Valhalla Legends Archive

I do, but my reason is just so everyone will shut up.

I don't have a problems with gays/lesbians but marriage is for a man and a women.

Personally, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Secularly, I do not believe that there is a legitimate government reason to not allow unions between men or women.

However, I can see a potential issue coming out of this (no pun intended).  Give gays the right to marry, then some idiot from Kentucky will want to marry his goat, or a polygamist from Colorado City (AZ) will want to marry a 16-year old.  If everyone has equal rights, then everyone has equal rights.

I think that marriage should be legally defined as between a man and a woman.

Quote from: MyndFyre on June 16, 2005, 08:03 PM
However, I can see a potential issue coming out of this (no pun intended).  Give gays the right to marry, then some idiot from Kentucky will want to marry his goat, or a polygamist from Colorado City (AZ) will want to marry a 16-year old.  If everyone has equal rights, then everyone has equal rights.

Of course there has to be some point at which you draw the line. Drawing the line after same sex marriages seems reasonable. This same kind of argument can be said for pretty much anything (e.g. gun control) and any other time it it used it is dismissed as foolishness. So why don't we do the same here.

Quote from: MyndFyre on June 16, 2005, 08:03 PM
Personally, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Secularly, I do not believe that there is a legitimate government reason to not allow unions between men or women.

However, I can see a potential issue coming out of this (no pun intended).  Give gays the right to marry, then some idiot from Kentucky will want to marry his goat, or a polygamist from Colorado City (AZ) will want to marry a 16-year old.  If everyone has equal rights, then everyone has equal rights.

I think that marriage should be legally defined as between a man and a woman.

oh poo! :(  You got to the point I was gonna make.  (This whole thing came from an article I read on CNN today)


As for drawing lines, you can't fairly draw a line @ same-sex because then the polyigamists (sp?) will push & they should rightfully get their way...same with the goat freaks.  How would it be just to allow same-sex & not multiple marriages?

I dont see why not.

Quote from: CrAz3D on June 16, 2005, 08:33 PM
As for drawing lines, you can't fairly draw a line @ same-sex because then the polyigamists (sp?) will push & they should rightfully get their way...same with the goat freaks.  How would it be just to allow same-sex & not multiple marriages?

That argument is quite frankly bullshit and you know it.

Someone please explain to me why they feel so strongly that marriage should be between a man and woman? Religious reasons? How does the marriage between two men or women infringe upon your rights? Or is just an aesthetic?

A lot of what you're saying gets lost in translation here... If you want to reserve the use of the word "marriage" for man-woman unions only, that's fine with me. It doesn't matter what you call it, as long as there aren't any other differences. Man-man or woman-woman unions could be called mariages or homriges or whatever if that helps people feel better. Just give them the same legal rights.

Quote from: dxoigmn on June 16, 2005, 10:46 PM

Quote from: CrAz3D on June 16, 2005, 08:33 PM
As for drawing lines, you can't fairly draw a line @ same-sex because then the polyigamists (sp?) will push & they should rightfully get their way...same with the goat freaks.  How would it be just to allow same-sex & not multiple marriages?

That argument is quite frankly bullshit and you know it.

Someone please explain to me why they feel so strongly that marriage should be between a man and woman? Religious reasons? How does the marriage between two men or women infringe upon your rights? Or is just an aesthetic?

How is it bullshit?  If a man believes that he should be able to marry more than 1 woman why shouldn't he be allowed to?  Is it because it is morally wrong?  Hmm, gay marriage is morally wrong...should that not be allowed?

I feel that marriage IS between a man & woman because that is what it is.  I also feel that homo-marriage should be allowed because I figure God can send them to hell if he wants.

Quote from: dxoigmn on June 16, 2005, 10:46 PM
Someone please explain to me why they feel so strongly that marriage should be between a man and woman? Religious reasons? How does the marriage between two men or women infringe upon your rights? Or is just an aesthetic?

A marriage is a religious ceremony that was dragged into the secular world.  However, religious or not, man-man or woman-woman marriages do not support the advancement of our species.  I do not believe that homosexuality is a genetic condition, and so I believe that if someone is homosexual, he/she got that way on his/her own, and should have to deal with the consequences.

I'm not seeking to punish homosexuals.  Like I said, a marriage is a religious ceremony.  As I also said earlier, I can find no reason that a secular government can prevent same-sex unions.  But I also carefully chose the word "union."

Fuck gay marriage. "God made adam and eve not adam and steve!"
But seriously, fuck gay marriage.

Quote from: CrAz3D on June 17, 2005, 01:25 AM
How is it bullshit?  If a man believes that he should be able to marry more than 1 woman why shouldn't he be allowed to?  Is it because it is morally wrong?  Hmm, gay marriage is morally wrong...should that not be allowed?

Polygamists? Maybe. But goat lovers? Please.

Quote from: MyndFyre on June 17, 2005, 02:51 AM
A marriage is a religious ceremony that was dragged into the secular world.  However, religious or not, man-man or woman-woman marriages do not support the advancement of our species.  I do not believe that homosexuality is a genetic condition, and so I believe that if someone is homosexual, he/she got that way on his/her own, and should have to deal with the consequences.

I'm not seeking to punish homosexuals.  Like I said, a marriage is a religious ceremony.  As I also said earlier, I can find no reason that a secular government can prevent same-sex unions.  But I also carefully chose the word "union."

The advancement of our species is relative. I believe the human population is already horribly overcrowded and we need to start taxing people for having children instead of giving them incentives to create more. Homosexuality is such a great solution to this. They will adopt children instead of creating more which is a good thing. It then follows that homosexuals should be able to marry/unionize/whatever you want to call it so they can benefit in the same manner married couples do.

So now I understand that the debate about marriage is purely an aesthetic thing. Perhaps a move within the government to remove any instance of "marriage" and replace it with "union" would be better. The government has no place meddling in the affairs of the church anyways, and this will allow for same sex unions and people can be married in the church if they so please. Is that a better solution?

I voted yes. Its there choice whoever it is (gay, lesbian etc..) if they love each other and want to marry.

I don't see any difference between preventing gay people from marrying and prevent black people from marrying.

Chew on that.

Thats a very good point Arta.  It's very similiar to racism.

Quote from: Blaze on June 17, 2005, 01:50 PM
Thats a very good point Arta.  It's very similiar to racism.

Except that race is definitely genetic, where sexual preference is not.

Here's my issue:

- I don't think the government should legislate to reduce people's freedoms unless it harms (note: harm != offend) someone else

BUT:

- I think homosexuality spreads, and is acquired and not in-born. I think it's wrong, and tries to spread its influence over others. I've seen firsthand at certain colleges the peer pressure for normal straight people to be pressured into being gay. That's wrong. And supporting gay marriage might encourage those people.

Plus, we were designed for reproduction, anyway.

So there's my conundrum. Anyone want to enlighten me on a solution?

KILL THE GAYS!

HOO RAH! 


j/k?

I never said that, in fact I support the GSA at my school because, statistically, having a GSA (gay straight alliance) club reduces suicides. No one deserves to die just because of their sexual orientation.

I just think that homosexuality spreads and is pushed on people, and I think that's a Bad Thing.

Quote from: Banana fanna fo fanna on June 18, 2005, 12:18 PM
I just think that homosexuality spreads and is pushed on people, and I think that's a Bad Thing.

Do you believe the same about Christianity or pretty much any other organized religion?

Quote from: dxoigmn on June 18, 2005, 12:25 PM

Quote from: Banana fanna fo fanna on June 18, 2005, 12:18 PM
I just think that homosexuality spreads and is pushed on people, and I think that's a Bad Thing.

Do you believe the same about Christianity or pretty much any other organized religion?

As we said before, though, religions generally don't cause people to not reproduce or pick up diseases.

Quote from: dxoigmn on June 18, 2005, 12:25 PM

Quote from: Banana fanna fo fanna on June 18, 2005, 12:18 PM
I just think that homosexuality spreads and is pushed on people, and I think that's a Bad Thing.

Do you believe the same about Christianity or pretty much any other organized religion?

In the past? Yes, of course.

Today? No. Of course, my only place of knowledge is in the USA, but I've often heard it referred to as ultra-religious compared to the rest of the world. Christianity is pushed on us in no way shape or form; in fact, oftentimes such pressures are totally resisted against in our society.

So I don't think that it's pushed on people. And I also don't appreciate how you are trying to make this a political issue by using the issue of religion.

Quote from: Banana fanna fo fanna on June 18, 2005, 08:20 PM
Today? No. Of course, my only place of knowledge is in the USA, but I've often heard it referred to as ultra-religious compared to the rest of the world. Christianity is pushed on us in no way shape or form; in fact, oftentimes such pressures are totally resisted against in our society.

So I don't think that it's pushed on people. And I also don't appreciate how you are trying to make this a political issue by using the issue of religion.

I just had the postman tell me I should find jesus. Then I told him no and he called me a sinner. It used to be that every other day or so mormons would come a knocking. They've stopped now since I told them off. There certainly is a pressure, at least in my experience.

Gay marriage is not a political issue? It certainly has everything to do with religion.

Quote from: MyndFyre on June 18, 2005, 02:49 PM
As we said before, though, religions generally don't cause people to not reproduce or pick up diseases.

News alert! Heterosexuals get diseases too! As for reproduction...it's a good thing, we're already overcrowded.

Quote from: MyndFyre on June 17, 2005, 06:06 PM

Quote from: Blaze on June 17, 2005, 01:50 PM
Thats a very good point Arta.  It's very similiar to racism.

Except that race is definitely genetic, where sexual preference is not.

Presumably if genetics is the only factor, you'd have no problem with preventing non-Christians from marrying. Or devil-worshippers. Or felons. Or people with piercings.

Quote from: Arta[vL] on June 18, 2005, 11:09 PM
Presumably if genetics is the only factor, you'd have no problem with preventing non-Christians from marrying. Or devil-worshippers. Or felons. Or people with piercings.

Would be even more fun to prevent christians from marrying. That way they couldn't procreate without sinning, and soon enough they'd be extinct!

Quote from: Arta[vL] on June 18, 2005, 11:09 PM

Quote from: MyndFyre on June 17, 2005, 06:06 PM

Quote from: Blaze on June 17, 2005, 01:50 PM
Thats a very good point Arta.  It's very similiar to racism.

Except that race is definitely genetic, where sexual preference is not.

Presumably if genetics is the only factor, you'd have no problem with preventing non-Christians from marrying. Or devil-worshippers. Or felons. Or people with piercings.

You're missing my point.

Homosexuality is a choice that prevents the natural advancement of genetic selection.  It also may have negative psychological impacts on children raised by a homosexual couple (although there has been no formal research conducted, I believe it would generally be looked upon as "unethical").  Non-Christians marrying are not preventing natural genetic selection.

I don't think there's anything wrong with having piercings.

Felons -- I don't know that there's a genetic predisposition to be a criminal.

Devil-worshippers -- do they have marital ceremonies?

Quote from: MyndFyre on June 19, 2005, 03:51 AM
Homosexuality is a choice that prevents the natural advancement of genetic selection.

Why do animals choose to be homosexual? Are animals capable of considering the choice of heterosexuality versus homosexuality?

My point was that all of those people (except piercings :P) are choosing a lifestyle that significantly influences their lives, and can significantly influence the lives of their children .

I don't see your genetics argument as valid:

1) There aren't enough gay people to significantly influence the gene pool
2) Gay people aren't going to have children anyway, so what does it matter if they're married without children or unmarried without children?

Finally, gay couples often seek to adopt children, have children with a sorrogate mother. I'm sure many of you will scream blue murder about the prospect of gay couples raising children too, but I think it's fine. This, in fact is of significant benefit to society: we sorely need more foster parents and couples willing to adopt.

Quote from: Arta[vL] on June 19, 2005, 10:56 AM
This, in fact is of significant benefit to society: we sorely need more foster parents and couples willing to adopt.

Which, btw, is one good reason for evolution to generate homosexuality: More people to care for the small ones whose parents died ;)

Quote from: dxoigmn on June 18, 2005, 09:45 PM
I just had the postman tell me I should find jesus. Then I told him no and he called me a sinner. It used to be that every other day or so mormons would come a knocking. They've stopped now since I told them off. There certainly is a pressure, at least in my experience.

OK. I still don't feel the pressure, though. I've had a Jehovah's Witness maybe once in my life come to my house.

Quote
Gay marriage is not a political issue? It certainly has everything to do with religion.

It definately is a political issue, however, you were using a comparison with religion to take a cheap shot at the values of many members of my political affiliation, which, as a matter of fact, don't feel very strongly about. I was honestly trying to come to a decision on this one; I am un-decided, but leaning towards the left on this issue. But then someone like you makes me realize why it's tough to agree with liberals: because you have to resort to veiled "YOU'RE A DIRTY REPUBLICAN CHRISTIAN" tactics. You could have said something to the effect of, "well homosexuality doesn't spread because...", or "in some situations, yes it does spread, but overall...", or an equivalent factual rebuttle.

Man, Ann Coulter was right.

Quote from: Banana fanna fo fanna on June 19, 2005, 12:13 PM
It definately is a political issue, however, you were using a comparison with religion to take a cheap shot at the values of many members of my political affiliation, which, as a matter of fact, don't feel very strongly about. I was honestly trying to come to a decision on this one; I am un-decided, but leaning towards the left on this issue. But then someone like you makes me realize why it's tough to agree with liberals: because you have to resort to veiled "YOU'RE A DIRTY REPUBLICAN CHRISTIAN" tactics. You could have said something to the effect of, "well homosexuality doesn't spread because...", or "in some situations, yes it does spread, but overall...", or an equivalent factual rebuttle.

I made a very serious remark. I find it amazing how hypocritical people can be in the face of things. "Gay marriage is wrong because people are forcing it upon other people."  If you're so against forcible spread, then it is likely that you would be against christianity or any other organized religion that forcibly spreads itself. But you're not. Your reason? "I haven't experienced it." Well if that is such a valid argument, then how about this: I have never felt the pressure to turn gay by anyone what-so-ever. Valid argument that homosexuality is good? By your standards, I guess so.

As far as your diatribe against liberals, chew on this. I never called your a "dirty republican christian." In fact, I could care less that you are or are not. The fact that you insiuate that I was going in the direction says something about your character.

Quote from: dxoigmn on June 19, 2005, 12:44 PM
"I haven't experienced it." Well if that is such a valid argument, then how about this: I have never felt the pressure to turn gay by anyone what-so-ever. Valid argument that homosexuality is good? By your standards, I guess so.

If you've never observed it either, then sure, that's a valid argument. My experience definately could just be in relation to my area. That's certainly a valid argument. As I said before, but you're having trouble accepting, I'm not for or against it...I'm deciding.

Quote
As far as your diatribe against liberals, chew on this. I never called your a "dirty republican christian." In fact, I could care less that you are or are not. The fact that you insiuate that I was going in the direction says something about your character.

Or perhaps that you have a record on these forums of doing so?

Quote from: Banana fanna fo fanna on June 19, 2005, 02:51 PM
Or perhaps that you have a record on these forums of doing so?

A record...can I see this record of me calling someone a "dirty republican christian"?