Do you believe same sex marriage is okay?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"] Haha, mate, believe it or not, there are so many mind bogglingly inane arguments in this thread, I will admit yours is valid. Jesus Christ - the whole time, all I hear is Col. Kurtz "The horror..." speech in my head...D3nnyCrane

[QUOTE="LOLTRAIN"][QUOTE="peter1191"]

We all know what natural function is. It is not subjective. A clock is naturally functioning properly if it tells time. Simple. Natural for a human is the uses the body is build for (this includes physcological development since infancy). There is a lot of subjective things out there, like morality, love, even beliefs to an extent, but the human body is not subjective. Biological foundations antedate even marriage. So if marriage cannot even conform to who we are, then what is its purpose? We need a stable enviornment in which two adults can depend on each other, and children are raised in this dependency. Natural. Gay marriage does not allow for this. I have went over the reasons a hundred times already. Read by earlier posts if you want to see what I think.

peter1191

Very good point! But you forgot one simple fact: nature changes to confirm to fit best the environment in which the organism lies. Now, is there evolution today, with air planes to mix gene pools, medicine to prevent death at the proper time, and so on. Is there evolution today? Probably not, or so minute it is irrelevant. There is no need to say, at this time, or in the last thousands of years, that humans evolved to be homosexual. It makes no sense, andbecause of modern developments, it cannot be feasible in the future.

Guys, I want to make a point here before I go on. I don't hate homosexuals, I hate homosexuality. Although I have not met many homosexuals in line with my views, I have met a few who were intelligent, strong willed, and industrious. Homosexuals are not animals. THey are humans like you and me. But just because this is true does not mean we should accept what they are doing. In fact, the only thing I hate more than homosexuality is those who think its fair to call them"phags" or beat them or ostracise them from jobs and so forth. Lets be fair to all, but lets be true to our beliefs as well. Thats what I think

[QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I'm not arguing against the idea. Just the idea that it's a right.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="peter1191"]

What if I say that an incestual relationship, or a pedophile with a child, has consent? What if the incestual relationship invovles two fully grown adults? Bestiality, and you are correct in this, is completely irrelvant to these two points. But when we say "love" is everything for marriage, who are we to say a man and his dog are not in love? It sounds disturbing, but thats how gay marriage has become accepted.

peter1191

No offspring is neither bad nor good. :| Should we also be against infertile people and those who just dont want to have kids? :|

A pedophile is messing around with minors who havent been fully developed (either physically or mentally) and that has the risk of injury and of the pedophile taking advantage of a minor who is very gullible and easily swayed.

I'm mind boggled by the fact that people hate something that doesn't even effect them in any way

Says a lot about today's society and the 'tolerance' people claim to possess.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]I edited my post.

Being absent from the contitution doesnt mean its against the contitution, like I said before.

Why is it then important that it is absent from the contitution?

Also, constitutions DO get revised.

Also like I said, constitutions DO get revised. And that shows how we CAN have a say on whether something is legally right or wrong even if its absent from the constitution. Thats how we will see to it that the constitution does mention that which is missing and in the way it should. By what criteria? Logical criteria. Not the criterion of the majority. Because democracy has boundaries.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Was Judaism the first religion on earth?

Did marriage originate from Judaism? Do you have proof that shows that marriage started exclusively from Judaism?

Teenaged

Thanks.

In answer to your questions:

1) Yes. Judaism was the first religion on earth.

2) That depends on whether you pin the origin of Judaism to Adam and Eve, or some time later, say with the Abrahamic Covenant or the giving of the Law to Moses. Personally, I would suggest that Judaism started with the covenant between Abraham and God and would thus say that marriage was already around before Judaism was.

3) As I think it's likely that it did not -- no.

[QUOTE="McSkurvy"]

[QUOTE="LOLTRAIN"] Driving is not a right? lol.LOLTRAIN

It's a privilege. It's not in the Constitution at all so..... no... not a right. lol

Lol... didn't read the quote that you had.... :?

But yea.... Since I'm off to sleepy land; my final 5 thoughts:

1. I do think gays should be allowed to marry

2. Religion is a scapegoat for gays not marrying

3. Love is love and it doesn't matter if you want to marry a guy if your a guy and vice versa for girls.

4. People that say things because "God said so" should pay more attention in Science class...

5. I like pie

[QUOTE="LOLTRAIN"][QUOTE="McSkurvy"]

It's a privilege. It's not in the Constitution at all so..... no... not a right. lol

McSkurvy

Lol... didn't read the quote that you had.... :?

But yea.... Since I'm off to sleepy land; my final 5 thoughts:

1. I do think gays should be allowed to marry

2. Religion is a scapegoat for gays not marrying

3. Love is love and it doesn't matter if you want to marry a guy if your a guy and vice versa for girls.

4. People that say things because "God said so" should pay more attention in Science class...

5. I like pie

Anyway, that's my last post in this topic . Until next time, God Bless :)Lansdowne5

What if I say that an incestual relationship, or a pedophile with a child, has consent? What if the incestual relationship invovles two fully grown adults? Bestiality, and you are correct in this, is completely irrelvant to these two points. But when we say "love" is everything for marriage, who are we to say a man and his dog are not in love? It sounds disturbing, but thats how gay marriage has become accepted.

peter1191

So what if they have consent? An incestuous relationship can bear defective offspring so it is harmful to a child born from one. Pedophillia even if consentual, the child is not fully developed enough emotionally and physically to make such a descision which could be manipulated by the older of the 2. And thirdly Beastiality Cannot be consentual as Animals cannot communicate to us.

Now to compare those things to two men/women who both love each other and can voice there consentual love without outside influence is nothing like the latter 2 and can cause no harm to anyone like the first.

It is very disturbing how you can compare these to Homosexual relationships and leads me to believe you are very much ill informed about alot of things.

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]Anyway, that's my last post in this topic . Until next time, God Bless :)LOLTRAIN

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Was Judaism the first religion on earth?

Did marriage originate from Judaism? Do you have proof that shows that marriage started exclusively from Judaism?

Lansdowne5

Thanks.

In answer to your questions:

1) Yes. Judaism was the first religion on earth.

2) That depends on whether you pin the origin of Judaism to Adam and Eve, or some time later, say with the Abrahamic Covenant or the giving of the Law to Moses. Personally, I would suggest that Judaism started with the covenant between Abraham and God and would thus say that marriage was already around before Judaism was.

3) As I think it's likely that it did not -- no.

I get really mad when people act like gay marraige is one step away from allowing people to marry their pets. Its not as if we have to restrict the rights of gays to prevent the world from falling into chaos.

[QUOTE="peter1191"]

What if I say that an incestual relationship, or a pedophile with a child, has consent? What if the incestual relationship invovles two fully grown adults? Bestiality, and you are correct in this, is completely irrelvant to these two points. But when we say "love" is everything for marriage, who are we to say a man and his dog are not in love? It sounds disturbing, but thats how gay marriage has become accepted.

RiseAgainst12

So what if they have consent? An incestuous relationship can bear defective offspring so it is harmful to a child born from one. Pedophillia even if consentual, the child is not fully developed enough emotionally and physically to make such a descision which could be manipulated by the older of the 2. And thirdly Beastiality Cannot be consentual as Animals cannot communicate to us.

Now to compare those things to two men/women who both love each other and can voice there consentual love without outside influence is nothing like the latter 2 and can cause no harm to anyone like the first.

It is very disturbing how you can compare these to Homosexual relationships and leads me to believe you are very much ill informed about alot of things.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

I was somewhat mistaken there, as I think taxes is a constitutional aspects of most countries. My bad. But that does not change the point of what I was saying. And the concept that same-sex couples should be able to marry, is a non-constitutional ideology.MetalGear_Ninty

They are right actually. Any right not specified to the federal government belongs to the states and the people. Simple as that. I don't think you can argue that marriage is not a right.

But constitutions get revised by democratic avenues, if not, that is a revertion to other forms of government. This is not an idealistic version of democracy, this is reality. I don't see what is so unrealistic about getting people to vote. What you're advocating is democracy only when it suits you -- which isn't really democracy at all.MetalGear_Ninty

The constitution changes by the elected government. If the government makes a change the people disagree with then they can vote for somebody else next time.

Democracy in practice has boundaries.

Like I said before, people should be able to vote about something which has an immediate effect on them (an objective effect), and about things that could harm society as a whole. This is not the case with gay marriage.

The few times when the public was asked to decide about a certain law were rare and there were cases like the above.

This is not the case here.

I provided with reasoning why the case is not one the public should decide for and its valid and thats why its not just what suits me.

[QUOTE="peter1191"]

What if I say that an incestual relationship, or a pedophile with a child, has consent? What if the incestual relationship invovles two fully grown adults? Bestiality, and you are correct in this, is completely irrelvant to these two points. But when we say "love" is everything for marriage, who are we to say a man and his dog are not in love? It sounds disturbing, but thats how gay marriage has become accepted.

RiseAgainst12

So what if they have consent? An incestuous relationship can bear defective offspring so it is harmful to a child born from one. Pedophillia even if consentual, the child is not fully developed enough emotionally and physically to make such a descision which could be manipulated by the older of the 2. And thirdly Beastiality Cannot be consentual as Animals cannot communicate to us.

Now to compare those things to two men/women who both love each other and can voice there consentual love without outside influence is nothing like the latter 2 and can cause no harm to anyone like the first.

It is very disturbing how you can compare these to Homosexual relationships and leads me to believe you are very much ill informed about alot of things.

Read my previous post. I'm not some insane hater. I just am pointing out the insanity of what is considered normal these days. Its disturbing to you (my comparisons) because they do not resonate in your upbringing. You (like me) have seen homosexuals commonly and have accepted their presence as all else. When someone points out the inherit insanity of such acceptance, you (like me or anyone else) gets very defensive and appalled. Think forward. 100 years from now. There will be someone like you who says the same thing about some new social value. Detach yourself from the now. We all accept that homosexuals are people, and can be smart ones at that, but the integrity of actions do not depend on intelligency alone. Oh, and I have responded to each one of your posts in other responses.

Was Judaism the first religion on earth?

Thanks.

In answer to your questions:

1) Yes. Judaism was the first religion on earth.

Lansdowne5

:lol:

Shows what you know about religion...

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] But constitutions get revised by democratic avenues, if not, that is a revertion to other forms of government. This is not an idealistic version of democracy, this is reality. I don't see what is so unrealistic about getting people to vote. What you're advocating is democracy only when it suits you -- which isn't really democracy at all.Teenaged

The constitution changes by the elected government. If the government makes a change the people disagree with then they can vote for somebody else next time.

Democracy in practice has boundaries.

Like I said before, people should be able to vote about something which has an immediate effect on them (an objective effect), and about things that could harm society as a whole. This is not the case with gay marriage.

The few times when the public was asked to decide about a certain law were rare and there were cases like the above.

This is not the case here.

I provided with reasoning why the case is not one the public should decide for and its valid and thats why its not just what suits me.

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Here it is Lans.

LOLTRAIN

Thanks.

In answer to your questions:

1) Yes. Judaism was the first religion on earth.

2) That depends on whether you pin the origin of Judaism to Adam and Eve, or some time later, say with the Abrahamic Covenant or the giving of the Law to Moses. Personally, I would suggest that Judaism started with the covenant between Abraham and God and would thus say that marriage was already around before Judaism was.

3) As I think it's likely that it did not -- no.

He is right. Judaism isn't the first religion on earth. It is the first monotheistic one, however.

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

Was Judaism the first religion on earth?

Thanks.

In answer to your questions:

1) Yes. Judaism was the first religion on earth.

flordeceres

:lol:

Shows what you know about religion...

[QUOTE="LOLTRAIN"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

Thanks.

In answer to your questions:

1) Yes. Judaism was the first religion on earth.

2) That depends on whether you pin the origin of Judaism to Adam and Eve, or some time later, say with the Abrahamic Covenant or the giving of the Law to Moses. Personally, I would suggest that Judaism started with the covenant between Abraham and God and would thus say that marriage was already around before Judaism was.

3) As I think it's likely that it did not -- no.

peter1191

He is right. Judaism isn't the first religion on earth. It is the first monotheistic one, however.

[QUOTE="LOLTRAIN"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

Thanks.

In answer to your questions:

1) Yes. Judaism was the first religion on earth.

2) That depends on whether you pin the origin of Judaism to Adam and Eve, or some time later, say with the Abrahamic Covenant or the giving of the Law to Moses. Personally, I would suggest that Judaism started with the covenant between Abraham and God and would thus say that marriage was already around before Judaism was.

3) As I think it's likely that it did not -- no.

peter1191

He is right. Judaism isn't the first religion on earth. It is the first monotheistic one, however.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Was Judaism the first religion on earth?

Did marriage originate from Judaism? Do you have proof that shows that marriage started exclusively from Judaism?

Lansdowne5

Thanks.

In answer to your questions:

1) Yes. Judaism was the first religion on earth.

2) That depends on whether you pin the origin of Judaism to Adam and Eve, or some time later, say with the Abrahamic Covenant or the giving of the Law to Moses. Personally, I would suggest that Judaism started with the covenant between Abraham and God and would thus say that marriage was already around before Judaism was.

3) As I think it's likely that it did not -- no.

1) No. Judaism is the oldest surviving religion. ;)

Not the oldest in general.

2) No. A religion does not start right when the events it is built upon happened. Religion is not THE events.

3) Since it hasnt then that means that in other places of the world and most probably earlier than Judaism, humans came up with the notion of marriage.

1) No. Judaism is the oldest surviving religion. ;)

Not the oldest in general.

Teenaged

That would actually be the various forms of shamanism from Siberia. The oldest scriptural surviving religion is Hinduism.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] But constitutions get revised by democratic avenues, if not, that is a revertion to other forms of government. This is not an idealistic version of democracy, this is reality. I don't see what is so unrealistic about getting people to vote. What you're advocating is democracy only when it suits you -- which isn't really democracy at all.Teenaged

The constitution changes by the elected government. If the government makes a change the people disagree with then they can vote for somebody else next time.

Democracy in practice has boundaries.

Like I said before, people should be able to vote about something which has an immediate effect on them (an objective effect), and about things that could harm society as a whole. This is not the case with gay marriage.

The few times when the public was asked to decide about a certain law were rare and there were cases like the above.

This is not the case here.

I provided with reasoning why the case is not one the public should decide for and its valid and thats why its not just what suits me.

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Here it is Lans.

Teenaged

Thanks.

In answer to your questions:

1) Yes. Judaism was the first religion on earth.

2) That depends on whether you pin the origin of Judaism to Adam and Eve, or some time later, say with the Abrahamic Covenant or the giving of the Law to Moses. Personally, I would suggest that Judaism started with the covenant between Abraham and God and would thus say that marriage was already around before Judaism was.

3) As I think it's likely that it did not -- no.

1) No. Judaism is the oldest surviving religion. ;)

Not the oldest in general.

2) No. A religion does not start right when the events it is built upon happened. Religion is not THE events.

3) Since it hasnt then that means that in other places of the world and most probably earlier than Judaism, humans came up with the notion of marriage.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

1) No. Judaism is the oldest surviving religion. ;)

Not the oldest in general.

Baranga

That would actually be the various forms of shamanism from Siberia. The oldest scriptural surviving religion is Hinduism.

My bad. I should clarify. It says its the oldest surviving monotheistic religion.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] But constitutions get revised by democratic avenues, if not, that is a revertion to other forms of government. This is not an idealistic version of democracy, this is reality. I don't see what is so unrealistic about getting people to vote. What you're advocating is democracy only when it suits you -- which isn't really democracy at all.MetalGear_Ninty

The constitution changes by the elected government. If the government makes a change the people disagree with then they can vote for somebody else next time.

Democracy in practice has boundaries.

Like I said before, people should be able to vote about something which has an immediate effect on them (an objective effect), and about things that could harm society as a whole. This is not the case with gay marriage.

The few times when the public was asked to decide about a certain law were rare and there were cases like the above.

This is not the case here.

I provided with reasoning why the case is not one the public should decide for and its valid and thats why its not just what suits me.

As it is demonstratable no matter how we like to defend the ideal principles of democracy (some of which cant be applied in practice), the people cannot decide immediately for every possible decision.

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

1) No. Judaism is the oldest surviving religion. ;)

Not the oldest in general.

Teenaged

That would actually be the various forms of shamanism from Siberia. The oldest scriptural surviving religion is Hinduism.

My bad. I should clarify. It says its the oldest surviving monotheistic religion.

I'm against it. Why let people ruin their perfectly good relationships with marriage??? It's just cruel.

Read my previous post. I'm not some insane hater. I just am pointing out the insanity of what is considered normal these days. Its disturbing to you (my comparisons) because they do not resonate in your upbringing. You (like me) have seen homosexuals commonly and have accepted their presence as all else. When someone points out the inherit insanity of such acceptance, you (like me or anyone else) gets very defensive and appalled. Think forward. 100 years from now. There will be someone like you who says the same thing about some new social value. Detach yourself from the now. We all accept that homosexuals are people, and can be smart ones at that, but the integrity of actions do not depend on intelligency alone. Oh, and I have responded to each one of your posts in other responses.

peter1191

I'm against it. Why let people ruin their perfectly good relationships with marriage??? It's just cruel.

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

I'm against it. Why let people ruin their perfectly good relationships with marriage??? It's just cruel.

RiseAgainst12

We've been fighting ever since. :(

[QUOTE="RiseAgainst12"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

I'm against it. Why let people ruin their perfectly good relationships with marriage??? It's just cruel.

Theokhoth

We've been fighting ever since. :(

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]The contitution does not get revised by having the public to vote.

The constitution changes by the elected government. If the government makes a change the people disagree with then they can vote for somebody else next time.

Democracy in practice has boundaries.

Like I said before, people should be able to vote about something which has an immediate effect on them (an objective effect), and about things that could harm society as a whole. This is not the case with gay marriage.

The few times when the public was asked to decide about a certain law were rare and there were cases like the above.

This is not the case here.

I provided with reasoning why the case is not one the public should decide for and its valid and thats why its not just what suits me.

As it is demonstratable no matter how we like to defend the ideal principles of democracy (some of which cant be applied in practice), the people cannot decide immediately for every possible decision.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="RiseAgainst12"] *looks at sig* Hypocrite!!!Teenaged

We've been fighting ever since. :(

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] And the constitution being changed by the elected government is a democratic process, because like you said, those people themselves have been elected. Now, I don't really mind if it goes up for a public vote or not, or whether some politicians decide -- I just don't see why public votes in a democratic system is de facto a bad thing.MetalGear_Ninty

As it is demonstratable no matter how we like to defend the ideal principles of democracy (some of which cant be applied in practice), the people cannot decide immediately for every possible decision.

And especially in this issue where it doesnt affect them, then no they shouldnt be voting.

One is called to decide about things that affect them. Not things that they think they can have a say for, due to religious ideas.

No, the issue merely being contentious is not enough. When something is contentious then there are misconceptions and other things at play such as: backwards thinking, obsoleteness, misinformation etc etc.

And especially in this issue where it doesnt affect them, then no they shouldnt be voting.

One is called to decide about things that affect them. Not things that they think they can have a say for, due to religious ideas.

Teenaged

I'm not following this discussion, but did you just say people should only be allowed to vote on issues that affect them?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

No, the issue merely being contentious is not enough. When something is contentious then there are misconceptions and other things at play such as: backwards thinking, obsoleteness, misinformation etc etc.

And especially in this issue where it doesnt affect them, then no they shouldnt be voting.

One is called to decide about things that affect them. Not things that they think they can have a say for, due to religious ideas.

Theokhoth

I'm not following this discussion, but did you just say people should only be allowed to vote on issues that affect them?

I guess you have a question to ask in case I respond affirmatively. Shoot me!

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

No, the issue merely being contentious is not enough. When something is contentious then there are misconceptions and other things at play such as: backwards thinking, obsoleteness, misinformation etc etc.

And especially in this issue where it doesnt affect them, then no they shouldnt be voting.

One is called to decide about things that affect them. Not things that they think they can have a say for, due to religious ideas.

Teenaged

I'm not following this discussion, but did you just say people should only be allowed to vote on issues that affect them?

I guess you have a question to ask in case I respond affirmatively. Shoot me!

Not a question inasmuch as a look of bewilderment. But to start, how does one determine whether or not the issue affects them? Every person leads different lives and one issue that doesn't affect you may affect someone else.

Secondly, since when is that kind of thing determined by whether or not someone is affected by the issue being voted at? A person can vote on any matter up to voting for any reason they want; if they care enough to vote then it's arguable that the issue already does affect them anyway. Voting is a fundamental human right, especially in a democratic country.

Should straight people not be allowed to vote on it, period? It doesn't affect any of them. But then, obviously it's going to pass, because I don't know any gay guys that'll vote against themselves. Whether or not you think that's a good thing, imagine if that same logic applied to every voting matter. Nothing would be rejected because only the people in favor of it would be allowed to vote!

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

I'm not following this discussion, but did you just say people should only be allowed to vote on issues that affect them?

Theokhoth

I guess you have a question to ask in case I respond affirmatively. Shoot me!

Not a question inasmuch as a look of bewilderment. But to start, how does one determine whether or not the issue affects them? Every person leads different lives and one issue that doesn't affect you may affect someone else.

Secondly, since when is that kind of thing determined by whether or not someone is affected by the issue being voted at? A person can vote on any matter up to voting for any reason they want; if they care enough to vote then it's arguable that the issue already does affect them anyway. Voting is a fundamental human right, especially in a democratic country.

Should straight people not be allowed to vote on it, period? It doesn't affect any of them. But then, obviously it's going to pass, because I don't know any gay guys that'll vote against themselves. Whether or not you think that's a good thing, imagine if that same logic applied to every voting matter. Nothing would be rejected because only the people in favor of it would be allowed to vote!

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

I'm not following this discussion, but did you just say people should only be allowed to vote on issues that affect them?

Theokhoth

I guess you have a question to ask in case I respond affirmatively. Shoot me!

Not a question inasmuch as a look of bewilderment. But to start, how does one determine whether or not the issue affects them? Every person leads different lives and one issue that doesn't affect you may affect someone else.

Secondly, since when is that kind of thing determined by whether or not someone is affected by the issue being voted at? A person can vote on any matter up to voting for any reason they want; if they care enough to vote then it's arguable that the issue already does affect them anyway. Voting is a fundamental human right, especially in a democratic country.

Well yeah some clarification is in order.

I didnt say that thats how it has worked all along. I am saying how I think it should work.

Yes but there are different sorts of matters. Matters that have to do with a specific group of people deciding for their own "fate", a matter of an issue that is causing problems to everyone one way or another, an matter of the majority deciding for the minority without arguments and so on. We cant just equate everything in order to do justice to the ideal "spirit" of democracy.

As for your last statement: would a government ever allow its citizens to decide whether or not they want to pay taxes?

As you see there are different sorts of matters.

Democracy has boundaries.

The only reason why this issue and its voting is not seen as something outrageous by most is because the influence of the religious dogma enforcing it is great. For some reason, most people think that its justifiable to decide for other people's lives even if thats done without arguments, as long as the long-lived religious tradition is behind it.