what is so wrong about gay marriage???

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by no.ordinary.dreamer

If they have never been caught before/yet they are considered a law abiding citizen. It also gives them loopholes to use in their favor.

Yeah sorry but your original statement made no sense. Allowing gay couples to marry has nothing to do with pedophiles or old people marrying kids. You have to be of a certain age to marry no matter what. And you know that even with the laws we have now 80 year olds can marry 18 year olds, is that a problem?

[delilah]

Originally Posted by TopOfTheWorld

He/She was referring to churches, not marriage from the state. Why should an atheist be allowed to get married in a church?

And uhh, Christians are still the religious majority. Civil unions are a joke. They don't offer the same legal benefits as marriage. Gay's deserve marriage. Screw civil unions.

oh really i wasn't aware of that, not being gay myself, i've never really been concerned enough to look it up.
I thought that if you got a certificate of marraige, without the actual preist (just through a court) that was a civil union? and if that isn't haha thats what i meant, that has the same legal benefits doesnt it? It's what my parents did, just went to a court house or somthing similar and got the documentation.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by delilah

oh really i wasn't aware of that, not being gay myself, i've never really been concerned enough to look it up.
I thought that if you got a certificate of marraige, without the actual preist (just through a court) that was a civil union? and if that isn't haha thats what i meant, that has the same legal benefits doesnt it? It's what my parents did, just went to a court house or somthing similar and got the documentation.

Yeah it's close but no cigar. Every couple has to get a marriage license before they are married and then they can have the ceremony or not but they are still legally married, that's probably what your parent's did.

[slickguy55]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

Well aren't you a lovely person. First, I never called you a conservative all I said was that slamming liberals was going to make you look bad, which also points to you being a conservative but whatever. Then I said that it's the same in reverse, showing that I'm not found of slamming conservatives.

Also I said "in my opinion" for a reason, I did not state it as a fact because I'm aware that it's just my opinion. But I guess I just don't know what family values are. Since the majority of marriages end in divorce is that a family value, how about all of the parent's out there that let their kids do whatever they want and dress however they want, those values? I know not every family is like that but I don't know one of my friends who doesn't have some issue with their family that I definitely don't think should be considered a value, such as the parents kicking them out of the house, or not giving a crap about how they do in school or neglecting to pay college application fees. And what is the definition of family. Is it two parents of the opposite sex and some kids? So then single parent's must not be families, and I can't imagine what you would consider step families, does it fit the definition to have two sets of parents?

In Iowa those people voted those "crazy liberals" into office, they put them there which means they trusted them to make decisions for their state. Also I don't know if you've ever picked up a paper but the Californian Supreme Court has already voted to uphold the Prop 8 vote. It might be changed one day, but for right now the people are getting what they want.

So your facts are a little wrong, I've never watched MTV in my life and I'm in the process of educating myself at a private University that I chose out of the 18 colleges I was accepted to, what are you doing out of curiosity?

Oh and telling gay people to stay away from churches (there are gay pastors you know) and kids (which is just ridiculous, should the gay kids stay away from kids as well?) is discrimination, just like telling black people to sit in the back of the bus.

Ok, well I'm not gonna sit here and waste my time arguing. I have already stated my view on this issue, so its whatever. I will quickly reply to several of your points that I have put in bold. I will list my replies in the order you wrote yours.

-Slamming liberals means I am conservative? Many democrats slam liberals as well.

-"In your opinion"... fair enough, and in my opinion I think your views on the issue have been corrupted by media. And you are totally missing my point, I never made an argument on who would make better parents. My argument is that it corrupts a moral "keystone" of what made up our countries views.

-Did Iowa vote for these judges, or were they appointed? (I honestly don't know, I am not familiar with their state law). Either way, even if the people elected these liberals, it doesn't make everything they do right. So using that logic, everything Bush did was fine, because we as people elected him and trusted him. That argument just doesn't make sense.

-My facts are wrong? No, they aren't. Its not that it "might be changed one day", it WILL be changed SOON, and against the voter's will.

-Well I appreciate you taking some interest in what I do. I am a Politcal Science major at Missouri State University. And I am taking journalism as a minor. I graduated high school from a private high school, which in my opinion gave me a really good education, much better than what the public schools offer. Now you curiosity is at ease

-Telling gays to stay away from our kids and churches is NOT discrimination. This is a country with free religion, and these religions are allowed to reject homosexuality, its called the bill of rights. And if someone want to raise their kids to be Christian and out of the grasp of the homosexual agenda, they have a right to do that.

All for now...

[Khadra]

Originally Posted by slickguy55

Ok, well I'm not gonna sit here and waste my time arguing. I have already stated my view on this issue, so its whatever. I will quickly reply to several of your points that I have put in bold. I will list my replies in the order you wrote yours.

AGAIN with the ignoring of scientific evidence. Seriously, you people who keep saying "it's not natural" have absolutely no credibility. I also don't understand why you are in a debate thread if you are not willing to debate.

[slickguy55]

Originally Posted by Khadra

I'm getting really tired of the "it's not natural" argument. NOBODY has refuted the evidence that suggests it is natural yet, and I've posted it numerous times. Would you please do so? (find evidence below)



And actually, I can and will deny that liberals are trying to change the church. Well maybe some are but I don't think most are. I know I personally couldn't care less what the church does in it's own policies. I just want it to stay the heck out of government. I am all for freedom of religion. Allowing same-sex marriage is not an infringment on religion. However, prohibiting same-sex marriage IS an infringment by the church on the state.

And how on earth can you use religion to back up your point? Yeah the major religions condemn homosexuality, but they are also VERY OLD. Society changes. We learn and GROW. Progress is a good thing. Just because something has been done for a long time doesn't make it right. If you want to live in the past go ahead, but you have no right to make others do the same. Some of us prefer to move on and let people be happy.





I just wanted to say I am a liberal but I absolutely agree with you on this point. How anyone can suggest priests be forced to marry gay couples is beyond me. I hope you realize that poster does not represent the majority of gay rights supporters though.

First of all, that quote of mine that you added to, the part about "2000 years of church teaching" and you said "thats a religious argument". Let me clarify, I am using that argument while keeping in mind that the church has built the framework for our laws and constitution. Just to clarify.

And when you say "It is natural". Again, your missing my point. It corrupts the natural order of things. Meaning it changes the definition of "family", and since many laws were created with family moral values in mind it changes our morals as a country.

And let me address your first and last paragraph at the same time. How can you agree with that last statement I made, and also deny that the gays are trying to change to church? I am not saying that they are changing the church in an extreme way, such as forcing priests to marry gays. But they are trying to change it in an indirect way. They are trying to create new age catholics that are ok with gays, almost as if they are writing christian beliefs themselves. If you understand what I am trying to say, if you don't I could try and explain it better, I'm tired and it is late so my effort in this post is lacking.

And your other paragraph, "How could you use religion to back you point", I'm sorry but I almost laughed when I read that. I could use religion because, as you agree, every major religion rejects homosexuality. However, I am only using religion as an argument because of it's parallel and it's role in developing the republic that we live in today. And you say "just because its old doesn't mean its right"... so just because a concept is "new" makes it right? My point is... Governments, Rules, Ideas, ect. have all come and gone, but religion has always been there. So that may or may not hint that there is something to the moral codes of religion.

Originally Posted by Khadra

AGAIN with the ignoring of scientific evidence. Seriously, you people who keep saying "it's not natural" have absolutely no credibility. I also don't understand why you are in a debate thread if you are not willing to debate.

I don't believe I was speaking to you. You don't have to wait you turn, I just got my reply to you up. I didn't forget

Originally Posted by Xujhan

That is discrimination. "You do not have the right" is always discrimination. Either everyone has a right to something, or no one has it. Any attempt to deprive someone of their equality is discrimination, and that's exactly what you're promoting.

So, from what I can tell your two major arguments are as follows:

-Homosexuality is damaging to children and familes
-Homosexuality does not have the favour of the majority in America

I'll argue the second point first, since it's much easier to dispute. You are right; from what I gather homosexuality isn't supported by a majority of Americans. Yet. But if you're appalled by the liberalism on this site, you should realize that this is the tone of our generation. TeenHelp is reasonably representative of our generation, and our generation is the one about to take center stage in the world. More people our age have liberal ideals - morally, if not always politically - than in any generation previous. Soon we all are going to define our culture, and part of that definition will be an emphasis on acceptance and equality despite our differences. Put bluntly, religious bigotry and the people who embrace it are dying out, and good riddance.

As for your assertion that homosexuality destroys family values , I challenge you to back that up with any logical argument. So far you've done nothing but cry about how it's unnatural, which sounds more like a witch-burning mentality than any belonging in the twenty-first century. Whether you admit it or not, your argument against homosexuality is religious. To an atheist, we are incapable of doing anything outside the "natural order", because being ourselves natural anything we do becomes part of that order. Only religion attempts to cling to concepts like absolute right and absolute wrong. The only way you can prove a non-religious argument against homosexuality is by showing how it is harmful to others, not only claiming that it is, and good luck doing that.

And a THIRD reply. whew, I'm tired. I'll make this short and sweet. Ill bold and reply, in order...

-It is NOT discrimination, your logic is grossly flawed. Again, there is freedom of religion, and freedom to raise your kids however, see on of my two previous posts for more.

- Thank you

-Well you are willing to admit that the majority doesn't want gay marriage, yet you have faith in our generation. I'll warn you, don't get ahead of yourself. Young people have been liberal as long as free speech has existed. Many grow out of it once they start paying taxes, have a family to raise morally, ect. Not saying you are completely wrong, I'm just saying don't get ahead of yourself.

-AGAIN, you are missing the point. And I have provided logical arguments, its just obvious that you aren't understanding. See my previous to posts for more detail. It disturbs the natural order, it changes the definition of family, and since are country is based on family morals, that can't be good.

-My whole argument is non religious for the the most part. Your not getting it. The mention of religion in my argument is incidental, not required. Do I have to draw a picture for you or what?

All for now, the battle begins tomorrow. Although I am about sick of this topic, but I'll do my best.

[Khadra]

Originally Posted by slickguy55

First of all, that quote of mine that you added to, the part about "2000 years of church teaching" and you said "thats a religious argument". Let me clarify, I am using that argument while keeping in mind that the church has built the framework for our laws and constitution. Just to clarify.

And when you say "It is natural". Again, your missing my point. It corrupts the natural order of things. Meaning it changes the definition of "family", and since many laws were created with family moral values in mind it changes our morals as a country.

And let me address your first and last paragraph at the same time. How can you agree with that last statement I made, and also deny that the gays are trying to change to church? I am not saying that they are changing the church in an extreme way, such as forcing priests to marry gays. But they are trying to change it in an indirect way. They are trying to create new age catholics that are ok with gays, almost as if they are writing christian beliefs themselves. If you understand what I am trying to say, if you don't I could try and explain it better, I'm tired and it is late so my effort in this post is lacking.

And your other paragraph, "How could you use religion to back you point", I'm sorry but I almost laughed when I read that. I could use religion because, as you agree, every major religion rejects homosexuality. However, I am only using religion as an argument because of it's parallel and it's role in developing the republic that we live in today. And you say "just because its old doesn't mean its right"... so just because a concept is "new" makes it right? My point is... Governments, Rules, Ideas, ect. have all come and gone, but religion has always been there. So that may or may not hint that there is something to the moral codes of religion.

It is still a religious argument, because we do not live in a theocracy and our laws should not have anything to do with religion (tradition or not).

Are you admitting then that homosexuality IS biological? and if so, how can you say that homosexuals raising children is not natural?
Homosexuals compose of 5-10% of the population. That is a pretty significant portion of the population. Many kids grow up in single-parent family homes or blended family homes or are raised by other family members. Are you going to make divorce illegal now? because apparently you think only a man and a woman together are fit to raise a child

I don't think I understand what you're saying about gays trying to change the church, sorry. I think all most gay people want is to have the same rights heterosexual people, not take anything away from the church. I suppose some christian gay people may be trying to change the church, so they can be accepted in their chosen religion, but I don't know how commone that really is.

Generally, new things are better than old things. Of course they aren't always, but often they are. The reason is because as time goes by we learn more and more. When the religious texts were created society was very different. People knew a lot less than they do today. Not to mention, none of the many existing religions have yet been proven, so using them to back up a point does not have much meaning.

Last point, allowing homosexuals to be themselves and get married to the love of their life makes them happy. How can you possibly feel good about yourself denying them the right to this happiness? How would you feel if someone told YOU you couldn't marry the love of your life and have the benefiits that come with it? You can let them have their rights (AND HAPPINESS) without agreeing with what they're doing.

First off, I'm aware there's probably no real point arguing with you. Attitude change often requires more then a teenager typing to you on an internet forum. Even more so, the sender of messages in persuasion is important, or their credentials at least, and as I'm queer, I doubt I will be able to. But just like you, most of my posts, particularly in threads like this, isn't to change direct people's opinions. Its to put across a side of an argument,

Originally Posted by slickguy55

So I am here to give them the other side of the story, and let them know its ok to be against something that most members of their age group blindly support (not talking only about this topic). So now that I got that out of the way I can begin...

Same sex marriage is wrong because it deceives the true homosexuals in America. They feel that there are politicians that care for them, when in reality they are using their struggle to achieve a political agenda.

The overall agenda of the liberal-socialists, in order to achieve complete success, requires the infiltration of both the family and the church. You can not deny that liberalism is trying to change the church, trying to make the church members be alright with same sex marriage, and it is working. Christians are not the same anymore, they are slowly accepting gay marriage. The agenda is trying to un-do 2000 years of basic church teachings. And for those of you who blame it on the "christians" are uneducated, EVERY major religion in the world rejects homosexuality. This is because gay marriage makes a joke out of family values, and the natural family order. And the natural family order is what gives this country it's values, and if that is destroyed then our country will lost it's core values. Not to mention that this "infiltration of the church" will be a step towards silencing to church's opinion, a lot like the way Communist Russia and other socialist countries attempted to do.

And you say, "what a sec, I thought your argument wasn't going to be religious". It is not religious. I am not saying "GOD WILL STRIKE YOU DOWN", because I don't believe that. I am saying that gay marriage compromises the value of family and 200 years of church teachings, two things that have been a moral guide to this country for 2 centuries.



That is INSANE. You think that priests, leaders of a religion AGAINST gay marriage, should be FORCED to do the Governments will. You think that the bill of rights should be ignored, freedom of religion should be ignored, and that the Government should be able to FORCE religions to do their will? Do you know nothing about history, about dictatorships? Because your comments show that you support dictatorship, because that is the sort of thing that they due. What kind of sick country do you want this to be? Geez, I knew people here would be misinformed and slightly uneducated, but that comment is absolutely insane.



You don't need to feel like the only person who feels this way. In fact a good majority of American citizens are still against gay marriage. I know that sounds surprising considering how gay friendly the media is, but it is true, look it up.

Now they will say "if most people are against it, why is it being legalized in some states". This is because the votes by the PEOPLE are being ignored. Even in California, a state that us SUPER liberal, the people voted against a gay marriage bill. The reason that the people's voice doesn't matter is because corrupt State Supreme Courts dominated by liberals are over turning the people's voice, taking matters into their own sick/twisted hands.

OK, I have to ask, why do assume any of us are blindly following gay-affirming ideology? I'll have you know, I use to blindly follow anti-gay ideas, because my parents told me to, without ever really feeling anything negative against gays. It's only now that I've considered more of the arguments then a very large amount of people, on both sides. It took me a year of research, religious and secular, to come to a more liberal view. And now, with two years of a degree at one of the UK's top universitys under my belt, I am positive I've tackled all these issues thoroughly, and not blindly following them.

Next... there is probably more of a liberal agenda, then a gay agenda, but that's also true for all politcal groups. If a political group didnt have an agenda... what is the point? On the other hand, I disagree with your suggestion as to what the agenda is. The church is changing, but it's largely changing from the inside, and due to increased awareness education, knowledge, and having the real world conflict with blind faith. Blind faith generally is a feature of fundamentalists. And many right-wing attitudes in the church are carried over from older generations. Here's an interesting point.... Jesus was a liberal. Ok, I have nothing to suggest he wasn't for gay marriage, but he would have considered gays equal human beings, deserving to be treated with love. He hung out with tax collectors for goodness sake! Remember the good Samaritian? Yeah, that story tells the church how to treat gays. And no, the issue with the church is NOT just about the legalisation of gay marriage. Most of the people who are against gay marriage often have at least so other prejudiced views of gays, and many have more obvious views that are prejudiced against gays. I'm not saying everyone who is against gay marriage is prejudice to gays in general, but generally they do come hand in hand. The Church has no right to treat gays in any way but love.

Oh, btw, 2000 years of Church history? Um... not really... gay marriage was never a focus in the slightest until recent years. In fact, the concept of homosexuality was only introduced in the 1800s. Before, it was just same sex behaviour, and there is a lot of academic work questionning the current interperatations on same sex behaviour in the Bible. There is also a fair amount of mystery involved in the history of gays and the church, because its only recently become a frequent topic. Oh, and btw, until modern Western society, marriage was mostly a buisness issue, about money, property, and perhaps trying to ensure a woman had a man to provide for her, in the sexist worlds of the past. That, and as conception only became effective and widely avaliable in our newer society, being married when you had sex was important, incase you had kids, in terms of resources. But I mean, look at the royal families in British history, marriage was like a treaty between nations, and on lower levels of the population, it was like this on a smaller scale. In Old Testament times, people could basically buy someone's daughter. In those days too, a brother would have to marry his sibling's widow if the sibling died. In order to support her. Oh, and don't forget the frequent polygmy in OT times. Men had more then one wife... and if they didn't they often had concubines, they were kept like wives. For example, David, from David and Goliath, was his fathers favourite son, because of who his mother was. David's brothers had different mothers to him, even though these women were still in the family. In some countries today, they marry cousins to keep wealth in the family.

But putting this aside, I like how you enjoy stressing that you are meant to have religious freedom in the USA, but then, only some people are allowed religious freedom, assuming it falls in line with specific views. Mainstream moderate Judasm, or at least some branches allow union of gays. The Quakers generally do. Some parts of Christianity. Some parts of Buddism. Pagans too, etc. Why is their religious freedom less valuable then say the Catholic Church? I'm not talking about forcing those in churches to perform marriages they disagree with, but what about those who are ok with it? That being said, I do believe if someone is working in a civil court they shouldn't get a choice, because they've choosen to do that job, in a secular institution. Their own fault. And what about freedom of religion, in the sense to choose not to have one?

One of the biggest things that confuses me about America, is that is meant to be the land of the free, but that only applies to the majority. Any minorities right to freedom is overshadowed by other. That's not land of the free, that is land of the majority rule. In terms of voting for politicians, yeah, its the only practical way to vote. But then issues involing the rights of individual groups, which really have no direct effect on eothers, should not have to be cleared by the majority. That's really implicit facism. But as someone said, our generation are on average, more progressive, the the dynamics will really change.

Why did Prop 8 pass? Probably because people are often very stuck in their ways.... it takes a lot to change your attitudes. Having to change fundamental opinions often leaves you uncomfortable for awhile.

And all this stuff about history, or whatever... um... so what? Know what else the church use to believe? There was a fairly wide view interracial marriage was wrong, they use to think left handed people were evil, so burnt them at the stake. Protestants? Burnt at stake by Catholics. Catholics? Burnt at stake by Protestants. Witch Hunts. Hitler manipulated the Christians in his country, including through the use of claiming it was inline with the faith (for the record, Hitler was not a Christian). This isn't me bashing religion, I'm actually a Christian, my point is, people, tradition, history, are not always right. We've come a long way in a short amount of time. Why? The liberal agenda? Maybe a bit... But it's more likely to be increaswe of knowledge, access to knowledge, the ideology that minorities should be treated fairly, and so on.

Seperation of Church and state is a large part of the reason the scientific revolution occured in the Western World, as opposed to anywhere else... it does bring benefits.

Originally Posted by no.ordinary.dreamer

If they have never been caught before/yet they are considered a law abiding citizen. It also gives them loopholes to use in their favor.

Ok, go find a credible source, or re-evaluate what you just said... k, thnx.

Originally Posted by slickguy55

-"In your opinion"... fair enough, and in my opinion I think your views on the issue have been corrupted by media. And you are totally missing my point, I never made an argument on who would make better parents. My argument is that it corrupts a moral "keystone" of what made up our countries views.

I'll make this short and simple. How? Morality is not particularly gendered based... moral development will occur with proper parenting, regardless of who it is from, and as your cognitive abilities improve.

-Telling gays to stay away from our kids and churches is NOT discrimination. This is a country with free religion, and these religions are allowed to reject homosexuality, its called the bill of rights. And if someone want to raise their kids to be Christian and out of the grasp of the homosexual agenda, they have a right to do that.

Ok, so you are posted to give both sides of an argument, but you think its just and fair for parents to only give their kids one side of the argument, because you agree with there side? What if their kids turn out gay. You have no idea what coming from a conservative anti-gay Christian background is like, after you realise you aren't straight. And yeah, it happens... in America, it happens a lot... just out of the sheer amount of kids in general with those background.

And no Chruch should turn away gays if they accept anyone else who sins. The only time even conservative Christians Biblically can reject someone like that is if they a) hold a stance from 'traditional' Bible interperatation, b) the gay is claiming to be a brother/sister in Christ, and c) the repeatedly/intentionally engage in gay sex. This same thing applys to straights having sex outside of major, and most other sins. The idea of it, is to put them in the world, away from God, with the hopes they return like the prodigical son.

And staying away from your children? Even if they don't talk about pro-gay stuff? Yeah... no... That is discrimination, I'm sorry. Oh, and btw, parents do not own their children, they are there as guardians to raise kids, they should not be able to indoctrinate a child to have prejudiced views. Telling gay people to stay away from Churches or Children ios not simply disagreeing with their sex life due to a Biblical reading, it is attributing negative traits toward gays. And more traits, at that, then Christians people toward most sinners, maybe bar murderers and pedophiles (though many people still associate gays to pedophillia, which is obscene).

Originally Posted by slickguy55

And when you say "It is natural". Again, your missing my point. It corrupts the natural order of things. Meaning it changes the definition of "family", and since many laws were created with family moral values in mind it changes our morals as a country.

Do you not realise how much your country's morals have changed over the last few hundred years anyway? Morality changes... it always does, unless a society remains static. And of course it'd change as our whole culture and society changes.

And I don't see how the definition of a family from a 'mom and dad' to 'two parents' is a major change. And unlike with straights, gays aren't all that likely to have kids who they consider accidents, for obvious reasons, so they are actually more like to have a coherant family

And your other paragraph, "How could you use religion to back you point", I'm sorry but I almost laughed when I read that. I could use religion because, as you agree, every major religion rejects homosexuality. However, I am only using religion as an argument because of it's parallel and it's role in developing the republic that we live in today. And you say "just because its old doesn't mean its right"... so just because a concept is "new" makes it right? My point is... Governments, Rules, Ideas, ect. have all come and gone, but religion has always been there. So that may or may not hint that there is something to the moral codes of religion.

First off your bold comment about religion actually is slightly more complex then you assume. Religious beliefs currently, and in the past have varied on homosexuality, depending on who you asked, and then for some, if they were against it, were only so for their followers, and not non-followers. Second point, most academic research suggest the new concepts are not really wrong, and social psychology brings to light how attitudes are made, reforced, and why they may be long lived. It also shows how the whole in-group, out-group stuff works, and quite nicely explains why its the minority or weaker groups that get the crap (e.g. women, ethnic minorities, the disababled, etc) Oh, and on the other hand, about a hundred years ago, people were less educated... they didn't question the way religion was being presented. You keep blaming the liberals... but where do you think they came from? And yeah, there is something to a lot of religious moral codes, because they have a lot of rules based in safety, liberty, order, etc. At the same time, that doesn't actually mean much. Governments have been around a long time, are they always right? I would say no.

I don't know why you are under the impression no one who supports gay rights have ever considered anything themselves.

-Well you are willing to admit that the majority doesn't want gay marriage, yet you have faith in our generation. I'll warn you, don't get ahead of yourself. Young people have been liberal as long as free speech has existed. Many grow out of it once they start paying taxes, have a family to raise morally, ect. Not saying you are completely wrong, I'm just saying don't get ahead of yourself.

Grow out of it? You talk of liberalism like some silly disordered phase.

-AGAIN, you are missing the point. And I have provided logical arguments, its just obvious that you aren't understanding. See my previous to posts for more detail. It disturbs the natural order, it changes the definition of family, and since are country is based on family morals, that can't be good.

Yeah, if you call that a logical explaination, you need to go back to that private school of yours. It's a circular argument, 'Itll destroy the family' "Why?" 'Because it's unnatural' "Why?" 'Because its meant to be man and woman' "Why?" 'Because otherwise it'll destroy the family"...

-My whole argument is non religious for the the most part. Your not getting it. The mention of religion in my argument is incidental, not required. Do I have to draw a picture for you or what?

Actually, no, it's religious, in an institutionalised way, not in a 'Like me quote you Bible verses way'. You are essentially saying 'The Church doesnt like it, therefore it shouldnt happen, because of American history in relation to the Church'.... it IS an indirect religious argument... sorry.

[slickguy55]

Originally Posted by Khadra

It is still a religious argument, because we do not live in a theocracy and our laws should not have anything to do with religion (tradition or not).

Are you admitting then that homosexuality IS biological? and if so, how can you say that homosexuals raising children is not natural?
Homosexuals compose of 5-10% of the population. That is a pretty significant portion of the population. Many kids grow up in single-parent family homes or blended family homes or are raised by other family members. Are you going to make divorce illegal now? because apparently you think only a man and a woman together are fit to raise a child

I don't think I understand what you're saying about gays trying to change the church, sorry. I think all most gay people want is to have the same rights heterosexual people, not take anything away from the church. I suppose some christian gay people may be trying to change the church, so they can be accepted in their chosen religion, but I don't know how commone that really is.

Generally, new things are better than old things. Of course they aren't always, but often they are. The reason is because as time goes by we learn more and more. When the religious texts were created society was very different. People knew a lot less than they do today. Not to mention, none of the many existing religions have yet been proven, so using them to back up a point does not have much meaning.

Last point, allowing homosexuals to be themselves and get married to the love of their life makes them happy. How can you possibly feel good about yourself denying them the right to this happiness? How would you feel if someone told YOU you couldn't marry the love of your life and have the benefiits that come with it? You can let them have their rights (AND HAPPINESS) without agreeing with what they're doing.

-Well our laws are based on religion. Our country was founded on religion. Whether you think it should be or not.

-No I am not saying that. I am not really a science guy, so I just don't like to use "It is not natural" as a major argument of mine.

-Thats fine, at least you're willing to admit that you don't fully understand what I was trying to say. Allow me to try and explain it again. I think the whole 'Gay Marriage Movement' is trying to change the church. I don't really buy that individual gays who just want to get married are trying to change the church, so I agree with you there. However, I feel that liberal politicians (not exactly JUST the dems), and corrupt organizations (ACORN/ ACLU) are USING this struggle of the gay people in order to achieve an agenda of theirs that involves infiltrating the church. I could go more into what that agenda is, but all that matters is that 'infiltration of the church' is part of that agenda. Thats why I say that people can be gay as they want, just stay out of our churches, that way we don't have to worry about groups/politicians manipulating the gay rights movement for their personal agenda.

-People can't use religion as a backing point? And this is your decision? Ok, well there are 2 billion Christians, 1.2 billion Muslims, 1.4 Billion Buddhists, 1 Billion Hindus, and 200 Million Jews who disagree with you. And all those religions denounce gay marriage. Which reminds me, which one of you children said in a earlier post something along the line of "Religion is no longer the majority!"..... 5.6/6 billion people is not the majority?

- And your last paragraph. This argument is not about love. I have clearly established that, and I have never said that "they don't love each other" or that they shouldn't "be with each other", so given that, I do feel pretty good about myself.

If giving a right to a minority, doesn't take away from the right of the religious (for example, they wouldnt have to get married), then why should the opinion of the majority outweight the right and freedom of the majority? It's like saying segegration in the areas with a white racist majority is ok?

At least answer that, as you ignored my entire post.

[Khadra]

Originally Posted by slickguy55

-Well our laws are based on religion. Our country was founded on religion. Whether you think it should be or not.

-No I am not saying that. I am not really a science guy, so I just don't like to use "It is not natural" as a major argument of mine.

-Thats fine, at least you're willing to admit that you don't fully understand what I was trying to say. Allow me to try and explain it again. I think the whole 'Gay Marriage Movement' is trying to change the church. I don't really buy that individual gays who just want to get married are trying to change the church, so I agree with you there. However, I feel that liberal politicians (not exactly JUST the dems), and corrupt organizations (ACORN/ ACLU) are USING this struggle of the gay people in order to achieve an agenda of theirs that involves infiltrating the church. I could go more into what that agenda is, but all that matters is that 'infiltration of the church' is part of that agenda. Thats why I say that people can be gay as they want, just stay out of our churches, that way we don't have to worry about groups/politicians manipulating the gay rights movement for their personal agenda.

-People can't use religion as a backing point? And this is your decision? Ok, well there are 2 billion Christians, 1.2 billion Muslims, 1.4 Billion Buddhists, 1 Billion Hindus, and 200 Million Jews who disagree with you. And all those religions denounce gay marriage. Which reminds me, which one of you children said in a earlier post something along the line of "Religion is no longer the majority!"..... 5.6/6 billion people is not the majority?

- And your last paragraph. This argument is not about love. I have clearly established that, and I have never said that "they don't love each other" or that they shouldn't "be with each other", so given that, I do feel pretty good about myself.

First of all, I need to ask you to stop calling everyone on here children. It's demeaning and uncalled for.

It doesn't matter what your country was founded on. All that matters is that it is now secular. You do not live in a theocracy, so you have no right to base your laws on religion.

If you aren't saying it's natural then you need to refute the points I made about science saying it is natural. If you can't refute them then you can't claim it's not natural.

Even if those people and organizations are trying to infiltrate the church, which I don't really agree with, but let's assume they are, how does that give you the right to prohibit gay marriage? Two wrongs don't make a right. Be the bigger man. Let them have their rights.

I never said people couldn't use religion as a backing point. It's just not a very solid or reputable one for obvious reasons. Something being old or tradition is not a decent argument. It's meaningless.

You are keeping them from having equal rights so you ARE denying them happiness. You are denying harmless adults rights that would make them a lot happier!!

[DoesThisLookInfected?]

Originally Posted by slickguy55

-Well our laws are based on religion. Our country was founded on religion. Whether you think it should be or not.

No it wasn't.

-No I am not saying that. I am not really a science guy, so I just don't like to use "It is not natural" as a major argument of mine.

But I don't get why someone who NATURALLY loves someone shouldn't get married.

-Thats fine, at least you're willing to admit that you don't fully understand what I was trying to say. Allow me to try and explain it again. I think the whole 'Gay Marriage Movement' is trying to change the church. I don't really buy that individual gays who just want to get married are trying to change the church, so I agree with you there. However, I feel that liberal politicians (not exactly JUST the dems), and corrupt organizations (ACORN/ ACLU) are USING this struggle of the gay people in order to achieve an agenda of theirs that involves infiltrating the church. I could go more into what that agenda is, but all that matters is that 'infiltration of the church' is part of that agenda. Thats why I say that people can be gay as they want, just stay out of our churches, that way we don't have to worry about groups/politicians manipulating the gay rights movement for their personal agenda.

But marriage is no long a religious term, it's a legal term that gives you benefits

-People can't use religion as a backing point? And this is your decision? Ok, well there are 2 billion Christians, 1.2 billion Muslims, 1.4 Billion Buddhists, 1 Billion Hindus, and 200 Million Jews who disagree with you. And all those religions denounce gay marriage. Which reminds me, which one of you children said in a earlier post something along the line of "Religion is no longer the majority!"..... 5.6/6 billion people is not the majority?

It's in the constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
No law respecting a religion, i.e. not using religion as a backing point.

- And your last paragraph. This argument is not about love. I have clearly established that, and I have never said that "they don't love each other" or that they shouldn't "be with each other", so given that, I do feel pretty good about myself.

Then why shouldn't they be allowed to marry?

[slickguy55]

Originally Posted by DoesThisLookInfected?

No it wasn't.


But I don't get why someone who NATURALLY loves someone shouldn't get married.


But marriage is no long a religious term, it's a legal term that gives you benefits


It's in the constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
No law respecting a religion, i.e. not using religion as a backing point.


Then why shouldn't they be allowed to marry?

Wow...

-Yes, it was. Pick up a history book sometime.

-Because marriage is a religious ceremony.

-It is both.

-No, but religion sure can influence laws.

if you read my long post, I comment on the history of marriage.... why am I being ignored?

[slickguy55]

Originally Posted by Khadra

First of all, I need to ask you to stop calling everyone on here children. It's demeaning and uncalled for.

It doesn't matter what your country was founded on. All that matters is that it is now secular. You do not live in a theocracy, so you have no right to base your laws on religion.

If you aren't saying it's natural then you need to refute the points I made about science saying it is natural. If you can't refute them then you can't claim it's not natural.

Even if those people and organizations are trying to infiltrate the church, which I don't really agree with, but let's assume they are, how does that give you the right to prohibit gay marriage? Two wrongs don't make a right. Be the bigger man. Let them have their rights.

I never said people couldn't use religion as a backing point. It's just not a very solid or reputable one for obvious reasons. Something being old or tradition is not a decent argument. It's meaningless.

You are keeping them from having equal rights so you ARE denying them happiness. You are denying harmless adults rights that would make them a lot happier!!

-When I said "children" i was not referring to you. I was refering to whoever made that quote I was replying to.

-I beg to differ

-It gives us a right because we have a right to defend our institution. lol "be a bigger man"? thats not how it works. If the church is infiltrated, nothing but bad can happen, and thats something that has been proven over and over in history.

-Again, thats your opinion. And 5.6 billion people disagree.


I gotta say I am done with this topic. I have posted my views, so they are up there for people to read, therefor my job here is done.

Khandra- It was nice debating this with you. Many people I debate this topic (and other topics) with have a warped view on history and on how things should be, such as the person who claimed "priests should be forced to marry gays". But it is clear to me that you don't have warped and twisted views, that you are someone who just genuinely cares about individual people. Keep an open mind, and don't let the media corrupt it

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by slickguy55

Many people I debate this topic (and other topics) with have a warped view on history and on how things should be, such as the person who claimed "priests should be forced to marry gays".

Because several people seem so taken aback by the statement that I made a while back that was pretty much summed up in the bolded part of slickguy's post, I feel that I should explain where I was coming from.

I am a straight Catholic, however if I were gay, I would still feel that I need to have my wedding in my community's Catholic Church. Because I believe in marriage as a holy sacrament, I could never be satisfied with a court wedding as I would not feel that the marriage is consecrated. It just would not be a marriage to me.

I am sure there are many religious people who are also gay. If same-sex marriage IS legalized where they live, they should be allowed to marry however their beliefs deem the right way.

And yes, I know the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms demands freedom of religion. But I believe that not allowing someone who is religious to get married in the way their religion dictates is appropriate just because they are gay is also a breach of this freedom.

I'm sorry if that doesn't make sense, but that's how I feel.

[Khadra]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

Because several people seem so taken aback by the statement that I made a while back that was pretty much summed up in the bolded part of slickguy's post, I feel that I should explain where I was coming from.

I am a straight Catholic, however if I were gay, I would still feel that I need to have my wedding in my community's Catholic Church. Because I believe in marriage as a holy sacrament, I could never be satisfied with a court wedding as I would not feel that the marriage is consecrated. It just would not be a marriage to me.

I am sure there are many religious people who are also gay. If same-sex marriage IS legalized where they live, they should be allowed to marry however their beliefs deem the right way.

And yes, I know the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms demands freedom of religion. But I believe that not allowing someone who is religious to get married in the way their religion dictates is appropriate just because they are gay is also a breach of this freedom.

I'm sorry if that doesn't make sense, but that's how I feel.

You are doing a huge disfavour to the gay rights movement and human rights in general. Your last statement is just as irrational as the person who said "I disagree with gay marriage, I don't know why but that's how I feel".

There are churches who believe in gay marriage and will marry gays. Same-sex couples can go to one of those churches.

Nobody has the right to be accepted into any religious community. That's what religion is: PRIVATE institutions with their own rules and regulations. You can't just walk into a grocery store and demand they start selling stereos because it's legal to and you want them to. They can do whatever they want. What is the point of having religions if they can't practice their beliefs? You might as well just outlaw religion.

[Grizabella]

-Yes, it was. Pick up a history book sometime.

Apparently you need to pick up a non-revisionalist history book not written by fundamntalist Christian propagandists.

The US was NOT founded on Christianity. Christians attempt to rewrite history, saying the US government derived from Christian foundations, that the founding fathers aimed for a Christian nation...the theory just does not hold up to historical evidence.

Many Americans practiced Christianity. Of course they did, that is not possible to deny. But there were also many with more deistic philosophies - something "Christian foundation" propagandists seem content to ignore. Most of the influential founding fathers held to freemasonry and deism, not Christianity. They respected the rights of other religions, but they were NOT Christians.

The constitution dictates law in America, and it indicates the intent of the founding fathers. It is a secular document. Nowhere does it appeal to God, Jesus, or Christianity. The US government derives from people, not God, and that is made clear in the beginning of the Constitution: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...." The fact that they leave God out is not an accident. They didn't just forget to mention Him. The omission of God reflects the intention of the founding fathers to keep government separate from religion.

As someone pointed out earlier, the Constitution actually states that government should not be based on religion: "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion".

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the First Amendment in a letter to a Baptist Association calling it "a wall of separation between church and State". Hardly the words of a founding father basing his nation on Christianity. Madison wrote that "strongly guarded...is the separation between religion and government."

Aside from the Constitution, many Christians who think that America was founded on Christianity try to use the Declaration of Independence as "proof". The reason is obvious - the Declaration mentions God. However, the Declaration does not represent any law of the US. It predates the establishment of lawful government. The purpose of the Declaration was to separate America from Great Britain and lists various grievances with them. It holds no legal power - it represents an historical document about intentions of rebellion against Britain. The mention of God in the Declaration does not describe the personal God of Christianity. Thomas Jefferson, a holder of Deist beliefs, wrote the majority of it.

If the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence don't do it for you, there's more. The Treaty of Tripoli, written in the late 1700s, could not be clearer about the secular nature of the US government to foreign nations. In Article 11, it states:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The preliminary treaty began with a signing in the last year of Washington's presidency. Joel Barlow, American diplomat, held responsibility for treaty negotiations. Barlow abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate for - you guessed it -secular government. He wrote the English version of the treaty, including Article 11. He forwarded it to US legislators for approval - it was endorsed by the secretary of state, and John Adams, now during his presidency concurred. Throughout approval by Senate, wording of Article 11 never raised even the slightest concern. So here we have a clear admission by the US in 1797 that it did not found itself upon Christianity - and unlike the Declaration, this treaty did represent law.

So now that we've got that cleared up, I think we can safely reject any claim that gay marriage should not be allowed on the basis of Christian foundations of state.

[slickguy55]

Originally Posted by Grizabella

Apparently you need to pick up a non-revisionalist history book not written by fundamntalist Christian propagandists.

The US was NOT founded on Christianity. Christians attempt to rewrite history, saying the US government derived from Christian foundations, that the founding fathers aimed for a Christian nation...the theory just does not hold up to historical evidence.

Many Americans practiced Christianity. Of course they did, that is not possible to deny. But there were also many with more deistic philosophies - something "Christian foundation" propagandists seem content to ignore. Most of the influential founding fathers held to freemasonry and deism, not Christianity. They respected the rights of other religions, but they were NOT Christians.

The constitution dictates law in America, and it indicates the intent of the founding fathers. It is a secular document. Nowhere does it appeal to God, Jesus, or Christianity. The US government derives from people, not God, and that is made clear in the beginning of the Constitution: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...." The fact that they leave God out is not an accident. They didn't just forget to mention Him. The omission of God reflects the intention of the founding fathers to keep government separate from religion.

As someone pointed out earlier, the Constitution actually states that government should not be based on religion: "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion".

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the First Amendment in a letter to a Baptist Association calling it "a wall of separation between church and State". Hardly the words of a founding father basing his nation on Christianity. Madison wrote that "strongly guarded...is the separation between religion and government."

Aside from the Constitution, many Christians who think that America was founded on Christianity try to use the Declaration of Independence as "proof". The reason is obvious - the Declaration mentions God. However, the Declaration does not represent any law of the US. It predates the establishment of lawful government. The purpose of the Declaration was to separate America from Great Britain and lists various grievances with them. It holds no legal power - it represents an historical document about intentions of rebellion against Britain. The mention of God in the Declaration does not describe the personal God of Christianity. Thomas Jefferson, a holder of Deist beliefs, wrote the majority of it.

If the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence don't do it for you, there's more. The Treaty of Tripoli, written in the late 1700s, could not be clearer about the secular nature of the US government to foreign nations. In Article 11, it states:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The preliminary treaty began with a signing in the last year of Washington's presidency. Joel Barlow, American diplomat, held responsibility for treaty negotiations. Barlow abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate for - you guessed it -secular government. He wrote the English version of the treaty, including Article 11. He forwarded it to US legislators for approval - it was endorsed by the secretary of state, and John Adams, now during his presidency concurred. Throughout approval by Senate, wording of Article 11 never raised even the slightest concern. So here we have a clear admission by the US in 1797 that it did not found itself upon Christianity - and unlike the Declaration, this treaty did represent law.

So now that we've got that cleared up, I think we can safely reject any claim that gay marriage should not be allowed on the basis of Christian foundations of state.

I read about the first two sentences. Now you can't take back the time it took you to write that, hope your happy. I won't argue with you personally, I'll let this link argue with you. A nice piece written by a Chief Justice. But long story short, this article shows that you don't know what your talking about.

Were the Founding Fathers Christian?

[Grizabella]

Yeah, great way to argue. "I'm not going to look at what you said, or evaluate whether the points are right - I'll just assume I'm right and that will be that." That website means nothing - there are just as many websites explaining why it isn't founded on Christianity. And you're accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about when you can't even be bothered to back up your own argument? Look - I have websites too! By your argument, that clearly makes me the victor (since you know, I provided more links to one side of the argument that you did, and if it's on a webpage, it must be right).

The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity
Our Founding Fathers Were NOT Christians
American Government Founded on Human Reason, not Christianity

And wow, I'm not sure where I should start with the issues in that link you provided. Pretty much every point they make (such as the Declaration of Independence) is addressed in my first post.

[slickguy55]

Originally Posted by Grizabella

Yeah, great way to argue. "I'm not going to look at what you said, or evaluate whether the points are right - I'll just assume I'm right and that will be that." That website means nothing - there are just as many websites explaining why it isn't founded on Christianity. And you're accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about when you can't even be bothered to back up your own argument? Look - I have websites too! By your argument, that clearly makes me the victor (since you know, I provided more links to one side of the argument that you did, and if it's on a webpage, it must be right).

The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity
Our Founding Fathers Were NOT Christians
American Government Founded on Human Reason, not Christianity

And wow, I'm not sure where I should start with the issues in that link you provided. Pretty much every point they make (such as the Declaration of Independence) is addressed in my first post.

I'm not arguing myself because, like I stated earlier in this thread, I am done with this topic.

The website means nothing? Thats funny. Because when I read the article I could have sworn that there was plenty of information from Political Science professors, actual quotes of the founding fathers, and ideas based on HUNDREDS of quotes and writings from the founding fathers. So how exactly is that meaningless? And where are your sources? Who do they quotes? actually those are rhetorical questions, I don't care. I'm done.

[notwhoithinkiam]

Originally Posted by xHolyValorx

Know what, that's a good point. Know what I do respect? I know that there are homosexuals, who don't believe their sexual preference is right. They know they are homosexual, but because they don't believe it, they try and honor God by not committing any acts. It's just my opinion, but you had a really good point. In some way, these people are suppressing themselves, but when people try and honor the God they believe, I respect it. Sometimes we don't allow ourselves to do the things we believe to be wrong.

Ok i severely disagree with you on that one. I can't understan how you can respect someone who goes against their true human self to worship a deity! Does it not say somewhere in that book that one must respect ones self? I am sure it must! Surpressing yourself and lying to yourself is not respecting yourself

[Grizabella]

I'm getting really tired of the "it's not natural" argument. NOBODY has refuted the evidence that suggests it is natural yet, and I've posted it numerous times. Would you please do so? (find evidence below)

I'm thinking that the refusal to address the biological argument is the detractors admitting that they can't argue against the scientific evidence.

[Khadra]

Originally Posted by Grizabella

I'm thinking that the refusal to address the biological argument is the detractors admitting that they can't argue against the scientific evidence.

Yeah I'm pretty sure that is what it is too. Yet, they refuse to admit they might be wrong!

[slickguy55]

Ok then...

Man + Woman = Baby
Man + Man = ????

The NATURAL reason for sex in any species is to reproduce. You can't reproduce with the same sex. So how is it natural to have sex with the same sex?

You can't 100% prove that there is a biological connection. So does that mean that the biological connection does not exist? Who knows. But you can't prove it. And if you use the theory that you people use on God "You can't prove it so it doesn't exist", using your logic on that topic, the biological connection does not exist. I'm not saying that, I'm just using your people's logic on this one.

[Grizabella]

The NATURAL reason for sex in any species is to reproduce. You can't reproduce with the same sex. So how is it natural to have sex with the same sex?

The definition of natural is that it occurs in nature. It has been documented that homosexuality occurs in other species. Therefore it occurs in nature, and therefore it is natural.

You can't 100% prove that there is a biological connection. So does that mean that the biological connection does not exist? Who knows. But you can't prove it. And if you use the theory that you people use on God "You can't prove it so it doesn't exist", using your logic on that topic, the biological connection does not exist. I'm not saying that, I'm just using your people's logic on this one.

No one argues that it's 100% proven - anyone who thinks science ever says that needs to step back a second. The argument against God is that there is no evidence, and that until such a time as said evidence arises, we should not operate under the presumption that he does exist. The goal of science is not to prove, it is to provide the best explanation of our world at a given time. The biological side, as we said earlier, is not the be all and end all of the matter. Of course society and upbringing probably plays some role in it. The difference between these two examples is that in the case of God, no evidence exists to support the theory, and in the case of homosexuality, a large amount of evidence exists. That doesn't 100% mean it's true, but it does mean that until we can come up with a better explanation, this is the one we use.

Originally Posted by slickguy55

Ok then...

Man + Woman = Baby
Man + Man = ????

The NATURAL reason for sex in any species is to reproduce. You can't reproduce with the same sex. So how is it natural to have sex with the same sex?

You can't 100% prove that there is a biological connection. So does that mean that the biological connection does not exist? Who knows. But you can't prove it. And if you use the theory that you people use on God "You can't prove it so it doesn't exist", using your logic on that topic, the biological connection does not exist. I'm not saying that, I'm just using your people's logic on this one.

AS you are ignoring everything else I'm saying (which suggests you just cant argue with me... because you are blindly following your opinion) I'm going to point out that human sexual behaviour is almost entirely dissociated from reproduction.

Oh, and that nothing is 100% proven really. You get evidence for and against, but all science is just theories.. you misunderstand the required evidence for support. There is significant support to suggest its at least in part biological. More so then that suggests otherwise. Oh at your little God argument example a) doesnt apply to me, I believe in God, and b) there's more solid evidence in favour of homosexuality there should be... Christianity is about faith

[DoesThisLookInfected?]

Originally Posted by slickguy55

Ok then...

Man + Woman = Baby
Man + Man = ????

The NATURAL reason for sex in any species is to reproduce. You can't reproduce with the same sex. So how is it natural to have sex with the same sex?

You can't 100% prove that there is a biological connection. So does that mean that the biological connection does not exist? Who knows. But you can't prove it. And if you use the theory that you people use on God "You can't prove it so it doesn't exist", using your logic on that topic, the biological connection does not exist. I'm not saying that, I'm just using your people's logic on this one.

So I guess infertile couples shouldn't be able to marry either.

[Grizabella]

Originally Posted by DoesThisLookInfected?

So I guess infertile couples shouldn't be able to marry either.

Yeah there should probably be a time limit on how long a heterosexual couple has to reproduce, after which point their marriage is invalidated if there is no child. Also, all marriages become worthless after a woman goes through menopause.

you already have to have sex within the first year otherwise you marriage can not count... absurd rule...

[Grizabella]

Originally Posted by Invert

you already have to have sex within the first year otherwise you marriage can not count... absurd rule...

Wow, really? That is insane. What if there's some physical reason you can't have sex? You just can't get married?

[DoesThisLookInfected?]

Originally Posted by Grizabella

Yeah there should probably be a time limit on how long a heterosexual couple has to reproduce, after which point their marriage is invalidated if there is no child. Also, all marriages become worthless after a woman goes through menopause.

Of course. I mean, if that's the only reason for marriage, then I guess they shouldn't be allowed to marry if they're not going to have a kid.

Originally Posted by Invert

you already have to have sex within the first year otherwise you marriage can not count... absurd rule...

How can you prove one way or another? That makes no sense.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by Grizabella

Wow, really? That is insane. What if there's some physical reason you can't have sex? You just can't get married?

Actually, if someone is aware that he or she is impotent going into the marriage, in the Catholic Church that is grounds not to allow them to marry. I think its horrible, and I think it can be legally contested, but its true.

[Grizabella]

Oh...so the having sex or marriage doesn't count rule that Invert refered to - is that just religious marriages, or does that reply to court marriages as well?

[slickguy55]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

Actually, if someone is aware that he or she is impotent going into the marriage, in the Catholic Church that is grounds not to allow them to marry. I think its horrible, and I think it can be legally contested, but its true.

As a catholic, and as someone who has studied catholicism all my life, I can tell you that that is complete B.S. and not true.

[PhoenixAlive]

Legitimate Grounds for Divorce:


If a couple chooses to file a fault-based divorce, what “faults” are accepted?

• Physical and mental cruelty
• Adultery
• Desertion
• Prison sentence
• Non-consummation of the act (sexual intercourse), unless the spouse has told the other before the marriage.
Grounds for Divorce

So yes, a marriage can be seen as invalid if the marriage is not "consummated"

Originally Posted by slickguy55

As a catholic, and as someone who has studied catholicism all my life, I can tell you that that is complete B.S. and not true.

I'll get you in touch with my Uncle, a Roman Catholic Priest who is the pastor of two churches in Beaverton, Ontario and raised me like my father. He's the one who gave me that information. I can also try to look it up if you want.

[Grizabella]

Originally Posted by slickguy55

As a catholic, and as someone who has studied catholicism all my life, I can tell you that that is complete B.S. and not true.

Catholic encyclopedia begs to differ

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Canonical Impediments

Impediments properly so called, which are personal incapacities, some absolute, some relative. Two arise from the physical incapacity of the subject: impuberty and impotency...Impotency is the state of one who is incapable of normal sexual relations. It is clear that an impotent person cannot validly contract marriage since he is physically incapable of realizing its object.

It is almost never used as an objection to marriage, but it definitely is there.

[PhoenixAlive]

The Roman Catholic Church considers a marriage valid when:
It is celebrated in a ceremony according to Church law; Both parties are free to marry each other; Each partner intends, from the beginning of the marriage, to accept God's plan for married life as taught by the Church; Each partner has the physical and psychological ability to live out the consent and commitment initially given to the marriage.

Q. What are the grounds for annulment in the Catholic Church?

Refusal or inability to consummate the marriage (inability or refusal to have sex)

http://www.idotaketwo.com/christian_remarriage.html

[MadPoet]

Okay, here's a simple resolution. Why not simply stop whining about others beliefs, and let people believe whatever the heck they want to believe? If someone wants to insult gay marriage and demand that it be illegal, oh well, so be it. Nothing prevents two people from being together, and whining about how evil Christians and Religion is isn't going to change anything, nor is whining about how nonreligious and terrible homosexuals are. If someone wants to whine at any homosexual about how sinful and unpure they are, who the heck cares? If you care about someone enough, do you need a pointless piece of paper to tell you that you have dedicated your life to them? Not really. In fact, what is the point of marraige whatsoever? I personally think it is ridiculous that such hate has formed over different groups of people because of something that's really not that big of a deal to begin with.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by Concrete Girl

In fact, what is the point of marraige whatsoever? I personally think it is ridiculous that such hate has formed over different groups of people because of something that's really not that big of a deal to begin with.

Marriage is a big deal. It allows a couple exclusive rights which common-law and civil union couples do not have. Also, it is a deeply spiritual and emotionally binding union of two people. Some, including myself, view it as a holy sacrament.

It means so much more than just a piece of paper.