we are discussing the marriage between two humans. biochem, what personally is your objection to allowing same-sex unions to be defined under this paradigm?
In the current situation, we are discussing the marriage between two humans. biochem, what personally is your objection to allowing same-sex unions to be defined under this paradigm?
