So how does gay marriage destroy the sanctity of marriage?

[BusterMudd]

If gays get all the governmental 'rights' of heteroes except for the name, what's the big deal?

Well, that's the problem: There are so many benefits woven deeply into the infrastructure of society that are inextricably linked to the very specific word "marriage", that it's nearly impossible from a purely logistical standard to ensure that a "carriage" (or a "barriage" or a "flarriage" or whatever word you ultimately decide to represent a non-heterosexual marriage) will carry all those benefits.

iow, yes, it may just be a semantic issue -- if the only difference between the definition of "marriage" and the definition of "flarriage" was that Marriage meant A Heterosexual Union and Flarriage meant A Non-Heterosexual Union and there were no other differences at all; every other benefit was 100% identical, then I suspect homosexuals wouldn't give a sh!t that their unions had a different name.

But that's not the case, and arguably that can never be the case simply due to the vast number of laws, statutes, policies, and bureacracies that would need to be updated to ammend any references to "marriage" so that they now explicitly included both "marriage" and "flarriage". It's quite literally, from a practical, logistical stance, easier to change the definition of "marriage" to include non-heterosexual unions than it is to update all the red tape that references "marriage" to also include the new word that means the equivalent for homosexuals.

[Persecuted]

75% of HIV transmission world-wide is by heterosexuals. That's not even factoring in the huge prevalence of other STDs. Ergo, by your logic, heterosexuals are disease ridden, disgusting people.

What did I say? I said that in the developed world STD and HIV incidence is far more prevalent amongst homosexuals than the rest of society. The figure of 75% you're providing would come largely from Africa, which has 68% of the world's HIV cases. Why is that? Because they're engaging in risky activities (unsafe sex) and are also promiscuous. I never said anyone was disease ridden or disgusting and nor do I think that.

You seem quite emotional regarding this subject, are you gay yourself? You don't have to answer that if you don't want to.

[bird72]

This talking point does not exist outside of anti-gay polemics. I have repeatedly asked for a real world occurrence of this supposedly common incident of civil unions being refused because they are not called marriage and not a single one has ever been, nor will be, provided..

then you are living under a stone in the middle of lalaland desert.....you never heard the piny whiny argument about Separate but equal........?

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

then you are living under a stone in the middle of lalaland desert.....you never heard the piny whiny argument about Separate but equal........?

I'm still waiting. Where have civil unions been voted down by gay rights activists because they weren't called marriage?

[bird72]

But that's not the case, and arguably that can never be the case simply due to the vast number of laws, statutes, policies, and bureacracies that would need to be updated to ammend any references to "marriage" so that they now explicitly included both "marriage" and "flarriage". It's quite literally, from a practical, logistical stance, easier to change the definition of "marriage" to include non-heterosexual unions than it is to update all the red tape that references "marriage" to also include the new word that means the equivalent for homosexuals.

That's BS. Is going to take the same time updating references to change the definition of "marriage" to include non-heterosexual unions.

BTW, below non-heterosexual unions can fall infinite ways of unions including insect. Just saying.

[bird72]

I'm still waiting. Where have civil unions been voted down by gay rights activists because they weren't called marriage?

Oh, now you believe in voting and democracy?

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

That's BS. Is going to take the same time updating references to change the definition of "marriage" to include non-heterosexual unions.

BTW, below non-heterosexual unions can fall infinite ways of unions including insect. Just saying.

And heterosexual unions have historically and traditionally including men marrying as many pubescent twelve-year old girls that they could afford for the purpose of procreation, along with sex slaves just for the sake of having sloots around that they could polish one off on and not have to worry about listening to their nagging all day. Just saying.

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

Oh, now you believe in voting and democracy?

Non-sequitor strawman. If gay rights activists have actually voted down civil unions because they weren't called marriages, then why isn't ther a single example of this? Are they hiding them?

[bird72]

And heterosexual unions have historically and traditionally including men marrying as many pubescent twelve-year old girls that they could afford for the purpose of procreation, along with sex slaves just for the sake of having sloots around that they could polish one off on and not have to worry about listening to their nagging all day. Just saying.

Well if you want to follow that slippery slope, homosexual unions have historically and traditionally including men having sex with many pubescent twelve-year old boys that they could afford for the purpose of recreation.

"Virtue" (virtus) was seen as an active quality through which a man (vir) defined himself. The conquest mentality and "cult of virility" shaped same-sex relations. Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status, as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role. Acceptable male partners were slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers, whose lifestyle placed them in the nebulous social realm of infamia, excluded from the normal protections accorded a citizen even if they were technically free. Although Roman men in general seem to have preferred youths between the ages of 12 and 20 as sexual partners, freeborn male minors were strictly off-limits, and professional prostitutes and entertainers might be considerably older.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex...n_ancient_Rome

Non-sequitor strawman. If gay rights activists have actually voted down civil unions because they weren't called marriages, then why isn't ther a single example of this? Are they hiding them?

Non-sequitor? why you want them to vote, to do the same as the prop 8?

[TheJimmyRustler]

Twas my pleasure, I hope the rest of my response will be as delightful.

We shell sea.

You may be talking to the wrong person about delicious bacons since I am a Christian and Jesus declared all foods clean! I prefer prosciutto myself, thinly sliced served with bread and extra virgin olive, but that’s neither here nor there..

I can see what you're saying. In Islam, however, they have an imperative to implement sharia over all of society. In Christianity we don't have such an explicit imperative to do so and we also don't have anywhere near the kind of regulation around everyday life that Islam does.

I don't believe Christians should be in the business of telling people what they can and can't do, we're not to expect non-Christians to observe Christian beliefs. That being said, I don't quite think we are doing this with marriage, it's more like we're saying this is something that belongs to God, and we'd like to keep it that way. I will go into a bit more detail about that below.

I wouldn't be against homosexual civil unions or ceremonies. If, however, I have a gay friend that I am close to I wouldn't encourage them either. I do in fact have gay friends but I'm just not that close to them. My wife has a very close gay friend though and I get along with him quite well when he's not trying to turn me, just kidding! He hasn't tried.

And why do Muslims have an imperative to implement Sharia on society? Because they believe that everything belongs to God, not simply marriage. They're in the same boat as you, just....a lot bigger

The thing is that civil unions aren't the same - legally, as marriages. See here. Why not just a civil marriage - getting married, but not in a religious setting? That's what I'm advocating, since, as mentioned, I don't think churches should be forced to marry anyone, but a civil marriage is a purely secular affair.

Well, I would say we should be encouraging the non-Christian as well as the Christian population to repent of any sins. We cannot force people not to sin though, Christian or otherwise. I don't think trying to prevent gay marriage is an attempt to stop them from sinning it's more an attempt to preserve God's sacrament.

Actually the biggest sin in Christianity is to be a liberal :P To be honest, I'm not so sure that just being an atheist is actually a sin. I'm sure you could argue that it is but it's not explicit, like stealing or murder etc... In any case, there are not big sins and little sins, all sin is a rejection of God that will lead to spiritual death so it doesn't matter what the particular sin is in terms of our standing with God.

I always understood that not believing in God was the worst thing that you could do. Worse than murder, worse than stealing, worse than aaanything. I suppose beliefs on this differ though.

Thou art pardoned. Don’t worry, I don’t get offended very easily. This would come back to my first point. If Christianity is true, then it God does indeed have a claim over marriage. If not, then we have no God to make such a claim. Christianity actually does make the claim that marriage was given by God to man since the beginning of humanity. When Jesus was asked about Moses saying a man could divorce his wife, he replied that Moses permitted divorce because their hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. He also quotes Genesis that states a man will leave his father and mother, and become one flesh with his wife. So, Christianity certainly makes the claim over all marriages, but whether or not this is true is another question.

I’d invite you to have a quick look at the way married couples act, especially in relation to their in-laws, across different cultures. You will find that many non-western cultures don’t really have this idea of marital independence from extended family, especially parents in law. What we would say is this is a deviation from the way God intended it in the beginning. A homosexual marriage would be a much greater deviation, no offence to any gay people who may be reading.

I understand that you, and other theists, believe marriage comes from God, but what about the rest of us that don't believe this? There's an old document - for the life of me, I can't remember what it's called, annoyingly - that pre-dates even the Old Testament, and sets marriage out as a secular thing. Even Lasher agreed that it pre-dated the written Old Testament. I honestly can't remember the name of it, though, which is so annoying, as I realise that not being able to produce a link to it kinda nullifies what I'm saying.

If you can trust my word that this document is legit, though, it shows that marriage has been seen as a secular institution for millenia - like I said, with all of this in mind, for marriage to thus be reserved only for theists seems selfish, especially when, as I mentioned earlier, civil marriages are secular, offering the same benefits (I believe) and leave religious marriage well alone.

Close, I’m from Australia, mate  I agree that many Christians are overly hostile to gays. My pastor also happened to do a sermon on this and we had an ex-gay man (now with a family) give his testimony, I will come back to that later. A lot of Christians view gays as ‘dirty sinners’ and are repulsed, but I’m quite sure Jesus would have shown compassion to them as He did with other sinners of His day. The problem is though that society largely rejects the idea of ‘sin’ now. This is especially true concerning the homosexual issue.

You stay careful of those drop-bears, brah.

Sin being a religious concept, doesn't surprise me that many people reject the idea of it.

Well I kind of responded to that can of worms when Meatros raised it. I don’t think you will have that issue come up very much as I would say the vast majority of the Church throughout the world rejects racism. I’m sure it might still happen in a few closed off communities but I don’t think it will turn into a big issue. Did you hear the story about the diversity officer (in the U.K) who arrested a Christian preacher for saying homosexuality was a sin? It turns out this diversity officer, Constable Adams, was himself gay and he arrested the preacher for causing offence to himself! There is also the crazy story of Scotland Yard investigating a gay group for Islamophobia and an Islamic leader, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, for homophobia, even though both their comments were complimentary, however offensive.

Can't say I did hear about either of those cases, actually - do you know what happened in the end?

And yeah, I'd definitely like to think that there would be barely any churches, if any, that would refuse to marry people of origin X, Y or Z, but it's simply the "worst case scenario" worry coming through. Unlikely to happen, but would suck if it did, and wouldn't be able to be stopped.

You’re right, I concede that, but to weasel out of my contradiction I would refer to my comments above about deviations from God’s view of marriage. No marriage is perfect, but there are degrees to which a marriage can be closer or further from the Christian ideal of marriage. Two atheists getting married on their own terms isn’t quite the Christian ideal, but it would be a lot closer than a gay marriage or an Islamic polygamous marriage for that matter. Since I bring it up, I would also like to say that Christians would equally resist polygamy and incestuous marriages, or marriages between humans and animals, which also may not be too far off!

I wouldn't say it's the strongest counter-argument, but I can see what you mean. I still hold to the argument that it would still be an "ungodly" union since neither of them believe, and thus are "destroying" the sanctity of marriage since they reject God, thus removing him from the equation.

I lumped these together since they’re kind of saying the same thing. So, if your dad left your mum for your sister, as in the case of Woodie Allen I mentioned, would you still give that a very uneasy thumbs up? Even if your mother was heartbroken and felt betrayed?

I really don't understand what you're getting at here - of course I wouldn't like it, but what bearing does that have on anything? They could still do it if they want - regardless of how they feel, their actions shouldn't be dictated by my expectations. It'd certainly be nice, but they have no obligation to act in accordance with my wishes.

Again, this just seems like an emotional argument.

I find it strange that people are very willing to call incest gross, and admit that it’s only because of their social conditioning that they do so, but when someone might say they think of two men engaging in ‘relations’ gross, they’re immediately labelled a bigot and have to quickly step in line or become social pariahs. At least in most circles, these days. Would you also say that homosexual behaviour is ‘gross’?

There are actually plenty of people who still think homosexual acts are gross, even though they’re not religious. They just seem naturally repulsed by the thought, perhaps the same way you do with incest.

I don't think anyone's a bigot for being grossed out by gays unless they then act on those emotions. I shudder at the thought of what my gay friends get up to (unless they're lesbians. Giggidy) but I just put how I feel behind me and get on with things.

[TheJimmyRustler]

**POST SPLIT UP DUE TO WORD COUNT**

I don’t think I’m going off emotion at all. I like to think of myself as quite logical, like a Vulcan The other issue I see with this idea of it’s okay as long as it’s ‘two consenting adults’, is that it is actually implying or appealing to some kind of moral order or standard. It implies that if one or more of the parties are not consenting, then it’s not okay. This would leave a naturalist in a conundrum though, to imply that it’s really not ok then you have to appeal to an absolute moral standard, but if there are such absolute moral standards, how do you know you’re in line with them? Also, you have already admitted that your objections to incest are due to social conditioning. I would say that if you were going to be truly consistent then you would also have to admit that your objections to sexual coercion between at least one non-consenting party is also just due to your social conditioning.

Then may you live long and prosper, although I'd still contend that you're going on emotion, unless you can explain the incest line of thought further, and explain how me being grossed out and upset therefore means it shouldn't be done.

You're bringing morals into the mix, which I don't see this as being about. The "two consenting adults" argument isn't about whether something makes a far off, neon light sign in the galaxy buzz "immoral" or "moral," it's simply a way of determining whether an action/course of action should be allowed to occur to prevent someone from being hurt. Going back to the Muslim/bacon argument, it's seen as a sin to eat it - but we can say that if two consenting adults decide to cook up and snack on some bacon together, it's alright because they're not harming anyone else, regardless of whether it's moral or not. How far you take this argument is entirely up to you (ie it's alright to let people shoot up heroin or kill each other if they're morally consenting, etc)

I can't find the post where I claimed my aversion to incest was due to social conditioning - could you point it out to me? For as long as I've known about incest, I've just considered it gross on a basic level, as it means that you're sleeping with/being in a romantic relationship with someone that's your blood, that you grew up with, and that you "should" have immense love for, but not that kind of love.


As for the sexual coercion argument, I don't think I understand what you're saying - could you spell it out for dummy that is me?

If gays get all the governmental 'rights' of heteroes except for the name, what's the big deal?

Like I said - they don't.

[meatcigarette]

You come in here, call religious people retards, and then compare me to a bunch of people who have probably never heard of the word abiogenesis,

Uninterested

I'm not sure of any passage in the Bible where it says that women should wear dresses or that I should sell my daughter. Also, you seem to be unaware that Christians do not sacrifice animals, you may have heard of this guy Jesus, the lamb of God?

Deuteronomy 22:5 ESV

“A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.

"Then sacrifice one male goat for a sin offering and two lambs, each a year old, for a fellowship offering."

Not to mention circumcision.

It's in the Bible, like many other absurd rules that people randomly decide to interpret as the "divine message from God" to act out. War, Murder, prohibiting abortion.

How about, you prove that morality exists and that I am acting morally wrong to oppose gay marriage?

Even if they were, it doesn't follow then that we should allow gay marriage. Like I said, this is a moral issue, either God exists and it's not ok for homosexual couples to marry, or He doesn't and it doesn't matter. I'm not too sure why you bring up heretics, but I can assure you that no heretics were ever burnt at the stake for the sake of gay marriage.

There are a fair few Churches who would not marry atheists, it depends on the Church and the pastor. My pastor would not marry non believers and you will find there are quite a few Church leaders that would also do the same. Anyway, you're missing the point. The point is that some gay couples, at least, are willing to force a Church to violate its own conscience.

Isn't it only one verse against homosexuality vs. the many verses from the Bible against non-believers? Your churches sure are inconsistent and seem to fall under this fad mentality of whoever cries outrage hardest gets more attention. Whether a couples genitalia happens to be the same is irrelevant, the only thing that should be relevant is that they and Atheists are both non-believers and the Bible is most outspoken against non-believers.

Are you serious? Designer babies are just around the corner, so to speak. I'm sure it won't be too long before they are able to filter out any genetic defects and, in fact, I'm quite certain they've been able to create embryos from two males in mice. I thought I also recently read an article that they were able to create an embryo from three different people, though I could be mistaken. Human robots hey? I'm speaking of scientific reality, you're speaking more of science fiction, that may be a distant reality. Why do you disapprove of incest.

You have yet to explain how same sex marriage from two different gene pools is comparable to sibling relations. And you have yet to explain why you're trying to compare the two, the topic is why Christians are condemning it for the sake of ancient scripture.

Again, I don't see culture supporting incest as a new lifestyle much less doctors planning on funding specifically on incest anytime soon. Why I personally disapprove is not the point.

"I'm speaking of scientific reality, you're speaking more of science fiction"

lol dumbfuck.

The technological Singularity is inevitable.

The entire Bible is against atheism? It seems to be quite evident that you have not read the Bible.

Orly?

http://www.openbible.info/topics/non_believers

It also talks strongly about infidelity like it does Homosexuality, why not highlight this?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_verse..._non-believers

This stigma attached to homosexuality is virtually non-existent today. I would say it is actually the Christians who still dare to oppose that have a greater stigma attached to them, as you have already shown by calling us religious retards. There is also not one of these threads that can be started without the word bigot coming up.

Because of how much they condemn it and criticize it as being a crime of nature.

Heterosexual marriages and relationships are facing problems, but nowhere near the kind of issues the gay community is facing.

The baptising thing was a hypothetical analogy that I already stated was not perfect. It's meant to convey Christian sentiments on the subject, it's not an argument.

Yes, it is a complete lack of responsibility to spread HIV, yet this is rampant in the gay community. I'll leave it to you to decide whether or not they are largely irresponsible.

Obviously these parts were either full of ignorance and not thought out well or were so far removed from reality that they didn't deserve a reply.

I lumped these together since they’re kind of saying the same thing. So, if your dad left your mum for your sister, as in the case of Woodie Allen I mentioned, would you still give that a very uneasy thumbs up? Even if your mother was heartbroken and felt betrayed?

Whether or not one feels betrayed or heartbroken, it was Woody Allen's choice. How someone feels about it as a direct result of it happening is hardly the point, it's about the big picture, not people's instinctive feelings. A lot of people felt the same way about interracial dating.

What he thinks about it and his relationship between him and his mother and how they feel about it is nobody else's business but their own if that's how they want it.

I find it strange that people are very willing to call incest gross, and admit that it’s only because of their social conditioning that they do so, but when someone might say they think of two men engaging in ‘relations’ gross, they’re immediately labelled a bigot and have to quickly step in line or become social pariahs. At least in most circles, these days. Would you also say that homosexual behaviour is ‘gross’?

There are actually plenty of people who still think homosexual acts are gross, even though they’re not religious. They just seem naturally repulsed by the thought, perhaps the same way you do with incest.

People are entitled to how they feel, it's when they try to go against people's rights that it becomes a problem.

What did I say? I said that in the developed world STD and HIV incidence is far more prevalent amongst homosexuals than the rest of society. The figure of 75% you're providing would come largely from Africa, which has 68% of the world's HIV cases. Why is that? Because they're engaging in risky activities (unsafe sex) and are also promiscuous. I never said anyone was disease ridden or disgusting and nor do I think that.

You seem quite emotional regarding this subject, are you gay yourself? You don't have to answer that if you don't want to.

This reminds me of people who have a natural inclination to deny any credibility from those defending Cannabis and dismiss them as "drug addicts". While even Veterans who've never smoked or had a drink of alcohol in their life actively stand against drug laws. Or how Muslims who have never been to court in their life are labelled "terrorists".

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

Well if you want to follow that slippery slope, homosexual unions have historically and traditionally including men having sex with many pubescent twelve-year old boys that they could afford for the purpose of recreation.

dat biology

Pubescent boys cannot get pregnant; pubescent girls can. Pederasty never had anything to do with procreation. And I'm not committing a slippery slope fallacy; I'm stating a fact.

Non-sequitor? why you want them to vote, to do the same as the prop 8?

dat english

My personal feelings on voting and democracy have nothing to do with whether or not gay rights activists have voted down civil unions because they weren't called 'marriage' - something which has never happened. Otherwise, you would be able to provide an incident.

[BusterMudd]

That's BS. Is going to take the same time updating references to change the definition of "marriage" to include non-heterosexual unions.

No it won't. As any linguistics professor will tell you, language is malleable, and usage can come to define meaning. All it will take for the word "marriage" to mean all states of being united to another person in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law is for people to believe it and use the word accordingly. It's not necessary for the dictionary definition to be updated before the meaning changes; in fact, in every instance the usage of a word evolves before the dictionary definition reflects that.

otoh, look at how many times your health insurance policy uses the words "marriage", "spouse", "husband/wife" etc. All of those instances would have to be ammended before the policy could be applied to a homosexual union.

It really is easier to change the definition of "marriage" than to bestow all the legal benefits of marriage to some other differently-named union.