<!--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--><!--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--><!--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-->Why are the christians (and other religious followers) "getting their panties in a bunch"? This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with basic civil rights, ie government.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Let me tell you something I've learned whilst arguing with christians: They honestly believe that they are being oppressed. No, seriously they do. Alot of them do anyways. They believe that even things like this, which have absolutely no effect on their lives, somehow threaten them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> /me raises hand I'm Catholic, in case you missed that somewhere in the banter.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thats why I said "Alot" and not "All".
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Jan 17 2005, 09:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Jan 17 2005, 09:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Jan 17 2005, 09:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Jan 17 2005, 09:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sorry Wheee - had a busy weekend - otherwise I might have shown up sooner.
Here is my completely non-religious, morally relativistic, wishy-washy "why homosexuals shouldn't marry each other" reason.
I believe that homosexuality weakens society.
Throughout history, when you look at the rise and fall of various civilizations, they are always preceeded by a rampant bout of homosexuality. Call it coincidence, call me a biggot - whatever. Homosexuality weakens the fiber of society - not only the moral fiber, but the social fiber as well.
Now, it isn't "only" homosexuality that is to play a part here - it is promiscuity as a whole. Teacher having sex with students, everyone looses virginity by age 16 at the latest, multiple sex partners, STD's - the whole gammet. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If there are so many factors, then why single out homosexuality? Maybe its just th promiscuity that does them in and homosexuality has nothing to do with it? Eitherway, your logic is still flawed because you can't isolate it as the cause. You can't give any reasons why homosexuality would corrupt the fiber of society so there is no way to say that what happened to the civilizations of the past will happen to ours.
Also, I find it entirely reprehensible that the christians here seem to be going so far out of their way to find such rediculous reasons as to why homosexual marriage can't be allowed, simply because their religious reasons are unnacceptable as arguments.
Face it: aside from your religious "morality" there isn't really a reason homosexuals can't get married. <!--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--> So there you have it - giving legal recognition to a societal flaw is not a good idea in my book.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Our whole society is based on giving legal recognition to the few. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Obviously you didn't ready my first sentence - it isn't even a religious issue. I see it as degrading to society. Being a morally relatavistic answer, I don't need any other "proof" - but yet I gave proof - citing the fall of other civilizations.
This is not me as a Christian fighting the issue - this is me as a member of society worried about its downfall. I gave a good reason - which is what you wanted, and that reason deserves a decent rebuttle - instead of labeling me as a christian **** hater, step up and tell me why it isn't a valid argument!
I am trying to make a case against the "It doesn't hurt anybody" crowd. Yes it does hurt people - it hurts society, it hurts me indirectly. I pay taxes to that promiscuity can be taught as an acceptable lifestlye in public schools. I further pay taxes for health care for many people who get varous STD's and cant afford their own heath care. That hurts me - promiscuity including **** lifestlyles hurt me, they hurt the economy, and they hurt society.
So quit misrepresenting my side of the arguement - take time to read what is said and refute it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Jan 17 2005, 10:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Jan 17 2005, 10:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Jan 17 2005, 09:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Jan 17 2005, 09:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Jan 17 2005, 09:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Jan 17 2005, 09:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sorry Wheee - had a busy weekend - otherwise I might have shown up sooner.
Here is my completely non-religious, morally relativistic, wishy-washy "why homosexuals shouldn't marry each other" reason.
I believe that homosexuality weakens society.
Throughout history, when you look at the rise and fall of various civilizations, they are always preceeded by a rampant bout of homosexuality. Call it coincidence, call me a biggot - whatever. Homosexuality weakens the fiber of society - not only the moral fiber, but the social fiber as well.
Now, it isn't "only" homosexuality that is to play a part here - it is promiscuity as a whole. Teacher having sex with students, everyone looses virginity by age 16 at the latest, multiple sex partners, STD's - the whole gammet. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If there are so many factors, then why single out homosexuality? Maybe its just th promiscuity that does them in and homosexuality has nothing to do with it? Eitherway, your logic is still flawed because you can't isolate it as the cause. You can't give any reasons why homosexuality would corrupt the fiber of society so there is no way to say that what happened to the civilizations of the past will happen to ours.
Also, I find it entirely reprehensible that the christians here seem to be going so far out of their way to find such rediculous reasons as to why homosexual marriage can't be allowed, simply because their religious reasons are unnacceptable as arguments.
Face it: aside from your religious "morality" there isn't really a reason homosexuals can't get married. <!--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--> So there you have it - giving legal recognition to a societal flaw is not a good idea in my book.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Our whole society is based on giving legal recognition to the few. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Obviously you didn't ready my first sentence - it isn't even a religious issue. I see it as degrading to society. Being a morally relatavistic answer, I don't need any other "proof" - but yet I gave proof - citing the fall of other civilizations. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Who says you don't need reasons just because its a reletivistic argument? Logic still applies. And no matter how hard you try to cover it up with rediculous nonsense like that argument, I know why you really want it banned.
<!--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--> This is not me as a Christian fighting the issue - this is me as a member of society worried about its downfall. I gave a good reason - which is what you wanted, and that reason deserves a decent rebuttle - instead of labeling me as a christian **** hater, step up and tell me why it isn't a valid argument!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I did. Did you bother to read it? Your logic is flawed in numerous ways.
<!--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 am trying to make a case against the "It doesn't hurt anybody" crowd. Yes it does hurt people - it hurts society, it hurts me indirectly. I pay taxes to that promiscuity can be taught as an acceptable lifestlye in public schools.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Promiscuity != homosexuality. <!--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 further pay taxes for health care for many people who get varous STD's and cant afford their own heath care.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Guess what? Most of those people are straight. So what does that have to do with the argument at hand?
<!--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-->That hurts me - promiscuity including **** lifestlyles hurt me, they hurt the economy, and they hurt society.
So quit misrepresenting my side of the arguement - take time to read what is said and refute it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I could say the same for you, since you ignored my arguments completely.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Jan 17 2005, 10:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Jan 17 2005, 10:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--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--><!--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--><!--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-->Why are the christians (and other religious followers) "getting their panties in a bunch"? This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with basic civil rights, ie government.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Let me tell you something I've learned whilst arguing with christians: They honestly believe that they are being oppressed. No, seriously they do. Alot of them do anyways. They believe that even things like this, which have absolutely no effect on their lives, somehow threaten them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> /me raises hand I'm Catholic, in case you missed that somewhere in the banter.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thats why I said "Alot" and not "All". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I know, just checking. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteBegin-pepe+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (pepe)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is not me as a Christian fighting the issue - this is me as a member of society worried about its downfall. I gave a good reason - which is what you wanted, and that reason deserves a decent rebuttle - instead of labeling me as a christian **** hater, step up and tell me why it isn't a valid argument!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> yeah...check my post. I need to type faster.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Jan 17 2005, 10:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Jan 17 2005, 10:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I gave a good reason - which is what you wanted, and that reason deserves a decent rebuttle - instead of labeling me as a christian **** hater, step up and tell me why it isn't a valid argument! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The problem is, it isn't a good reason. You're reason why we shouldn't allow homosexual marriage boils down to this:
- It weakens society and causes the society to crumble.
Well, you don't give a reason why (or even really how) the society crumbles, just that it does. I'd like to see some concrete evidence that covers that, that would be an interesting read.
- It promotes promiscuity (STDs, etc), which costs you tax dollars.
The fact is, even if it does, which you've given no evidence that it has, you're talking about a tiny minority in the USA, which means it wouldn't cost you much if anything.
And the biggest flaw of your argument: We're talking about homosexual marriage, not converting people to homosexuality. Giving homosexuals the full rights of marriage doesn't affect promiscuity at all, in fact it would curb it. Nice try though.
I could have sworn there were more Christians around here..
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Jan 17 2005, 10:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Jan 17 2005, 10:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I am trying to make a case against the "It doesn't hurt anybody" crowd. Yes it does hurt people - it hurts society, it hurts me indirectly. I pay taxes to that promiscuity can be taught as an acceptable lifestlye in public schools. I further pay taxes for health care for many people who get varous STD's and cant afford their own heath care. That hurts me - promiscuity including **** lifestlyles hurt me, they hurt the economy, and they hurt society. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So, you're saying that homosexual people never use "protection". Hmmmm...interesting.
Are you saying that promiscuity is limited to homosexuals? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
How many unwanted pregnancies do you think homosexuals produce versus heterosexuals I wonder? Who do you think burdens society more here?
Did you ever think that homosexuality may actually be a form of natural population control? I'd say thats a plus for society which finds itself with far too many people as it is.
Besides all that: Who do you think cuts your hair <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> ?
@ReK: Why would I be arguing about it just as hard if I were an atheist? Because I hate unnecessary bureaucracy in the government. My argument up to thus far is that "homosexual marriage is distinct and fundamentally different than heterosexual marriage, thus if it is implemented we would be giving rise to, essentially, a new institution that has never existed before." with a subtext of "<b>why is the government's job to impose a new institution that is extremely controversial <u>when no rights are being, de facto or de jure, infringed upon</u></b>? "
To be honest, though, the reason you're being irrational is that you feel the need to know why I am arguing against **** marriage. My motives don't matter in the validity of my arguments, so why bother? I'm not even going into the pragmatic problems with instituting **** marriage, so there's no fear of me pulling out statistics or anything bla bla bla. I am merely arguing based on logic.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Jan 17 2005, 09:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Jan 17 2005, 09:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Throughout history, when you look at the rise and fall of various civilizations, they are always preceeded by a rampant bout of homosexuality. Call it coincidence, call me a biggot - whatever. Homosexuality weakens the fiber of society - not only the moral fiber, but the social fiber as well. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> 1)I'm getting some Mein Kampf vibes off this one 2)you're dead wrong.
How many great empires have seriously been taken down by homosexuality? I can't think of many. I think what you're probobaly refering to is the greeks, who had homsexual traditions through a good amount of their history, not just the end of it.
Let's take a look at some great civilizations/empires and see if it was rampant homosexuality that killed them, or perhaps other factors. The great south american civilizations of the new world: Homosexuality? Nope. Spaniards. Rome: Homosexuality? Only if by homosexuality you mean the Germans, arabs, and the fact that you can't police a country that covers the known world. The French: homosexuality? Nope. Not even Napoleon could fight all of Europe. Spain: Homosexuality? Nope, the British. The British: Homosexuality? Nope, various rebellions leading to the fall of outright imperialism.
I really don't see how you're drawing this ****=death of civilization conclusion.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 18 2005, 01:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 18 2005, 01:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> @ReK: Why would I be arguing about it just as hard if I were an atheist? Because I hate unnecessary bureaucracy in the government. My argument up to thus far is that "homosexual marriage is distinct and fundamentally different than heterosexual marriage, thus if it is implemented we would be giving rise to, essentially, a new institution that has never existed before." with a subtext of "<b>why is the government's job to impose a new institution that is extremely controversial <u>when no rights are being, de facto or de jure, infringed upon</u></b>? " <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What about the lover's right to see his dying partner in the "sob story" you dismissed?
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
edited January 2005
Well, with everything there's alot of different people with different view, even in the christian ranks. So, being christian doesnt neccesarily mean you are against **** people should be given allowance to commit to a civil union. It's more of an attitude problem than a problem with religion (eh scapegoat).
Homosexuality is typically a sign of the crumbling away of a society or civilization, not a cause. Rome didn't crumble just because of barbarian invasions or because they were spread too thin; the Romans fell to their knees because they were no longer strong as a people. They were divided, too focused on pleasure and entertainment, and had no great leaders to bring them together as a people once more. Division causes a house to crumble, and homosexuality is simply one such division that has occurred in many cultures that have died off.
Will Homosexual Marriage destroy America? Probably not. Let's face it, I could care less about g@ys getting married; they're most likely to divorce anyways, since, despite what people claim these days, breeding tendencies are still hardwired into people's collective minds. I can't believe that homosexuals are hardwired that way, much like I believe that ADD isn't a real disorder.
<!--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--> CHRISTIANITY IZ THE MOST TOLERANT RELIGION IN THE WORLD.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey asshat, try learning about the religion before you bash. These guys have nothing against homosexuals, they just don't support homosexuality. Get it? "Love the person, not the behavior" mean anything to ya? That's tolerance. Tolerance has nothing to do with not fighting for your beliefs; it has everything to do with understanding people. These guys aren't "*** bashers," or hating on g@ys.
When will you people learn. I'll just keep owning until then, I guess.
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Jan 18 2005, 09:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Jan 18 2005, 09:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> CHRISTIANITY IZ THE MOST TOLERANT RELIGION IN THE WORLD. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, no one ever made that claim, but thanks illuminex for the rebuttal.
<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+Jan 18 2005, 05:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Jan 18 2005, 05:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What about the lover's right to see his dying partner in the "sob story" you dismissed? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Snidely, look. If you want, you can have the guys sue the hospital, because they're not supposed to be denied as visitors based on their sexuality. If their family has requested that no one be able to enter, however, there's not much you can do. It can happen with straight couples, too. However, there is, as far as i know, <b>no rights being infringed upon by law</b>.
The purpose of marriage in the 21 century is to promote strong society through strong families. Throughout history, we have experimented with various forms of family structures, polygamy being one of them. Throughout our advancement after trying these various forms, I believe (and correctly so) we concluded that strongest family structure and which also promotes a stable society is a monogamous strong man/woman relationship. I believe society has the right to define what constitutes a family and encourage it, but not police it (I’ll get into that a little later)
Some advocating pro-(insert alternative lifestyle word here) marriage equates it to not letting Jews, blacks, whites etc marry. That’s comparing apples and oranges; a highly flawed argument. The purpose of those laws was to diminish an entire race of people as second class citizens. The purpose of defining marriage is to promote strong family relationships and encourage a stable society.
While there were many factors that contributed to the fall of the Roman empire, I believe illuminex eluded to one important factor to the fall of the Roman empire which is societal instability.
While I do support keeping the definition of marriage traditional, I would not support any legislation that would essentially police what people do in their bedrooms (i.e. banning what would be construed as “immoral” behavior), as would I believe many in this forum. Our founding fathers warned against legislating morality which I agree. Many here do believe what you do in your private personal life is your business; whether you prefer men/woman, 1 woman, 2 women, 3 women or 1 man, 2 man, 3 man etc.
What many (as would I) argue against is changing the definition of a institution to accommodate various lifestyles without convincing the rest of us why it should, which is what pro-(insert alternative lifestyle here) advocates are doing. Taking all the arguments for it, I am not convinced.
BTW as a side note, I got accepted to Boston University. First post from a dorm room <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I agree with you 100%. So far, I've heard various arguments that denying homosexual marriage is like denying blacks the right to marry other blacks. That is ridiculous and untenable argument. Marriage is what it is, and to redefine it would be to add something extra that I'm not sure is necessary. Not all people marry to have kids, and not all people marry out of love. Therefore your argument "we love each other, so we should be able to marry" is bunk. Love is not a prerequisite or a qualifying factor for marriage.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
edited January 2005
<!--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-->ome advocating pro-(insert alternative lifestyle word here) marriage equates it to not letting Jews, blacks, whites etc marry. That’s comparing apples and oranges; a highly flawed argument. The purpose of those laws was to diminish an entire race of people as second class citizens. The purpose of defining marriage is to promote strong family relationships and encourage a stable society. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh, but what is the harm with letting **** people marry and recieve the same rights as the heterosexual.?
<!--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-->What many (as would I) argue against is changing the definition of a institution to accommodate various lifestyles without convincing the rest of us why it should, which is what pro-(insert alternative lifestyle here) advocates are doing. Taking all the arguments for it, I am not convinced.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->' Because it's not the people's fault that they are born that way, they are already disadvantaged, so why take their freedom to marry whom they love (corny, I know)away on milton's theoretically altar of stability.
Whee, I gave my example to show how semantics your argument was on first page, it's not the same.
<!--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--> Love is not a prerequisite or a qualifying factor for marriage. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yeah, we should have a goverment sanctioned panels that grants us permission to marry! There should be no qualifying factors for marriage between 2 humans, if that rocks your boat.
<!--QuoteBegin-milton friedman+Jan 18 2005, 12:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (milton friedman @ Jan 18 2005, 12:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Illuminex, I couldn't agree more.
The purpose of marriage in the 21 century is to promote strong society through strong families. Throughout history, we have experimented with various forms of family structures, polygamy being one of them. Throughout our advancement after trying these various forms, I believe (and correctly so) we concluded that strongest family structure and which also promotes a stable society is a monogamous strong man/woman relationship. I believe society has the right to define what constitutes a family and encourage it, but not police it (I’ll get into that a little later)
Some advocating pro-(insert alternative lifestyle word here) marriage equates it to not letting Jews, blacks, whites etc marry. That’s comparing apples and oranges; a highly flawed argument. The purpose of those laws was to diminish an entire race of people as second class citizens. The purpose of defining marriage is to promote strong family relationships and encourage a stable society.
While there were many factors that contributed to the fall of the Roman empire, I believe illuminex eluded to one important factor to the fall of the Roman empire which is societal instability.
While I do support keeping the definition of marriage traditional, I would not support any legislation that would essentially police what people do in their bedrooms (i.e. banning what would be construed as “immoral” behavior), as would I believe many in this forum. Our founding fathers warned against legislating morality which I agree. Many here do believe what you do in your private personal life is your business; whether you prefer men/woman, 1 woman, 2 women, 3 women or 1 man, 2 man, 3 man etc.
What many (as would I) argue against is changing the definition of a institution to accommodate various lifestyles without convincing the rest of us why it should, which is what pro-(insert alternative lifestyle here) advocates are doing. Taking all the arguments for it, I am not convinced.
BTW as a side note, I got accepted to Boston University. First post from a dorm room <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Show me an example of where we have tried allowing homosexuals to marry and adopt, and thus fit into a "family structure", and that it has failed and I will accept your argument (even though I disagree with the base idea).
<!--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 purpose of marriage in the 21 century is to promote strong society through strong families. Throughout history, we have experimented with various forms of family structures, polygamy being one of them. Throughout our advancement after trying these various forms, I believe (and correctly so) we concluded that strongest family structure and which also promotes a stable society is a monogamous strong man/woman relationship. I believe society has the right to define what constitutes a family and encourage it, but not police it (I’ll get into that a little later)
Some advocating pro-(insert alternative lifestyle word here) marriage equates it to not letting Jews, blacks, whites etc marry. That’s comparing apples and oranges; a highly flawed argument. The purpose of those laws was to diminish an entire race of people as second class citizens. The purpose of defining marriage is to promote strong family relationships and encourage a stable society. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Really? You think strong traditional family values leads to a strong society? Because if so, our country is the most f**ked-up nation on Earth. Our family lives are so screwed up....spouses cheat and divorce, children don't respect their parents or grandparents, teenagers are let free for the most part because their parents don't know how to handle them, the home is a place of strife instead of love. Don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, I've lived it, I've seen it, and from hanging around on these boards for so long I know there is a disturbingly large percentage of posters with similar experiences. Most disturbing is the fact that most of them come from the United States.
I say again: if you're looking to cure the moral depravities of this country, there are far better afflictions to cure than homosexuals wanting to marry.
And this, this just sickens me: <!--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-->Love is not a prerequisite or a qualifying factor for marriage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's right, our very own Wheee, building a bridge to the time of arranged marriages. That's just wonderful. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you've never had a girlfriend, or you would <u>never</u> be able to truly believe you could be with someone you didn't have feelings for. How you could suggest that people should be forced......**** it, this is delving too far into flame country.
<!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+Jan 18 2005, 11:37 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ Jan 18 2005, 11:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--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--> CHRISTIANITY IZ THE MOST TOLERANT RELIGION IN THE WORLD.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey asshat, try learning about the religion before you bash. These guys have nothing against homosexuals, they just don't support homosexuality. Get it? "Love the person, not the behavior" mean anything to ya? That's tolerance. Tolerance has nothing to do with not fighting for your beliefs; it has everything to do with understanding people. These guys aren't "*** bashers," or hating on g@ys. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Right that's why your holy book says that homosexuals should be killed. Right?
<!--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-->When will you people learn. I'll just keep owning until then, I guess.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> WOW U SURE OWNED ME LOL. Are you a child?
@Pepe: Valid theory, but I don't believe it to be true. There are far more influential reasons that a society would fall. And Yes, it is true that STD's are more easily spread through anal sex, but we have a huge advantage over older cultures in the area of medical science, as well as our awarness of STD's is much more extensive, and products like condoms, which stop any bacteria/virii from being transmitted are avaliable quite cheaply. And, even though it is more likely for male **** partners to get an STD, those who do are far outnumbered by those heterosexuals who do.
@Wheeee: Their rights <i>are</i> being violated. And I normally wouldn't care if it was called "Civil Union" or whatever, but Athena's "sob story" clearly points out that bureaucracy demands the terms to be the exact same. How about we leave marriage as a casual/religious term only, and use a seperate term for governmental recognition of <i>both</i> hetero and homo unions? And he couldn't sue because, because of the terminology used, the hospital was within the law.
@Illuminex: Most christians are very tolerant, at least from what I've seen in Canada, but there are, especially in the praries, our equivilent to the south, those who are complete zealots.
<!--QuoteBegin-milton friedman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (milton friedman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The purpose of marriage in the 21 century is to promote strong society through strong families.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So, you're saying that homsexual parents couldn't provide a stable, loving home? 1) stereotype 2) Ever watch 6 Feet Under? you'll see that, if for some reason the **** parents are unable to support the child, it is because of the outside influence of anti-**** biggots. Stop discrimination and there would be no problem. Now, obviously this cannot be done overnight, or completely, but it isn't the **** parents fault, so why should they be deprived of the joy of a child just because some idiotic biggots call them f.@.g.s. everytime they see them?
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Jan 18 2005, 02:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Jan 18 2005, 02:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--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-->Love is not a prerequisite or a qualifying factor for marriage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's right, our very own Wheee, building a bridge to the time of arranged marriages. That's just wonderful. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you've never had a girlfriend, or you would <u>never</u> be able to truly believe you could be with someone you didn't have feelings for. How you could suggest that people should be forced......**** it, this is delving too far into flame country. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> LMAO. Do you think all people marry out of love? Even if they're not arranged marriages? That's just hilarious. Pardon me for a while while I go and laugh into a paper bag.
AHAHAHAHAHA.
<!--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-->2) Ever watch 6 Feet Under? you'll see that, if for some reason the **** parents are unable to support the child, it is because of the outside influence of anti-**** biggots. Stop discrimination and there would be no problem. Now, obviously this cannot be done overnight, or completely, but it isn't the **** parents fault, so why should they be deprived of the joy of a child just because some idiotic biggots call them f.@.g.s. everytime they see them?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What is this "6 feet under" you speak of? A TV Show?
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Jan 18 2005, 02:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Jan 18 2005, 02:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Right that's why your holy book says that homosexuals should be killed. Right?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If you’re so dumb as to interpret the bible literally and then try to use your literal interpretation to insult Christians...well you deserve the same supposed fate as the homosexuals.
<!--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-->WOW U SURE OWNED ME LOL. Are you a child?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the Discussion forum and this is the kind of stuff that gets topics locked and people banned. You can't honestly come in here and post a one sentence statement in all caps that really doesn’t apply to the topic and just offends people and expect not to be ridiculed.
More on topic, the point about Roman and Greek society being weakened by "pleasure seeking" and other social issues is dead on. Good work bringing up this rather interesting view point.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Jan 18 2005, 05:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jan 18 2005, 05:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Jan 18 2005, 02:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Jan 18 2005, 02:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Right that's why your holy book says that homosexuals should be killed. Right?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you’re so dumb as to interpret the bible literally and then try to use your literal interpretation to insult Christians...well you deserve the same supposed fate as the homosexuals. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Don't you see that that is the problem? Many of the christians on this board do take the bible literally. I assume he was speaking to them.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Jan 18 2005, 05:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Jan 18 2005, 05:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Don't you see that that is the problem? Many of the christians on this board do take the bible literally. I assume he was speaking to them. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I wasn't aware we had people who took it literally on this board; however that’s getting off topic.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Jan 18 2005, 10:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jan 18 2005, 10:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> More on topic, the point about Roman and Greek society being weakened by "pleasure seeking" and other social issues is dead on. Good work bringing up this rather interesting view point. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'll have to dust off my history books, but as I recall there were many more compelling and immediate reasons that the Roman Empire fell, including:
-Imperialism -Inflation -An unstable class structure composed of, among other things, an ultra rich minority, laborers competing with slaves, and a middle class disintegrating under an unfair tax burden -External cultural influence -The Introduction of Christianity -Plague -Political corruption/assasinations
Among other things, over quite a long period of time.
Homosexuality-- as a cause (if you argued it successfully)-- would be a subset of 'Social Weakness', which itself could be seen as an effect of the dynamics of the influences listed above (and others) more than it was a cause in and of itself.
Placing any significant blame for the fall of the Roman Empire on homosexuality would be like blaming Tito's agent's intern for a bad Jackson 5 song. Yeah, I guess it was around at the time, but there were much more significant players.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 18 2005, 03:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 18 2005, 03:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Jan 18 2005, 02:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Jan 18 2005, 02:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--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-->Love is not a prerequisite or a qualifying factor for marriage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's right, our very own Wheee, building a bridge to the time of arranged marriages. That's just wonderful. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you've never had a girlfriend, or you would <u>never</u> be able to truly believe you could be with someone you didn't have feelings for. How you could suggest that people should be forced......**** it, this is delving too far into flame country. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> LMAO. Do you think all people marry out of love? Even if they're not arranged marriages? That's just hilarious. Pardon me for a while while I go and laugh into a paper bag.
AHAHAHAHAHA. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> While you're at it, keep your head inside that paper bag and suffocate. Please, tell me one situation where people in ordinary circumstances married, even if they didn't love each other. In virtually all cases, I can guarantee that they at least <u>attempted</u> to love each other...or thought they loved each other...
Furthermore, even if you <u>could</u> think of some stupid cases where people marry in spite of not loving each other, I'm talking about the majority of people here. The majority of the population has the right to marry out of love, and they use it. Denying homosexuals that right is a serious breach of the basic rights our country is founded upon.
Oh, and I'm talking about this culture, the US, just in case you want to pull situations from other countries when searching for situation where people don't marry with love. Let's keep the culture constant, shall we, or there's really no basis for comparison. "Marriage" might mean something completely different to someone from another country, so indeed love might not be necessary in those cases.
There's another difficult question for you to answer: People marrying in other countries with different marital laws, some of which might not fit with your definition of marriage. Are they truly married?
Actually, you still haven't answered my question as to whether or not you believe atheists getting married in a court of law constitutes legal marriage. Should we ban that as well? I find it amusing how you lambast my lack of logic (actually since I have proven logically that logic is not necessary, that's a void argument anyway) but you can't answer a simple question, logically or otherwise.
God talking to Moses: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Yeah... I guess that does sound like a metaphor. I'm such an idiot.
Comments
Let me tell you something I've learned whilst arguing with christians: They honestly believe that they are being oppressed. No, seriously they do. Alot of them do anyways. They believe that even things like this, which have absolutely no effect on their lives, somehow threaten them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
/me raises hand
I'm Catholic, in case you missed that somewhere in the banter.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats why I said "Alot" and not "All".
Here is my completely non-religious, morally relativistic, wishy-washy "why homosexuals shouldn't marry each other" reason.
I believe that homosexuality weakens society.
Throughout history, when you look at the rise and fall of various civilizations, they are always preceeded by a rampant bout of homosexuality. Call it coincidence, call me a biggot - whatever. Homosexuality weakens the fiber of society - not only the moral fiber, but the social fiber as well.
Now, it isn't "only" homosexuality that is to play a part here - it is promiscuity as a whole. Teacher having sex with students, everyone looses virginity by age 16 at the latest, multiple sex partners, STD's - the whole gammet.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If there are so many factors, then why single out homosexuality? Maybe its just th promiscuity that does them in and homosexuality has nothing to do with it? Eitherway, your logic is still flawed because you can't isolate it as the cause. You can't give any reasons why homosexuality would corrupt the fiber of society so there is no way to say that what happened to the civilizations of the past will happen to ours.
Also, I find it entirely reprehensible that the christians here seem to be going so far out of their way to find such rediculous reasons as to why homosexual marriage can't be allowed, simply because their religious reasons are unnacceptable as arguments.
Face it: aside from your religious "morality" there isn't really a reason homosexuals can't get married.
<!--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-->
So there you have it - giving legal recognition to a societal flaw is not a good idea in my book.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Our whole society is based on giving legal recognition to the few. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Obviously you didn't ready my first sentence - it isn't even a religious issue. I see it as degrading to society. Being a morally relatavistic answer, I don't need any other "proof" - but yet I gave proof - citing the fall of other civilizations.
This is not me as a Christian fighting the issue - this is me as a member of society worried about its downfall. I gave a good reason - which is what you wanted, and that reason deserves a decent rebuttle - instead of labeling me as a christian **** hater, step up and tell me why it isn't a valid argument!
I am trying to make a case against the "It doesn't hurt anybody" crowd. Yes it does hurt people - it hurts society, it hurts me indirectly. I pay taxes to that promiscuity can be taught as an acceptable lifestlye in public schools. I further pay taxes for health care for many people who get varous STD's and cant afford their own heath care. That hurts me - promiscuity including **** lifestlyles hurt me, they hurt the economy, and they hurt society.
So quit misrepresenting my side of the arguement - take time to read what is said and refute it.
Here is my completely non-religious, morally relativistic, wishy-washy "why homosexuals shouldn't marry each other" reason.
I believe that homosexuality weakens society.
Throughout history, when you look at the rise and fall of various civilizations, they are always preceeded by a rampant bout of homosexuality. Call it coincidence, call me a biggot - whatever. Homosexuality weakens the fiber of society - not only the moral fiber, but the social fiber as well.
Now, it isn't "only" homosexuality that is to play a part here - it is promiscuity as a whole. Teacher having sex with students, everyone looses virginity by age 16 at the latest, multiple sex partners, STD's - the whole gammet.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If there are so many factors, then why single out homosexuality? Maybe its just th promiscuity that does them in and homosexuality has nothing to do with it? Eitherway, your logic is still flawed because you can't isolate it as the cause. You can't give any reasons why homosexuality would corrupt the fiber of society so there is no way to say that what happened to the civilizations of the past will happen to ours.
Also, I find it entirely reprehensible that the christians here seem to be going so far out of their way to find such rediculous reasons as to why homosexual marriage can't be allowed, simply because their religious reasons are unnacceptable as arguments.
Face it: aside from your religious "morality" there isn't really a reason homosexuals can't get married.
<!--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-->
So there you have it - giving legal recognition to a societal flaw is not a good idea in my book.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Our whole society is based on giving legal recognition to the few. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Obviously you didn't ready my first sentence - it isn't even a religious issue. I see it as degrading to society. Being a morally relatavistic answer, I don't need any other "proof" - but yet I gave proof - citing the fall of other civilizations.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who says you don't need reasons just because its a reletivistic argument? Logic still applies. And no matter how hard you try to cover it up with rediculous nonsense like that argument, I know why you really want it banned.
<!--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-->
This is not me as a Christian fighting the issue - this is me as a member of society worried about its downfall. I gave a good reason - which is what you wanted, and that reason deserves a decent rebuttle - instead of labeling me as a christian **** hater, step up and tell me why it isn't a valid argument!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did. Did you bother to read it? Your logic is flawed in numerous ways.
<!--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 am trying to make a case against the "It doesn't hurt anybody" crowd. Yes it does hurt people - it hurts society, it hurts me indirectly. I pay taxes to that promiscuity can be taught as an acceptable lifestlye in public schools.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Promiscuity != homosexuality.
<!--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 further pay taxes for health care for many people who get varous STD's and cant afford their own heath care.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Guess what? Most of those people are straight. So what does that have to do with the argument at hand?
<!--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-->That hurts me - promiscuity including **** lifestlyles hurt me, they hurt the economy, and they hurt society.
So quit misrepresenting my side of the arguement - take time to read what is said and refute it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I could say the same for you, since you ignored my arguments completely.
Let me tell you something I've learned whilst arguing with christians: They honestly believe that they are being oppressed. No, seriously they do. Alot of them do anyways. They believe that even things like this, which have absolutely no effect on their lives, somehow threaten them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
/me raises hand
I'm Catholic, in case you missed that somewhere in the banter.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats why I said "Alot" and not "All". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know, just checking. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-pepe+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (pepe)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is not me as a Christian fighting the issue - this is me as a member of society worried about its downfall. I gave a good reason - which is what you wanted, and that reason deserves a decent rebuttle - instead of labeling me as a christian **** hater, step up and tell me why it isn't a valid argument!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yeah...check my post. I need to type faster.
The problem is, it isn't a good reason. You're reason why we shouldn't allow homosexual marriage boils down to this:
- It weakens society and causes the society to crumble.
Well, you don't give a reason why (or even really how) the society crumbles, just that it does. I'd like to see some concrete evidence that covers that, that would be an interesting read.
- It promotes promiscuity (STDs, etc), which costs you tax dollars.
The fact is, even if it does, which you've given no evidence that it has, you're talking about a tiny minority in the USA, which means it wouldn't cost you much if anything.
And the biggest flaw of your argument: We're talking about homosexual marriage, not converting people to homosexuality. Giving homosexuals the full rights of marriage doesn't affect promiscuity at all, in fact it would curb it. Nice try though.
I could have sworn there were more Christians around here..
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, you're saying that homosexual people never use "protection". Hmmmm...interesting.
Are you saying that promiscuity is limited to homosexuals? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
How many unwanted pregnancies do you think homosexuals produce versus heterosexuals I wonder? Who do you think burdens society more here?
Did you ever think that homosexuality may actually be a form of natural population control? I'd say thats a plus for society which finds itself with far too many people as it is.
Besides all that: Who do you think cuts your hair <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> ?
To be honest, though, the reason you're being irrational is that you feel the need to know why I am arguing against **** marriage. My motives don't matter in the validity of my arguments, so why bother? I'm not even going into the pragmatic problems with instituting **** marriage, so there's no fear of me pulling out statistics or anything bla bla bla. I am merely arguing based on logic.
1)I'm getting some Mein Kampf vibes off this one
2)you're dead wrong.
How many great empires have seriously been taken down by homosexuality? I can't think of many. I think what you're probobaly refering to is the greeks, who had homsexual traditions through a good amount of their history, not just the end of it.
Let's take a look at some great civilizations/empires and see if it was rampant homosexuality that killed them, or perhaps other factors.
The great south american civilizations of the new world: Homosexuality? Nope. Spaniards.
Rome: Homosexuality? Only if by homosexuality you mean the Germans, arabs, and the fact that you can't police a country that covers the known world.
The French: homosexuality? Nope. Not even Napoleon could fight all of Europe.
Spain: Homosexuality? Nope, the British.
The British: Homosexuality? Nope, various rebellions leading to the fall of outright imperialism.
I really don't see how you're drawing this ****=death of civilization conclusion.
What about the lover's right to see his dying partner in the "sob story" you dismissed?
What you say? Well, they have the same right as well.
You're denying these people the same interest (marriage with whom we love) that is driving you (hetero)(hypothetical), stop being so literal.
Will Homosexual Marriage destroy America? Probably not. Let's face it, I could care less about g@ys getting married; they're most likely to divorce anyways, since, despite what people claim these days, breeding tendencies are still hardwired into people's collective minds. I can't believe that homosexuals are hardwired that way, much like I believe that ADD isn't a real disorder.
<!--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--> CHRISTIANITY IZ THE MOST TOLERANT RELIGION IN THE WORLD.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey asshat, try learning about the religion before you bash. These guys have nothing against homosexuals, they just don't support homosexuality. Get it? "Love the person, not the behavior" mean anything to ya? That's tolerance. Tolerance has nothing to do with not fighting for your beliefs; it has everything to do with understanding people. These guys aren't "*** bashers," or hating on g@ys.
When will you people learn. I'll just keep owning until then, I guess.
Actually, no one ever made that claim, but thanks illuminex for the rebuttal.
Snidely, look. If you want, you can have the guys sue the hospital, because they're not supposed to be denied as visitors based on their sexuality. If their family has requested that no one be able to enter, however, there's not much you can do. It can happen with straight couples, too. However, there is, as far as i know, <b>no rights being infringed upon by law</b>.
The purpose of marriage in the 21 century is to promote strong society through strong families. Throughout history, we have experimented with various forms of family structures, polygamy being one of them. Throughout our advancement after trying these various forms, I believe (and correctly so) we concluded that strongest family structure and which also promotes a stable society is a monogamous strong man/woman relationship. I believe society has the right to define what constitutes a family and encourage it, but not police it (I’ll get into that a little later)
Some advocating pro-(insert alternative lifestyle word here) marriage equates it to not letting Jews, blacks, whites etc marry. That’s comparing apples and oranges; a highly flawed argument. The purpose of those laws was to diminish an entire race of people as second class citizens. The purpose of defining marriage is to promote strong family relationships and encourage a stable society.
While there were many factors that contributed to the fall of the Roman empire, I believe illuminex eluded to one important factor to the fall of the Roman empire which is societal instability.
While I do support keeping the definition of marriage traditional, I would not support any legislation that would essentially police what people do in their bedrooms (i.e. banning what would be construed as “immoral” behavior), as would I believe many in this forum. Our founding fathers warned against legislating morality which I agree. Many here do believe what you do in your private personal life is your business; whether you prefer men/woman, 1 woman, 2 women, 3 women or 1 man, 2 man, 3 man etc.
What many (as would I) argue against is changing the definition of a institution to accommodate various lifestyles without convincing the rest of us why it should, which is what pro-(insert alternative lifestyle here) advocates are doing. Taking all the arguments for it, I am not convinced.
BTW as a side note, I got accepted to Boston University. First post from a dorm room <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I agree with you 100%.
So far, I've heard various arguments that denying homosexual marriage is like denying blacks the right to marry other blacks. That is ridiculous and untenable argument. Marriage is what it is, and to redefine it would be to add something extra that I'm not sure is necessary. Not all people marry to have kids, and not all people marry out of love. Therefore your argument "we love each other, so we should be able to marry" is bunk. Love is not a prerequisite or a qualifying factor for marriage.
Oh, but what is the harm with letting **** people marry and recieve the same rights as the heterosexual.?
<!--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-->What many (as would I) argue against is changing the definition of a institution to accommodate various lifestyles without convincing the rest of us why it should, which is what pro-(insert alternative lifestyle here) advocates are doing. Taking all the arguments for it, I am not convinced.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->'
Because it's not the people's fault that they are born that way, they are already disadvantaged, so why take their freedom to marry whom they love (corny, I know)away on milton's theoretically altar of stability.
Whee, I gave my example to show how semantics your argument was on first page, it's not the same.
<!--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--> Love is not a prerequisite or a qualifying factor for marriage.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yeah, we should have a goverment sanctioned panels that grants us permission to marry! There should be no qualifying factors for marriage between 2 humans, if that rocks your boat.
The purpose of marriage in the 21 century is to promote strong society through strong families. Throughout history, we have experimented with various forms of family structures, polygamy being one of them. Throughout our advancement after trying these various forms, I believe (and correctly so) we concluded that strongest family structure and which also promotes a stable society is a monogamous strong man/woman relationship. I believe society has the right to define what constitutes a family and encourage it, but not police it (I’ll get into that a little later)
Some advocating pro-(insert alternative lifestyle word here) marriage equates it to not letting Jews, blacks, whites etc marry. That’s comparing apples and oranges; a highly flawed argument. The purpose of those laws was to diminish an entire race of people as second class citizens. The purpose of defining marriage is to promote strong family relationships and encourage a stable society.
While there were many factors that contributed to the fall of the Roman empire, I believe illuminex eluded to one important factor to the fall of the Roman empire which is societal instability.
While I do support keeping the definition of marriage traditional, I would not support any legislation that would essentially police what people do in their bedrooms (i.e. banning what would be construed as “immoral” behavior), as would I believe many in this forum. Our founding fathers warned against legislating morality which I agree. Many here do believe what you do in your private personal life is your business; whether you prefer men/woman, 1 woman, 2 women, 3 women or 1 man, 2 man, 3 man etc.
What many (as would I) argue against is changing the definition of a institution to accommodate various lifestyles without convincing the rest of us why it should, which is what pro-(insert alternative lifestyle here) advocates are doing. Taking all the arguments for it, I am not convinced.
BTW as a side note, I got accepted to Boston University. First post from a dorm room <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Show me an example of where we have tried allowing homosexuals to marry and adopt, and thus fit into a "family structure", and that it has failed and I will accept your argument (even though I disagree with the base idea).
Some advocating pro-(insert alternative lifestyle word here) marriage equates it to not letting Jews, blacks, whites etc marry. That’s comparing apples and oranges; a highly flawed argument. The purpose of those laws was to diminish an entire race of people as second class citizens. The purpose of defining marriage is to promote strong family relationships and encourage a stable society. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Really? You think strong traditional family values leads to a strong society? Because if so, our country is the most f**ked-up nation on Earth. Our family lives are so screwed up....spouses cheat and divorce, children don't respect their parents or grandparents, teenagers are let free for the most part because their parents don't know how to handle them, the home is a place of strife instead of love. Don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, I've lived it, I've seen it, and from hanging around on these boards for so long I know there is a disturbingly large percentage of posters with similar experiences. Most disturbing is the fact that most of them come from the United States.
I say again: if you're looking to cure the moral depravities of this country, there are far better afflictions to cure than homosexuals wanting to marry.
And this, this just sickens me:
<!--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-->Love is not a prerequisite or a qualifying factor for marriage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's right, our very own Wheee, building a bridge to the time of arranged marriages. That's just wonderful. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you've never had a girlfriend, or you would <u>never</u> be able to truly believe you could be with someone you didn't have feelings for. How you could suggest that people should be forced......**** it, this is delving too far into flame country.
Hey asshat, try learning about the religion before you bash. These guys have nothing against homosexuals, they just don't support homosexuality. Get it? "Love the person, not the behavior" mean anything to ya? That's tolerance. Tolerance has nothing to do with not fighting for your beliefs; it has everything to do with understanding people. These guys aren't "*** bashers," or hating on g@ys.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right that's why your holy book says that homosexuals should be killed. Right?
<!--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-->When will you people learn. I'll just keep owning until then, I guess.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
WOW U SURE OWNED ME LOL.
Are you a child?
@Sky: I meant to say christians in general
@Pepe: Valid theory, but I don't believe it to be true. There are far more influential reasons that a society would fall. And Yes, it is true that STD's are more easily spread through anal sex, but we have a huge advantage over older cultures in the area of medical science, as well as our awarness of STD's is much more extensive, and products like condoms, which stop any bacteria/virii from being transmitted are avaliable quite cheaply. And, even though it is more likely for male **** partners to get an STD, those who do are far outnumbered by those heterosexuals who do.
@Wheeee: Their rights <i>are</i> being violated. And I normally wouldn't care if it was called "Civil Union" or whatever, but Athena's "sob story" clearly points out that bureaucracy demands the terms to be the exact same. How about we leave marriage as a casual/religious term only, and use a seperate term for governmental recognition of <i>both</i> hetero and homo unions? And he couldn't sue because, because of the terminology used,
the hospital was within the law.
@Illuminex: Most christians are very tolerant, at least from what I've seen in Canada, but there are, especially in the praries, our equivilent to the south, those who are complete zealots.
<!--QuoteBegin-milton friedman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (milton friedman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The purpose of marriage in the 21 century is to promote strong society through strong families.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, you're saying that homsexual parents couldn't provide a stable, loving home?
1) stereotype
2) Ever watch 6 Feet Under? you'll see that, if for some reason the **** parents are unable to support the child, it is because of the outside influence of anti-**** biggots. Stop discrimination and there would be no problem. Now, obviously this cannot be done overnight, or completely, but it isn't the **** parents fault, so why should they be deprived of the joy of a child just because some idiotic biggots call them f.@.g.s. everytime they see them?
<!--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-->Love is not a prerequisite or a qualifying factor for marriage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's right, our very own Wheee, building a bridge to the time of arranged marriages. That's just wonderful. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you've never had a girlfriend, or you would <u>never</u> be able to truly believe you could be with someone you didn't have feelings for. How you could suggest that people should be forced......**** it, this is delving too far into flame country. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
LMAO. Do you think all people marry out of love? Even if they're not arranged marriages? That's just hilarious. Pardon me for a while while I go and laugh into a paper bag.
AHAHAHAHAHA.
<!--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-->2) Ever watch 6 Feet Under? you'll see that, if for some reason the **** parents are unable to support the child, it is because of the outside influence of anti-**** biggots. Stop discrimination and there would be no problem. Now, obviously this cannot be done overnight, or completely, but it isn't the **** parents fault, so why should they be deprived of the joy of a child just because some idiotic biggots call them f.@.g.s. everytime they see them?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What is this "6 feet under" you speak of? A TV Show?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you’re so dumb as to interpret the bible literally and then try to use your literal interpretation to insult Christians...well you deserve the same supposed fate as the homosexuals.
<!--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-->WOW U SURE OWNED ME LOL.
Are you a child?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the Discussion forum and this is the kind of stuff that gets topics locked and people banned.
You can't honestly come in here and post a one sentence statement in all caps that really doesn’t apply to the topic and just offends people and expect not to be ridiculed.
More on topic, the point about Roman and Greek society being weakened by "pleasure seeking" and other social issues is dead on. Good work bringing up this rather interesting view point.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you’re so dumb as to interpret the bible literally and then try to use your literal interpretation to insult Christians...well you deserve the same supposed fate as the homosexuals.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don't you see that that is the problem? Many of the christians on this board do take the bible literally. I assume he was speaking to them.
I wasn't aware we had people who took it literally on this board; however that’s getting off topic.
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'll have to dust off my history books, but as I recall there were many more compelling and immediate reasons that the Roman Empire fell, including:
-Imperialism
-Inflation
-An unstable class structure composed of, among other things, an ultra rich minority, laborers competing with slaves, and a middle class disintegrating under an unfair tax burden
-External cultural influence
-The Introduction of Christianity
-Plague
-Political corruption/assasinations
Among other things, over quite a long period of time.
Homosexuality-- as a cause (if you argued it successfully)-- would be a subset of 'Social Weakness', which itself could be seen as an effect of the dynamics of the influences listed above (and others) more than it was a cause in and of itself.
Placing any significant blame for the fall of the Roman Empire on homosexuality would be like blaming Tito's agent's intern for a bad Jackson 5 song. Yeah, I guess it was around at the time, but there were much more significant players.
<!--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-->Love is not a prerequisite or a qualifying factor for marriage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's right, our very own Wheee, building a bridge to the time of arranged marriages. That's just wonderful. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you've never had a girlfriend, or you would <u>never</u> be able to truly believe you could be with someone you didn't have feelings for. How you could suggest that people should be forced......**** it, this is delving too far into flame country. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
LMAO. Do you think all people marry out of love? Even if they're not arranged marriages? That's just hilarious. Pardon me for a while while I go and laugh into a paper bag.
AHAHAHAHAHA. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
While you're at it, keep your head inside that paper bag and suffocate. Please, tell me one situation where people in ordinary circumstances married, even if they didn't love each other. In virtually all cases, I can guarantee that they at least <u>attempted</u> to love each other...or thought they loved each other...
Furthermore, even if you <u>could</u> think of some stupid cases where people marry in spite of not loving each other, I'm talking about the majority of people here. The majority of the population has the right to marry out of love, and they use it. Denying homosexuals that right is a serious breach of the basic rights our country is founded upon.
Oh, and I'm talking about this culture, the US, just in case you want to pull situations from other countries when searching for situation where people don't marry with love. Let's keep the culture constant, shall we, or there's really no basis for comparison. "Marriage" might mean something completely different to someone from another country, so indeed love might not be necessary in those cases.
There's another difficult question for you to answer: People marrying in other countries with different marital laws, some of which might not fit with your definition of marriage. Are they truly married?
Actually, you still haven't answered my question as to whether or not you believe atheists getting married in a court of law constitutes legal marriage. Should we ban that as well? I find it amusing how you lambast my lack of logic (actually since I have proven logically that logic is not necessary, that's a void argument anyway) but you can't answer a simple question, logically or otherwise.
Yeah... I guess that does sound like a metaphor. I'm such an idiot.