Same-sex marriage

Philosophers and rhetoricians, Welcome!
Post Reply

Should same-sex marriage be legal?

Yes
43
68%
No
20
32%
 
Total votes: 63

User avatar
Deses
Textkit Fan
Posts: 271
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 5:38 pm
Contact:

Post by Deses » Mon Jan 31, 2005 4:15 pm

Turpissimus wrote: I don't believe I said that at all. Ironic, eh?
Yeah, the irony is just breathtaking, no doubt.

It was Emma_85. My mistake. You were simply the first one to misinterpret my words. I am terribly sorry. After all, we seem to be in agreement.

User avatar
Kopio
Global Moderator
Posts: 789
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Boise, ID
Contact:

Post by Kopio » Fri Feb 04, 2005 7:21 pm

Emma_85 wrote: Here's an article that made my mouth drop - when gays are treated like this in the US, it's no wonder they are doing all they can to fight back:
High school senior James Barnett made headlines in December, when Trinity Christian Academy, a Dallas-area private school, expelled Barnett after he admitted he was gay.
Well.....this isn't really too hard to believe. First off....it's a private school, they can kick out anyone for anything, second, it's a religious private school, which means they can kick someone out for not conforming to their religious "standards"

FWIW, I go to a private Christian University, and I have to sign a theological statement upon graduation in order to recieve my diploma, if my theology differs greatly from the institution's they will not give me a degree. I also have to abide by a number of draconian rules that (thank God) have begun to loosen up. At first, I couldn't dance (ala Footloose), or drink, smoke, wear my earring (one that personally hacked me off immensely), or view rated R movies.....a lot of those have loosened up, but some are still in place. Bottom line is, the teaching staff at this university are very good, I agree with them theologically, so I am willing to put up with their silly rules until I graduate.

User avatar
Turpissimus
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:49 pm
Location: Romford

Post by Turpissimus » Fri Feb 04, 2005 7:40 pm

At first, I couldn't dance (ala Footloose)
That sounds like the Taliban! Does it actually say in the Bible that dancing is forbidden? I'm sure one of the prophets must have dropped into a jig on one occasion. Hansome reel? Do-Si-Do?
phpbb

User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Contact:

Post by klewlis » Fri Feb 04, 2005 9:56 pm

Turpissimus wrote:
At first, I couldn't dance (ala Footloose)
That sounds like the Taliban! Does it actually say in the Bible that dancing is forbidden? I'm sure one of the prophets must have dropped into a jig on one occasion. Hansome reel? Do-Si-Do?
Dancing's definitely not forbidden, and King David himself was prone to dancing (in various fashions) as a form of worship to God.

The feelings against dancing arose more from the idea that much public dancing tends to be sexual in nature. No Christian has a problem with, say, ballet or other types of more formal dancing. On the day-to-day, the problem comes with club dancing and stuff like that.

Anyway, I am quite conservative and yet I am taking hip-hop and belly dancing. :)

Ianamunra
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 3:35 am
Contact:

Post by Ianamunra » Sun Mar 13, 2005 6:00 pm

Why do i get the feeling that the majority of people on this website are gay or gay friendly? I mean God! What the hell is this website? A ga advocacy?

User avatar
benissimus
Global Moderator
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
Location: Berkeley, California
Contact:

Post by benissimus » Sun Mar 13, 2005 7:06 pm

Ianamunra wrote:Why do i get the feeling that the majority of people on this website are gay or gay friendly? I mean God! What the hell is this website? A ga advocacy?
Damned liberals!

So is there something wrong with being gay or gay friendly? In the former case, I would like to know your reasoning and in the latter I would like to know why you are at war with tolerance.
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae

Marcus Regulus
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:51 pm
Location: Michigan

Post by Marcus Regulus » Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:24 am

Have to vote no.

As a conservative Christiain I beleive there a rules set forth by God because he knows better than I what is good for me -- he made me and knows how I would best function the rules are their to prevent me from harming myself. The Bible is pretty clear on this issue -- homosexuality is something God does not like at all. It is not the way he created us.

I dislike the term of the gay advocacy of 'homophobe' because it emotionalizes the issue and makes it difficult to engage in conversation on the issue because of the name calling from my point of view.

I have a rational problem with homosexuality because it is portrayed as natural. I have a few questions:
1) If it is so natural than why does it not naturally produce more of the human race? and 2) if it is so natural why does it involve the use of organs other than sexual ones or artificial stimulation to achive sexual activity? In a heterosexual relationship these things natually occur without artifical means. In Homosexuality this is not the case -- there is an aspect of artificiality to it.

Most of the 'love' I see in such relationships is reactionary as well -- it is a reaction to bad relationships with people of the opposite sex, not a love that grows out of natual causes. At best it is platonic and erotic, not true love at all in a 'agape' sense for your Greek people.

I do not have a problem with homosexuals themsleves but homosexuality is a sin to me. But I treat it as a pastor the same as I would drunkeness or adultery or theft or murder. It is a violation of God's commands and must be repented of. If homosexuals attended my church I would let them, but they must understand they won't be members any more than the guy who is the town drunk, nor are they going to be allowed to do things in front of my people in a way that offends others any more than the town drunk would be allowed to down a fifth of Scotch in front of the kids. Sorry, but I don't even let my heterosexual couples make out in the back pew. :D

To those kicked out of Chrisitan Schools for this -- duh?!? It's a Christian school and it is expected you will sign up for the rules as well as the education -- transfer out before you get kicked out! Show some intergrity and just admit you don't live up to the standards that they TOLD YOU IN ADVANCE YOU WOULD HAVE TO LIVE BY.
I would like to know why you are at war with tolerance.
I don't really think this is a fair question because I know how intolerant the homosexual side is of us religious folks -- we are expected, yea forced, to be tolerant of them but they don't have to be tolerant of our viewpoint. Tolerance is a myth -- no one is tolerant., Everyone is 100% biased toward their own position until proven otherwise through persuasion or arguement or reason or revelation from God or whatever. Tolerance is another emotionally charged idea designed to make the other side look bad by labeling in any debate.

The point is about gay marriage and based on the nature of this debate people should be free to disagree with it given the format -- even if they are in the minority like myself. 'Tolerant' people should be tolerant of this or they are not tolerant at all. :D

I am sad to see so many have given up on marriage but I think that is largely the church's fault for not teaching very clearly on what marriage was designed to be. My marriage is wonderful becasue I work very hard to meet the needs of my wife and she works very hard to meet mine. It is mutual self-sacrifice, not mutual self-enslavement. It was never designed to be about subjection, just mutual submission.

To the one who want to have an opinion on multiple partner marriages -- Yipe! most people have problems with one why would you want more. :shock: :D Biblically, poligamy was allowed for men with multiple women but none of those situaition are ever presented as the ideal in fact most of them were bad. Be single and celebite, or married to one person of the opposite sex for life is the best. In such situations there are no unwed mothers, sexual diseases, emotional scars, etc. etc. Seems constricting I suppose -- but it is the safest route in my mind for people and for society.

As for gay marriage as a legal issue -- I don't think the state should force me to recognize something or do something I beleive is wrong. If they force me to marry homosexual couples or recognize them as married then I am sorry, they are violating my religious beleifs and in the US that means the First Ammendment. The state has told me to stay away from them on other things, I would kindly ask them to do the same on this issue. This isn't just a state issue it is a religious one and perhaps there is wisdom in just letting it lay.

Should homosexaulity be crime -- no. Shocking for some of my friends to hear me say that, but it is about religious issues, not a state one. The state should just let it lay where it is. The state really has no right to label it as a crime.

Let's see how much tolerance I get from the tolerant people now. :D
phpbb

annis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3399
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:55 pm
Location: Madison, WI, USA
Contact:

Post by annis » Mon Mar 14, 2005 3:54 am

Marcus Regulus wrote:Let's see how much tolerance I get from the tolerant people now. :D
Er. It is always vexing to be compared to a murderer over what, to me, seems an absurdly superficial matter. But your post otherwise seems good-natured, and I'd like to make a few points.

First, you discuss the "natural" question. This has been touched on several times earlier in the thread. However I suspect that you and I are are going to come at this by way of incompatible arguments - I'm an atheist, and evolution presents no particular challenges to my philosophical commitments. That homosexuality could be completely natural, regardless of the reproductive challenges it obviously presents, is no problem. I touched on it earlier in the thread. (I personally consider all "it's natural!" arguments unsound from the start. Dying in childbirth is natural, parasites are natural, hurricanes are natural. I don't see people arguing in favor of them. A different subject, requiring a separate thread.)

But this question of tolerance is a problem. Perhaps this requires a different thread, too. The crux: how much can a commitment to tolerance accomodate intolerance? That is, must tolerance be absolute, or can one rightly condemn those trying to subvert or destroy it without undermining the fundmental goal of tolerance? Your trailing question, quoted above, implies not. I'm not so sure. I support democracy - but a constitutional democracy that forbids the majority, in the grip of some fad, the right to deny rights to some smaller group. I support free speech, but have no problem with the idea that shouting "fire" in a crouded theater is punishable. So other civic virtues for which I have some respect aren't absolute, either.

If one has a philosophical commitment to tolerance, I don't see how it's a contradiction to argue against a stance that seeks actively to undermine it (or seems to), or which holds it in contempt.

EDIT: some day, I will be able to spell correctly before I hit "Submit"
William S. Annis — http://www.aoidoi.org/http://www.scholiastae.org/
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;

User avatar
benissimus
Global Moderator
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
Location: Berkeley, California
Contact:

Post by benissimus » Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:57 am

Marcus Regulus wrote:As a conservative Christiain I beleive there a rules set forth by God because he knows better than I what is good for me -- he made me and knows how I would best function the rules are their to prevent me from harming myself. The Bible is pretty clear on this issue -- homosexuality is something God does not like at all. It is not the way he created us.
Since I don't believe in God or anything supernatural that is spoken of in the Bible, whatever rules are set out to us in the Bible are irrelevant to me. The result is that these arbitrary rules written therein, once enforced, oppress me and millions of other people for no logical reason.
I dislike the term of the gay advocacy of 'homophobe' because it emotionalizes the issue and makes it difficult to engage in conversation on the issue because of the name calling from my point of view.
I dislike the term as well, because it suggests that there is fear, which there clearly is not (except perhaps on the subconscious level). I do think it is a term we need though, just like "racist" or "sexist".
I have a rational problem with homosexuality because it is portrayed as natural. I have a few questions:
1) If it is so natural than why does it not naturally produce more of the human race? and 2) if it is so natural why does it involve the use of organs other than sexual ones or artificial stimulation to achive sexual activity? In a heterosexual relationship these things natually occur without artifical means. In Homosexuality this is not the case -- there is an aspect of artificiality to it.
I wholly agree with Will on this one. Scarcely anything we do in the modern world is natural, including the convention of marriage itself. When you use the word "natural", you really mean "heterosexual". Your first question suggests that love between elderly, impotent, or sterile couples is unnatural. To your second question, I answer that every type of sexual activity practiced by homosexuals is also practiced by many heterosexuals.
Most of the 'love' I see in such relationships is reactionary as well -- it is a reaction to bad relationships with people of the opposite sex, not a love that grows out of natual causes. At best it is platonic and erotic, not true love at all in a 'agape' sense for your Greek people.
Unless you are a homosexual, I don't think you can have the slightest idea what homosexual love feels like. Homosexuals are not attracted at all to members of the opposite sex - it takes more than being burned by a woman (or man) to do that. A lot, if not most, of homosexuals know or suspect they are homosexuals before they ever have a relationship, which evades your explanation that most are reactionary. Even reactionary relationships are common among heterosexuals.
I would like to know why you are at war with tolerance.
I don't really think this is a fair question because I know how intolerant the homosexual side is of us religious folks -- we are expected, yea forced, to be tolerant of them but they don't have to be tolerant of our viewpoint. Tolerance is a myth -- no one is tolerant., Everyone is 100% biased toward their own position until proven otherwise through persuasion or arguement or reason or revelation from God or whatever. Tolerance is another emotionally charged idea designed to make the other side look bad by labeling in any debate.
The statement you quoted was aimed at the previous poster who was speaking derogatorily about people who are merely "gay friendly". The way that person said it sounded very much like "n*gger lover" and I cannot regard that as anything other than intolerant.

I believe most homosexuals (in the USA) are Christian, so you are making an extreme exaggeration when you say that homosexuals are intolerant of religious folk.
As for gay marriage as a legal issue -- I don't think the state should force me to recognize something or do something I beleive is wrong. If they force me to marry homosexual couples or recognize them as married then I am sorry, they are violating my religious beleifs and in the US that means the First Ammendment. The state has told me to stay away from them on other things, I would kindly ask them to do the same on this issue. This isn't just a state issue it is a religious one and perhaps there is wisdom in just letting it lay.
I don't think anyone here wants to force you to marry gay couples. There are plenty of religion-neutral methods for obtaining legal marriage. I doubt you would even have to recognize it, like the Catholic church with second marriages. It really does not affect you in any way, so why are you forcing other people to adhere to your beliefs? Why don't you yourself respect the First Amendment?
Should homosexaulity be crime -- no. Shocking for some of my friends to hear me say that, but it is about religious issues, not a state one. The state should just let it lay where it is. The state really has no right to label it as a crime.
It is good that you do not think of homosexuality as a crime, but what about homosexual sex? It is pretty hard to have an intimate relationship without sex, so by forbidding someone sex you detract a large part from their relationship.
Let's see how much tolerance I get from the tolerant people now. :D
I hope you don't regard anything I said above as intolerant. If so, I would like to know which.
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae

User avatar
Emma_85
Global Moderator
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: London

Post by Emma_85 » Mon Mar 14, 2005 9:13 am

Kopio wrote:
Emma_85 wrote: Here's an article that made my mouth drop - when gays are treated like this in the US, it's no wonder they are doing all they can to fight back:
High school senior James Barnett made headlines in December, when Trinity Christian Academy, a Dallas-area private school, expelled Barnett after he admitted he was gay.
Well.....this isn't really too hard to believe. First off....it's a private school, they can kick out anyone for anything, second, it's a religious private school, which means they can kick someone out for not conforming to their religious "standards"

FWIW, I go to a private Christian University, and I have to sign a theological statement upon graduation in order to recieve my diploma, if my theology differs greatly from the institution's they will not give me a degree. I also have to abide by a number of draconian rules that (thank God) have begun to loosen up. At first, I couldn't dance (ala Footloose), or drink, smoke, wear my earring (one that personally hacked me off immensely), or view rated R movies.....a lot of those have loosened up, but some are still in place. Bottom line is, the teaching staff at this university are very good, I agree with them theologically, so I am willing to put up with their silly rules until I graduate.
I think I'd be annoyed about not watching R rated movies and dancing :wink: (I don't wear ear-rings anyway :P )... I suppose it is a private school, but I would have thought it would be like private companies - even if you have a private company you still just can't discriminate people that work in your company, that's just illegal... :?
You must understand that to me this sounds just as bad as if the school had forbidden all blacks to attend.
phpbb

Post Reply