What Is "marriage", And The Fma
SuperTeflon
Join Date: 2003-12-31 Member: 24893Banned
Join Date: 2003-12-31 Member: 24893Banned
<div class="IPBDescription">Or rather: Why I hate humans</div> In case you've been under a rock, or something, there's an amendment (Yes an <b>amendment</b>) on the table to completely ban **** marriage, and 'preserve the traditional meaning' of it. I was interested to learn more, and looked around and found this:
<a href='http://family.org/cforum/fnif/commentary/a0021660.cfm' target='_blank'>http://family.org/cforum/fnif/commentary/a0021660.cfm</a>
Which in turn, linked me to something I've been looking for for ages.
<a href='http://www.nogaymarriage.com/gaymarriagequestions.html' target='_blank'>http://www.nogaymarriage.com/gaymarriagequestions.html</a>
That is disgusting. How can people think that way? "Oh well you're not capable of reproduction, you're a blight on the earth, and you should burn in hell."
<a href='http://family.org/cforum/fnif/commentary/a0021660.cfm' target='_blank'>http://family.org/cforum/fnif/commentary/a0021660.cfm</a>
Which in turn, linked me to something I've been looking for for ages.
<a href='http://www.nogaymarriage.com/gaymarriagequestions.html' target='_blank'>http://www.nogaymarriage.com/gaymarriagequestions.html</a>
That is disgusting. How can people think that way? "Oh well you're not capable of reproduction, you're a blight on the earth, and you should burn in hell."
Comments
no offence jsut askin.. meh i dont like how they define marraige.. seriously i found amrraige to be more or of a step for two ppl to show their loyalty and devotion to eachother .. not some step to enable you to have kids and get special rights with the kids.. thats a pretty stupid thing to marry about. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I was going to do a more in depth thrashing of the links, but it wouldn't change anyones mind anyway. Battlelines on this issue were drawn long ago and all that is left is to fight the war. I have better things to do (I know, it surprises me too).
However, the homosexual's will have their way in the end - and I cbf fighting it.
"I can't marry? Damn, guess I'll just have to go hetero...."
The nonsense about the sanctity of marriage is thinly veiled bashing. Homosexuals are all completely promiscuous, and therefore will destroy the traditional meaning of marriage? I don't see that they are any more promiscuous than heterosexuals, and with the divorce rate sky-high I'm not sure same-sex marriage will have any impact on the "sanctity" of marriage anyway.
(it was my 6th wedding anniversary Feb 6th, and we're still in love. ahhhhhh.)
/editted double word.
However, the homosexual's will have their way in the end - and I cbf fighting it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats interesting marine, I'd like to know why. I think I'll start another thread. (Even if it is written in petrol on tissue paper.....WOOMF!)
Hrrrmmm - I'm not so sure about that.
Being a homosexual generally means living out on the far left wing, being very liberal in you ideas and beliefs. This generally extends to idea's of sexual normalacies, and seeing as this is a group made up almost entirely of highly liberal people, I wouldnt be shocked if they were found to be more promiscuous then the generall heterosexual population.
EDIT
You do that beast - ill bring the marshmallows <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
But there are legal benefits and government subsidies to get from being legally married - its why they have to be involved. If homosexuals want a "fake" marriage, they can get dressed up, buy each other rings, get a liberal pastor or priest to perform the ceremony and live together in a defacto relationship with wedding photo's on the wall.
But the Government wont recognise them as legally married, they cant get benefits, they wont let them adopt, and thats when the rot starts.
And Imo government should recognise these couple and give them the benefits. I think everyone agrees on that.
Adoption is where the opinions differ.
Hrrrmmm - I'm not so sure about that.
Being a homosexual generally means living out on the far left wing, being very liberal in you ideas and beliefs. This generally extends to idea's of sexual normalacies, and seeing as this is a group made up almost entirely of highly liberal people, I wouldnt be shocked if they were found to be more promiscuous then the generall heterosexual population.
EDIT
You do that beast - ill bring the marshmallows <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think thats a generalisation, plenty of right-wing politician have been outed.
Linking political beliefs to sexuality, or even promiscuity is patently ridiculous.
When I was younger, I was staunchly right wing. I was also very promiscuous.
Now I'm leaning more to the left, I'm happily married with kids (and faithful). I don't think I'm the exception that proves the rule, although if you can present anything proving all communists are homosexual or vice-versa, I'll happily eat my words.
I have never seen articles so... Narrow minded in such a long time.
Am I the only one in the world that can see past the sex organs recognise the beauty of another sentient being? I honestly wonder what will happen to us when we transcend past sex, honestly...
I have never seen articles so... Narrow minded in such a long time.
Am I the only one in the world that can see past the sex organs recognise the beauty of another sentient being? I honestly wonder what will happen to us when we transcend past sex, honestly... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
your not the only one cronos,, i closed it off pretty fast, to them marraige is only about legal production of kids.. tis a load of bs..
Linking political beliefs to sexuality, or even promiscuity is patently ridiculous.
When I was younger, I was staunchly right wing. I was also very promiscuous.
Now I'm leaning more to the left, I'm happily married with kids (and faithful). I don't think I'm the exception that proves the rule, although if you can present anything proving all communists are homosexual or vice-versa, I'll happily eat my words. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not talking politics specifically, I'm just talking liberal ideas, especially on topics like promiscurity and morality. The whole fidelity thing, single sex partner in 1 lifetime etc seems to reside a lot more on the right, albeit far right now.
Those tending to the left morally are more apt to "experiment", trying swinging, alternate sexual experiences etc. I'm not talking politically, I'm talking personal ideals. Homosexuals are pretty much radicals, which is why you get a lot of fakes imho, they just want to be out on the edge.
EDIT
Plenty of bashing of the FAQ, and while I dont agree with all of it - does anyone here actually have anything specific to criticise it on. I'm sure you can find heaps, but please dont leave it as is, lest it look like "I read it, I didnt like what I read so I classified it narrowminded and ignored it to leave me and my notions secure"
The fact is homosexuals cross every gender, racial, economical, political, and moral line there is, there are relegious g@ys, black g@ys, republican g@ys, virgin g@ys, so there really isn't any merit to that argument.
And I've already brought up the issue that g@y parents are fully, if not more capable of raising children, considering the divorce rate among hetero couples and how many people put careers, lifestyle (yes there are plenty of hetero people who would rather party than raise their kids, shocking I know) before their children.
So as has already been pointed out the only stance against this is a relegious one, so we can't really debate this without turning it into a Fundamentalist/non-fundamentalist debate.
Ok excuse me there is also the stance of people who just hate g@y people, but I decided that no one on these boards is blatently homophobic, if you are I meant no offense : P
Don’t forget that less than 50 years inter-racial marriage was supposed to "bring down the institution and sanctity of marriage" now when people hear that they think its absurd.
it was about two roomates, and marriage.
the woman writing to the ethicist is bisexual. her roommate is a **** man. she is asking whether it is a violation of ethics to marry her roommate to share her health insurance policy, which is way better than his.
the ethicist says, basically, legal marriage was never about love. the legal requirement to share the health benefits is <i>marriage</i>, and marriage only. he goes on to explain further how it would be impossible to check if even a <i>fraction</i> of all married people loved each other.
there is no "tradition" to follow with legal marriage.
marriage outside the church is simply a legal bond between two people, and nothing more.
"Hey Bob, if your no-good-lazy-arse-bum son takes my daughter off my back, I'll give you this fine sack of turnips'"
"Make it two sacks and it's a deal"
The fact is homosexuals cross every gender, racial, economical, political, and moral line there is, there are relegious g@ys, black g@ys, republican g@ys, virgin g@ys, so there really isn't any merit to that argument. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please - dont think I'm trying to portray homosexuals as ravaging sex maniacs. I know that's not true. What I am trying to say is that to live an alternate lifestyle is quite unconventional and radical. Its outside of the norm, and it is definately an idea left of centre. Modern, open homosexuality is pretty much a child of the sexual revolution - i.e. I can have sex with who I want, when I want. Thats definately a liberal idea. You dont need marriage, you dont need only one partner, just do what you want.
Given that a majority, not all, seem to have embraced that idea - I would not be stunned if they were found to be more promicuous. I'm not saying they definately are and thats the proof, but it wouldnt surprise me.
Promicuous behavior, drug abuse, violent tendancies, mental illiness, and poverty all don't prevent marriage in legal terms between hetero couples, they should have no merit in whether g@y couples can marry.
Although, if you really want the aspect against homosexual marriages, you have to go into religion.
As much as you like to seperate God and all other faculties of religion away from the American goverment and its citizenry, you can't. Much of the disdain for same-sex marriages lies in the bible and how a lot of southern states have highly Christian views focusing on "God has blessed our country, but the bible forbids being homosexual; therefore we can't let homosexuals exist here, because God would punish us [and the country]."
However, that does go against seperation of church and state - but you can't expect to change a quarter of a country's views (let alone half or more - but I don't think there are that many extremely devout, bible-everyday Christians in the US).
[and yes, I realize this is a mildly egotistical, illogical, overly religious view of the world - don't try to relate it to me or every single person from the south, it's just one of the facts about the US, and is basically the main contention against same-sex marriages (which I'm sure is also held by plenty of people from the north)]
I myself don't see why it's not allowed, although I would want something like the one [Rhode Island?] plan that has heterosexual and homosexual marriages labelled differently. Homosexual marriages are 'Civil Unions' I think. That way, just reading over someones profile for an interview or marking relationships you wouldn't need to necessarily ask for sexual preference (I am against affirmitive action, but I am for hiring people based on their abilites and not their extraneous features).
Although, the chances of having Civil Unions and Marriages is extremely low due to Brown vs Board of Education (...forgot which state). Stating that seperate but equal wasn't actually equal...although that was racial seperation in which blacks and whites would have different toilets and schools...this is different, as they're lawfully provided, not tangible assets...and there's no physical way one can be more dilapidated than the other.
I define a marriage as a lawfully binding agreement between a man and a woman in which they become [for lawful purposes] a single entity, which establishes the fundamentals of our culture: don't cheat on your spouse; take care of your children [if you have any]; take care of your spouse; try to mutually agree upon important life events [that affect both parties (obviously it's not going to be: I want a midlife crisis around...43...how about you, honey?)]; and [try to] enjoy the company of one-another.
Though, obviously, those are probably broken quite often, but that's what I'd be looking for in a marriage. So, if a woman and woman (or man and man) fell into every category on there, except the man and woman part, I'd be all for making that a Civil Union - or just Marriage, if for some reason, gaining all the benefits of marriage, and just existing under a diferent legal name is far too taxing on someone's mind...
Simply put, thats a load of trash.
So what if g4y lifestyle is different from the norm. Does that mean we should bar islamic people from marriage? Does that mean we should ban anyone that differs from a centralised lifestyle?
Thats a weak argument Marine. Very weak.
One thing I want to establish is that it's not <i>fair</i> for anyone to criticize/bash Marine01, he upholds different standards of morality, and is therefore inherently opposed to homosexuality period. That's ok, leave him alone, this will degenerate into name calling if you don't.
I'm kind of iffy on the whole homosexual marriage thing. I'm not completely convinced either way that people aren't born homosexual. I've heard stories of people trying to live celibate and even trying to use shock treatment to make it go away, and it never did. On that point alone makes me hesitant to judge them, it's a handicap in some regards.
But then there's the sanctity of marriage, at least as our culture. For many people, marriage never was never necessarily a religious union. "The Christian church undertook its supervision in the 9th cent., when newlywed couples instituted the practice of coming to the church door to have their union blessed by the priest."(<a href='http://encyclopedia.com/html/section/marriage_marriageasasocietalbond.asp' target='_blank'>Source</a>)
In many aspects marriage has degenerated into simply a title, I feel inclined that it's lost almost all significance. I almost feel like the sanctity of marriage is gone, so what's the use fighting over something so superficial ? Homosexual marriage has been accepted in places in Europe and the general factor here is how long til' it's accepted here ? It is inevitable, and I do feel that mainly the church is pushing alot of people away to appease some of the legalistic tendencies rather than keeping their hands off. It honestly reminds me of the Pharisees and Samaritans during early B.C / A.D.
As a Christian, I feel that strict anti-homosexuality in the church is usually legalistic. I feel like it's unfair to put up a "metaphysical" sign that says all sinners but homosexuals welcome as if they are a particular case. Once again, I'm not sure if it's controllable which is my only conflict, if it was a matter of choice I would most likely be against it. I vehemently dislike homosexuality as a concept but am compelled to be kind to homosexuals as individuals. In general, it breaks down to the concept of grace, I'll be forgiving, kind, and generous period, I'll let God take care of the semantics and details. So I guess my final feeling is that a hands-off policy towards homosexuality. I don't know enough to start judging people, so why should I ? I'll leave the nitty gritty details to God.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't see that they are any more promiscuous than heterosexuals<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I stated that given that a lot of homosexuals tend towards liberal beliefs in this area, it wouldnt suprise me if they were a little more promicuous then heterosexuals in general. I did NOT make the follow on "and as such shouldnt be allowed to adopt". Its a sidetrack. There are promiscuous heterosexuals, and promiscuous homosexuals - it supports no-ones arguement.
I'd be really interested to hear evidence that homosexuality is a choice. I've never come across any.
I'd be really interested to hear evidence that homosexuality is a choice. I've never come across any. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd be interested in hearing some quality evidence supporting the fact that homosexuality is not a choice, that you are in fact born that way and nothing you can do will change it.
Please, avoid at all costs mentioning "**** gene" frauds/suspect studies. Those loudly trumpeted studies (buy homosexual scientists) karyotyping genes from pairs of homosexual brothers have never been replicated, and as such are not treated with seriousness.
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/325979.stm' target='_blank'>**** Gene</a>
<a href='http://www.narth.com/docs/fading.html' target='_blank'>More biased site criticising g4y gene theory</a>
I believe that you can be predisposed to an attraction to the same sex via genetics, but the actual decision to follow through and act on it is choice, not the irresistible call of nature.
Similar to murder I guess. Some people are shown to be genetically predisposed to rape and murder (they are called supermen, and have a third x or y chromosome, I'm not sure which). Despite their predisposition to this, we still hold them fully accountable for their actions. Its still up to them to follow through with it.
/cue idiot accusing me of attempted vilification....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't see that they are any more promiscuous than heterosexuals<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well there are a couple of things that we should bring up here. It has been noted that g@ys tend to have a higher rate of sexually transmitted diseases than do heterosexuals. This is why AIDs nearly wiped out the g@y community of San Francisco, it spread extremely fast due to how many partners they would each have. This is all in the files of the CDC and can be read easily in the Coming Plague.
Now there are two reasons for that in general: Without the risk of pregnancy few homosexuals bother to use condoms. This explains why they have such high risks of champhylobacter and similar STDs. It may also be true that this contributes to having multiple partners (without protection) that could increase the STD rates among **** men in particular. Either this proves that they are generally more promiscuous, or it shows that the STD levels merely inflate the estimation of their promiscuity. This is possibly because heterosexuals are more likely to use condoms, therefore decreasing the chance of getting an STD.
Food for thought on that issue.
Even if sexuality were a choice, if both partners have made that choice, and want to marry, why stop them?
The royal families of Europe married for national stability, wealth, power etc for hundreds of years, the idea of a traditional marriage is laughable. Henry VIII created the Anglican church to allow him to divorce!
Would you have any objection to civil ceremony - i.e. one free of any religous content?
Rather, the exact opposite.
I'll only quote the relevent passages.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The aspects of the relationships between animals that are managed by mating depend on the species' social system. Anthropologist Sarah Hrdy of the University of California at Davis has shown that female monkeys in India mate with multiple males so that each will refrain from harming the young because he might be the father. In addition to managing male power, mating helps the pair bond and ensures that males deliver on their promise of parental investment, preventing them from becoming dead-beat dads.
Social selection theory also explains a puzzle that goes back all the way to Aristotle: the "penises" of female spotted hyenas. The female's clitoris is enlarged to the size of a male ****, and fat deposits in a nearby skin pouch resemble a scrotal sac. Females **** their **** many times during the day in interactions with other females. Sexual selection theory has no explanation for such an unusual characteristic that is not used in mate choice. I suggest, though, that a female spotted hyena that did not have a **** would be excluded from the female groups that control access to reproduction. This is an instance of what I call a social inclusionary trait: a trait that gains an individual admission to a social group, whether or not it has any other use. The human brain, with all its powerful capacity for conversation, art and music, may be another such trait.
...
I have now come full circle to the question I started with, the puzzle of homosexuality and gender, and the difficulty it poses for Darwinian sexual selection theory. Author Bruce Bagemihl, in his book Biological Exuberance: Animal homosexuality and natural diversity, has catalogued over 300 vertebrate species in which same-sex genital contact regularly occurs. In some species, homosexuality is not very common - around 1 to 10 per cent of all mating. In others, such as bonobos, homosexual mating occurs as often as heterosexual mating. In some species only males participate, in others only females, in still others both sexes. Sometimes homosexuality is associated with pair bonds that last for years, and in others with short-term consortships. This broad occurrence of homosexuality among vertebrates raises the possibility that if it has a genetic basis at all, it has some broad adaptive significance, and is not an aberrant condition just a few species happen to be stuck with.
In humans, moreover, homosexuality is much too common for it to be considered a genetic aberration. Real genetic diseases are really rare, and their frequency inevitably depends on their severity. A disease that is uniformly lethal must arise anew each generation, so its frequency is equal to the mutation rate, say one in 1 million. A disease that causes only a 10 per cent drop in offspring production (fitness) is 10 times more common than a lethal disease - about one in 100,000. Similarly, a mere 1 per cent drop in fitness leads to a frequency of one in 10,000. If homosexuality has a frequency of 1 in 10, the fitness loss could be no more than 0.001 per cent, which is completely undetectable. A "common genetic disease" is a contradiction in terms, and homosexuality is three to four orders of magnitude more common than true genetic diseases such as Huntington's disease.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
^^ A little food for thought.
Animals have been experiencing homosexual tendencies for aeons. They dont have a problem because they do not have intelligence with which to object to it.
What, I say, prevents homosexuals from marrying one another? There is no rational reasoning to exclude them from marriage.
Because they cannot have children? Already been thrown out as an argument. Because their lifestyle is different? Bull, there are people out there with vastly differing lifestyles, some more extreme then the g4y life and yet they are not excluded from marriage. Do they actually love one another? Hell, even heterosexuals marry each other for financial gain.
To the opponents of g4y marriage, I ask this of you.
Sum up, in a single simple sentence why g4y people should not be allowed to marry LEGALLY.
Note that word! Legally. Why should g4y people not be allowed to marry LEGALLY. We all know the catholic churches stance on g4y people and it's sadly exactly what it says in the old testament of the bible (the same place where you cannot go to the bathroom without sinning).
Once again, and for the final time.
In a simple sentence, why should g4y people not be allowed to marry one another in the legal sense.
Please keep this on topic. Tangents may be interesting, and certainly no-one is flaming, but let's try to discuss the thread that was started....