Old 31st March 2004, 02:47   #121
whiteflip
Post Master General
(Forum King)
 
whiteflip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Seattle, Now Las Vegas
Posts: 6,032
I'm all for Polygamy but thats for other reasons. I wouldn't do it. I just realize the natural tendencies to be polygamist in human nature. The reasons against Polygamist I think have been stated either here or on a radio station. No it was a radio station and if their facts are acurate than monogamy is an acient scam. I'd still prefer monogamy though.

The radio thing is as follows. Back in the day of Christianities rise there was polygammy. Lets consider monogamous relationships back in the day. If a spouse dies than their posesions go to the other spouse. However if both die than those posesions goto the church. However with Polygamy less resources are going to the church because the other spouses pick up the deceaseds shwank. So the Catholic chuch I believe made it sinful to have multiple wives so that they would be more likely to recieve your posesions. Kings were only allowed one wife instead of many. Its usualy the rich who are able to be polygamist.

Anyway that kind of thinking can be applied to todays society and marriage. What happens to a couples money and materials if they both die and there is no family? The state gets it. If there are multiple husbans and wives they divide it amongst them selves, usually through an expensive legal process.

A reason for having a monogamist society is economical based on the states best interest.

I'm Back?
whiteflip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2004, 05:46   #122
Nimelennar
Major Dude
 
Nimelennar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 841
Send a message via ICQ to Nimelennar
Quote:
Originally posted by White Raven
What? No it doesn't discriminate at all. To get married by the current definition, one must choose one and only one person to marry. Means the poor bi-man is gonna have to break it off with somebody, or tell one of them about the other... Hehe.
But what if he loves both of them equally? Shouldn't he have the right to marry one person, and then marry the other? I really fail to see the moral/legal/whatever difference between having same-sex marriage and having poligamy. And if you're going to use the current definition, it's one man and one woman. They're asking that the definition should be changed. Can't poligamists do the same?

Contrary what the above would indicate, I am against poligamy; I merely wanted to state that I don't see any arguments for same-sex marriages that wouldn't apply to poligamy.

Why I'm against poligamy (especially if SSM get legalized):
1) A large group of people could just up and decide to get married to each other so that they could all get discounts for living together, or one person could marry a hundred people for money so they could be legally brought into the country and given citizenship. In short: a skyrocket in marriages of convenience.
2) Sex with whomever: If you want to commit adultery, no big deal; just marry 'em, screw 'em, and divorce 'em, without the old wife being able to complain.
(Note: if you couldn't tell, I'm also not too big on divorce)
3) Further destabilization of the family unit as a father, a mother and children.
There are more, but those are the most pressing ones at the moment.

The world is made of conflicts: good and evil, order and chaos, light and dark, hot and cold. All are essential to life. None can prevail for any length of time, or life will fail. In the end, the best any can hope for is balance.
Nimelennar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2004, 05:57   #123
White Raven
Little Winged One
 
White Raven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Canada, now UK
Posts: 4,165
Well... I'd much rather think that he loved me enough to love only me, and not 10 other women or something. I'd like to feel special... But... Yeah.

Good argument, Nimelennar. No rebuttal from me thus yet. Not in the mood for intelligent debate at the moment.

just as feathery as ever | portfolio | a poignant quote
White Raven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2004, 07:17   #124
Tavernology
Senior Member
 
Tavernology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 240
Marriage is a sacred bond between TWO people who love each other very much. Poligamy is illegal, but some religions allow it, and there was a case a few years ago I remember hearing on the news where one man had about 20 wives, and was the only person actually arrested for poligamy in the US that I know of. He was also brought up on a number of paedophile charges after the police asked the children there about some stuff. But according to his religion, it was not a bad thing to do either: Marry more than one person, or have sex with children. Both are very wrong, IMO.

BUT there is a large difference between poligamy and 'SSM' as you put it. As for bi people marrying someone, it's the same. If you are a guy, and want to marry a woman, go right ahead. If you're a guy, and you want to marry another guy, why the hell NOT? If you're bi, then you can choose one to settle down with, and marry them.

There's a big difference between being bi, and wanting to marry everyone in your street.
Tavernology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2004, 09:10   #125
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
Polygamy is very different from same-sex marriage, because you're not substancially altering the idea of marriage, besides the offspring.

What is the “resultative” difference between a man-woman merriage and a man-man marriage?

They are guaranteed to not produce offspring.

What's the “resultative” difference between monogamy and polygamy?

The list goes on for a long time.

Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
xzxzzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2004, 09:22   #126
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
Quote:
Originally posted by whiteflip
I'm all for Polygamy but thats for other reasons. I wouldn't do it. I just realize the natural tendencies to be polygamist in human nature. The reasons against Polygamist I think have been stated either here or on a radio station. No it was a radio station and if their facts are acurate than monogamy is an acient scam. I'd still prefer monogamy though.

The radio thing is as follows. Back in the day of Christianities rise there was polygammy. Lets consider monogamous relationships back in the day. If a spouse dies than their posesions go to the other spouse. However if both die than those posesions goto the church. However with Polygamy less resources are going to the church because the other spouses pick up the deceaseds shwank. So the Catholic chuch I believe made it sinful to have multiple wives so that they would be more likely to recieve your posesions. Kings were only allowed one wife instead of many. Its usualy the rich who are able to be polygamist.

Anyway that kind of thinking can be applied to todays society and marriage. What happens to a couples money and materials if they both die and there is no family? The state gets it. If there are multiple husbans and wives they divide it amongst them selves, usually through an expensive legal process.

A reason for having a monogamist society is economical based on the states best interest.
i heard a similar thing on a report i believe from npr... they said that the reason catholic priests couldnt marry was because they would give their land to their children when they died, which was legal, but it really wasnt their land to give, it was the churchs land

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2004, 09:30   #127
Tavernology
Senior Member
 
Tavernology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 240
And a man-man or woman-woman marriage can also adopt children that are orphaned, or have parents the state deems unfit for parenting...

In fact, the more I think about it, the more convinced I become that same-sex marriages SHOULD be legal.
Tavernology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2004, 09:52   #128
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
Quote:
Originally posted by Nimelennar
Why I'm against poligamy (especially if SSM get legalized):
1) A large group of people could just up and decide to get married to each other so that they could all get discounts for living together, or one person could marry a hundred people for money so they could be legally brought into the country and given citizenship. In short: a skyrocket in marriages of convenience.
2) Sex with whomever: If you want to commit adultery, no big deal; just marry 'em, screw 'em, and divorce 'em, without the old wife being able to complain.
(Note: if you couldn't tell, I'm also not too big on divorce)
3) Further destabilization of the family unit as a father, a mother and children.
There are more, but those are the most pressing ones at the moment.
1)dont they have laws against that now? i just think the rules for 'convience marriages' would get stricter.. and you would have to prove that its not a convience marriage..

2)people right now are having sex with whomever, and if someone got married to someone just to justify having sex with them, then they would be the ultimate in retarded

3)that should be canceled out anyway.. i mean single parents, gay parents, and straight parents should be able to raise children

while im not a polygamist, i dont see why it shouldnt be legal...

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2004, 10:38   #129
Tavernology
Senior Member
 
Tavernology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 240
Yup, the arguments against gay marriage are getting MIGHTY thin and see-thru...
Tavernology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st April 2004, 07:24   #130
whiteflip
Post Master General
(Forum King)
 
whiteflip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Seattle, Now Las Vegas
Posts: 6,032
What about test tube babies for same sex couples. With a lesbian couple its easy because one of them could carry to term and the child could be a product of their genetic makeup. The male one is more difficult because they would need to find a donar egg, remove its genetic material, and add in genetic material from both males making sure to have one with an x chromosome and whatever from another. I dont know how they would decied whos genes would go where.

But is that ethical? If same sex marriage is legalized than is this the next step? What about all the orphans? Think of the orphans. Couples who want to have kids of their own but cant should adopt instead of playing god with their cells. THats a moral issue and the state shouldn't impose laws on morality.

But is it a moral issue? By creating this life with science isnt there a greater chance of a screw up? What about the rights of the life being created?

So complex. Im going to sleep.

- Let 'em wed.

I'm Back?
whiteflip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st April 2004, 09:49   #131
Tavernology
Senior Member
 
Tavernology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 240
Couples who want kids who can't SHOULD adopt, as SHOULD gay couples, because there's orphans, foster children, etc. etc. etc. BUT who's to say they don't have a right to MAKE children of thier own? All you gotta do really is take a sperm or egg from each parent, take out the existing DNA in a donor egg (Not necessary in lesbian couples, obviously, since the donor egg can be from the one to carry the baby, and the other mother's DNA can just be inserted), and put the DNA from both sperm into the one now empty egg, which is then carried to term by a surrogate mother, or one of the two lesbians.

It's a fair bit more complex than that, but it's technically all that's really needed.

Couples who want kids, but can't have thier own can go to a fertility clinic, and have something similiar done. Why not gay couples? Personally, I see no ethical problems with this, but I also see no ethical problems with stem cell research or abortions, either.
Tavernology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st April 2004, 21:34   #132
whiteflip
Post Master General
(Forum King)
 
whiteflip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Seattle, Now Las Vegas
Posts: 6,032
If I knew I was steril I would adopt. I guess I shouldn't be pushing that personal belife onto others as people who push the "sanctitiy of marriage" onto others. If I do come across a couple who wants to create a child using technology I will pursade them to adopt.

I'm Back?
whiteflip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd April 2004, 08:54   #133
Tavernology
Senior Member
 
Tavernology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 240
Yeah, as would I, but there are some people that would actually want a child that is half from one, and half from the other. If technology can make this a reality, then they should go for it if they can afford it, and if they can't afford it, then the only real option is for them to adopt.
Tavernology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd April 2004, 18:26   #134
Nimelennar
Major Dude
 
Nimelennar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 841
Send a message via ICQ to Nimelennar
*sigh* I hate when people ignore a previous post, and then claim that there are only weak arguments. I'll link to it, again. Here's my cornerstone argument against same-sex marriages:
http://forums.winamp.com/showthread....09#post1292609

The world is made of conflicts: good and evil, order and chaos, light and dark, hot and cold. All are essential to life. None can prevail for any length of time, or life will fail. In the end, the best any can hope for is balance.
Nimelennar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd April 2004, 19:18   #135
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
Quote:
Originally posted by Nimelennar
It's time to break out the facts machine...

FACT: A marriage, before it has been consummated, can be annulled, as if it had never happened. If Britney and Jason didn't have sex, then they were never married.

FACT: Homosexuals cannot have conventional heterosexual intercourse.

(Tangent:
FACT: Sperm are unlike other cells in the body in two distinct ways: They can fuse with other cells (as is shown by the fact that they fuse with the female's ova) and they send out a biochemical immunosuppressant signal to the recipient's immune system, so they don't get killed off before the fusion has time to be completed.

FACT: The vaginal area is designed* to resist fusion with the sperm. The anal area isn't, and when the sperm fuse with the somatic cells in the anal area, it dramatically increases the risk for anal-rectal cancer.
(* designed either by creation or evolution, it doesn't matter which)

FACT: The vaginal area is designed* to resist pathogens, much moreso than the anal area, so that when sperm come into the vaginal area, they do not create an immunoreceptive environment. The anal area is very sensitive to immunosuppressants, and this increases the risk of anal-rectal cancer and of infection.)

FACT: Anal sex is unnatural and unhealthy (for both homosexuals and heterosexuals), from the perspective of immunology.

Given these facts, what conclusion would you draw about gay marriage?
thats not against gay marriage, thats against anal sex, and the whole argument is saying that one way some gays and straights have sex is the reason why gays cant marry.. i dont buy it

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd April 2004, 22:15   #136
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
Quote:
Originally posted by electricmime
thats not against gay marriage, thats against anal sex, and the whole argument is saying that one way some gays and straights have sex is the reason why gays cant marry.. i dont buy it
Yes, but the point is that marriages are supposed to be consummated with sex.

Hmm. I guess that means anyone that can't have sex can never marry just as same-sex marriage can't be done? Is that true, Nimelennar?

Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
xzxzzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd April 2004, 22:37   #137
mark
Forum King
 
mark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Norn Ir'nd, leek...
Posts: 6,287
well if marriage was banned, should gays be allowed a 'marriage-like' legal status?
mark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd April 2004, 00:40   #138
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by Nimelennar
FACT: A marriage, before it has been consummated, can be annulled, as if it had never happened. If Britney and Jason didn't have sex, then they were never married.
FACT: Gays can't get legally married right now, either. As pointed out above, this means that heterosexual couples who are unable to have sex cannot be married either. Looks like two laws are gonna need to be changed, not one.

Quote:
Originally posted by Nimelennar
FACT: Homosexuals cannot have conventional heterosexual intercourse.
Funny that.

Quote:
Originally posted by Nimelennar
(irrelevant medical facts)
Fascinating.

Quote:
FACT: Anal sex is unnatural and unhealthy (for both homosexuals and heterosexuals), from the perspective of immunology.
Maybe we should ban heterosexuals from doing it, too (if it isn't still). In fact, while we're at it, why don't we ban:
  • Drinking (obvious reasons - unhealthy)
  • Smoking (blindingly obvious reasons - unhealthy)
  • Mobile ("Cell") Phones (risk of brain irradiation - unnatural AND unhealthy)
  • Elevators/Escalators (unnatural - reduces peoples' healthy intake of exercise, so marginally unhealthy too)
  • Ownership of Cars (road accidents, etc., unnantural also)
  • Failing the above, Crossing the Road
  • Body Piercing (risk of infection, unhealthy)
  • Tattoos (same, unhealthy)
  • Oilseed Rape and Related Crops (cause hayfever, unhealthy)
  • Computer Usage (unnatural)

FACT: Anal sex can be done with a condom. Shocking I know.

FACT: Lots of things are unnatural. Unhealthy or not, unnaturality is not a relevant argument against anal sex, gay marriage, or anything else.

Quote:
Originally posted by Nimelennar
Given these facts, what conclusion would you draw about gay marriage?
Given that they're largely irrelevant, the same as i did before.

The only reasonably valid argument I can see for disallowing gay marriage is that it's a religious ceremony. Which is fine, so long as you ban marriages between couples who are not religious - to do otherwise would be to leave the law unbalanced.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd April 2004, 01:01   #139
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
but if they banned non-religious people from getting married, then the government would not be able to acknowledge any marriages, and you would just be married in the eyes of the church, right?

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd April 2004, 01:04   #140
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
exactly. seperation of church and state, innit?

if you want marriage to follow every whim of the morals of your religious leaders, the government cannot be allowed to recognise it. to be otherwise would be undue crossing over of church and state, which is unnacceptable in a modern system.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd April 2004, 02:32   #141
whiteflip
Post Master General
(Forum King)
 
whiteflip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Seattle, Now Las Vegas
Posts: 6,032
adoption is expensive. unless your adpoting minorities or forign babies than it costs less. but either way adoption is expensive.

I'm Back?
whiteflip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd April 2004, 20:03   #142
Nimelennar
Major Dude
 
Nimelennar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 841
Send a message via ICQ to Nimelennar
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
exactly. seperation of church and state, innit?

if you want marriage to follow every whim of the morals of your religious leaders, the government cannot be allowed to recognise it. to be otherwise would be undue crossing over of church and state, which is unnacceptable in a modern system.
A whim? A rule of marriage that has been accepted by practically every society and practiacally every religion on the planet since the institution of marriage (excepting the past 50 years), is a whim??? Normally, you'd think a whim wouldn't last quite that long.

Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
Maybe we should ban heterosexuals from doing it, too (if it isn't still). In fact, while we're at it, why don't we ban:


* Drinking (obvious reasons - unhealthy)
* Smoking (blindingly obvious reasons - unhealthy)
* Mobile ("Cell") Phones (risk of brain irradiation - unnatural AND unhealthy)
* Elevators/Escalators (unnatural - reduces peoples' healthy intake of exercise, so marginally unhealthy too)
* Ownership of Cars (road accidents, etc., unnantural also)
* Failing the above, Crossing the Road
* Body Piercing (risk of infection, unhealthy)
* Tattoos (same, unhealthy)
* Oilseed Rape and Related Crops (cause hayfever, unhealthy)
* Computer Usage (unnatural)



FACT: Anal sex can be done with a condom. Shocking I know.

FACT: Lots of things are unnatural. Unhealthy or not, unnaturality is not a relevant argument against anal sex, gay marriage, or anything else.
Way to be patronizing!
First, you missed my point. Something unnatural should not be banned if it's not unhealthy. The unnaturality of something just adds to the fact that it is unhealthy.

Anyway, for all of those examples (except for smoking and drinking, which I do think should be banned or at least restricted further), that harm is: negligable (cell phones, hayfever, computers), very rare (ownership of cars, crossing the road), or indirect (elevators, cars not giving exercise: it is the person who decides not to exercise, not the car).

With anal sex (which I do, in fact, think should be banned for heterosexuals as well), the harm is intrinsic to the act, common, and deadly.

Sure anal sex can be done with a condom, but people don't (no chance of kids, so many feel they shouldn't bother), and that's a major problem.

And unnaturality IS a problem... You know the human body is not designed for taking falls off of cliffs, so you don't jump off cliffs unless you're suicidal. You know the human body, from my "irrelevant medical facts," is not designed to accomadate anal sex, so why would you do it?

The world is made of conflicts: good and evil, order and chaos, light and dark, hot and cold. All are essential to life. None can prevail for any length of time, or life will fail. In the end, the best any can hope for is balance.
Nimelennar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd April 2004, 20:13   #143
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
then our viewpoints fundamentally differ. i believe in freedom.

the "whim" was the institution of gay/non-consummated marriage, not marriage itself. you seem to have misunderstood that. my point was that legal marriages should not be linked to religion in law. that's idiocy.

you have not given a single argument against gay marriage, and your arguments against anal sex - while medically valid - are not sufficient in my mind to justify removing the freedom to do them.

did it - just once - occur to you that people knew the risks before they did the act? if they didn't, what should we do? ban it arbirtrarily, and work to make it a tabboo subject, or educate people, so they can make their own, free, informed decision?

don't make peoples decisions for them. don't assume you know what's best for them any more than they do.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd April 2004, 20:18   #144
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
edited

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd April 2004, 22:09   #145
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
Nimelennar: Since marriage is a religious institution, then why can't there be "civil unions" that grant the same governmental and legal privileges as marriage?

Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
xzxzzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th April 2004, 02:29   #146
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by xzxzzx
Nimelennar: Since marriage is a religious institution,...
for his arguments thus to hold water, it''d have to be not.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th April 2004, 07:11   #147
whiteflip
Post Master General
(Forum King)
 
whiteflip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Seattle, Now Las Vegas
Posts: 6,032
currently to my knowledge civil unions don't grant the same benefits as marriage. I would like them too because that would be awesome.

What if Governments stopped honoring religious marriages and only honored civil unions? Thats a seperation of church and state right there.

I'm Back?
whiteflip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th April 2004, 10:24   #148
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
for his arguments thus to hold water, it''d have to be not.
But... if marriage isn't religious, then what's wrong with having "SSM"?

Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
xzxzzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th April 2004, 11:03   #149
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
apparently it's unhealthy, and that means it should be unlawful, xzxzzx. apparently.

sorry for awful grammer in last post, i was very drunk

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th April 2004, 11:41   #150
Tavernology
Senior Member
 
Tavernology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 240
Where are your strong arguments, then? I saw your previous post before I said you only had weak arguments. Everything you put up in that post was debunked by the end of the page, Nim. Either by the wearing of a condom, the CHOICE not to do so, and the fact that marriage and religious beliefs should be seperate. Especially considering we're talking about a legal side of marraige, not a religious one. We WERE origionally the other way around, but that's since changed.
Tavernology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th April 2004, 20:51   #151
Nimelennar
Major Dude
 
Nimelennar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 841
Send a message via ICQ to Nimelennar
If marriage is a religious institution, then the religions should be able to regulate it however they want, and it should not be recognized in any way by the state.
If it is not, it must contribute to the common good, enough so that giving it recognition benefits everyone, not just the individuals who partake in it.
If same-sex marriage contributes to a rise in anal-rectal cancer, without giving people the common good of population increase and moral boundries that marriage is supposed to (which I believe, as far as marriage goes, has been destroyed anyway), then what common good does same-sex marriage give?

The world is made of conflicts: good and evil, order and chaos, light and dark, hot and cold. All are essential to life. None can prevail for any length of time, or life will fail. In the end, the best any can hope for is balance.
Nimelennar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th April 2004, 21:33   #152
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
but if the only benefit of marriage is having children, then those who cant/dont want children cant get married either?

and in an overpopulated world, how is having children doing a common good anyway?

also, what moral boundries will not exist in same sex marriage that exist in 'normal' marriages?

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th April 2004, 02:00   #153
whiteflip
Post Master General
(Forum King)
 
whiteflip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Seattle, Now Las Vegas
Posts: 6,032
Compared to the rest of the planet the United States is drastically under populated yet our resource consumption is greater. We should work on that. new thread. disregard my post as it has no bearing on this discussion. :P

I'm Back?
whiteflip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th April 2004, 05:11   #154
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by Nimelennar
If same-sex marriage contributes to a rise in anal-rectal cancer, without giving people the common good of population increase and moral boundries that marriage is supposed to (which I believe, as far as marriage goes, has been destroyed anyway), then what common good does same-sex marriage give?
right.

here's the deal.

stopping marriage WILL NOT STOP PEOPLE HAVING SEX.

if they're worried about the whole celibacy before marriage thing, they'll get married symbolically, it'll just not be legally recognised.

legalising it - and i want to make this absolutely clear - will not make any difference on that note. i really can't see that argument as credible at all.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th April 2004, 07:18   #155
glnflwrs
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Hesperia, CA
Posts: 15
I've read every word in this thread.

All I have to say about gays is, "To each, his own".

BUT...

I dare anyone to show me in the Constitution the words,"Seperation of Church and State".

They aren't there. That idea was never intended to be there.

What WAS put into the Cosntitution is one of the original articles included in "The Bill of Rights" that stated that the government shall make no laws considering the establishment or preference for a state sponsored religion.
PERIOD!!!

It has the intention of preventing government from influencing any religious belief or lack of the same, but it does NOT intend to prevent religion from influencing the government. In fact, Jefferson wrote that with the amount of liberty being built into the new nation, religious influence and ethical standards would have to be imposed on the government to keep them from becoming corrupted.

With the acceptance of the incorrect interpratation of the church/state Constitutional article by the high courts of this land, the corruption of politicians has been guaranteed.

Take the reason to be ethical away from man, and he he will forget the basic difference between right and wrong, as we see so evident in the world today.

Argue with that if you are able.

Glenn
glnflwrs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th April 2004, 07:55   #156
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
i thought jefferson was an atheist... anyway

but who was givent the right to say that being gay is unethical, and i find it hard to believe that allowing same sex marriage will cause havoc across the world and people will forget right and wrong...

although.. these people do want to make a statement of love, and love always leads to murder and war -_-

Quote:
It has the intention of preventing government from influencing any religious belief or lack of the same, but it does NOT intend to prevent religion from influencing the government
thats a contradiction.. if religion influences the government, then the government adapts the beliefs of that religion, and then influences other religions that may not share those beliefs

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th April 2004, 08:12   #157
Tavernology
Senior Member
 
Tavernology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 240
Nim, there are too many people in the world as it is, and we're screwing the planet up because of it. From that perspective, gay marriage IS for the common good, since it STOPS even more unnecessary people arriving. Also, gay people are gonna have sex, wether they're married or not, so there won't be a rise in anal cancer.

So tell me again where your good arguments are?
Tavernology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th April 2004, 08:14   #158
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
The world does *not* need any more people. The current fucked up ones are enough, thanks. I'd rather have stable gay parents than instable non-gay ones, thank you.

Furthermore, what does anal sex have to do with anything?

If some idiots want to do something hazardous to their health, you think a legal marriage certificate is going to do anything?

I'm sorry Nimelennar, where are your arguments? You've argued against anal sex, that's for sure, but *what* is wrong with same-sex marriage, or even just "civil unions" with the same benefits, if you find the idea of "same-sex marriage" abhorrent?

Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
xzxzzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th April 2004, 19:15   #159
Nimelennar
Major Dude
 
Nimelennar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 841
Send a message via ICQ to Nimelennar
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
right.

here's the deal.

stopping marriage WILL NOT STOP PEOPLE HAVING SEX.

if they're worried about the whole celibacy before marriage thing, they'll get married symbolically, it'll just not be legally recognised.

legalising it - and i want to make this absolutely clear - will not make any difference on that note. i really can't see that argument as credible at all.
I never said it did. What I was saying was that sex before marriage used to be considered wrong. Now that it isn't, except by the few, that's one less reason to have state-recognized marriage any more.

Quote:
Originally posted by Tavernology
Nim, there are too many people in the world as it is, and we're screwing the planet up because of it. From that perspective, gay marriage IS for the common good, since it STOPS even more unnecessary people arriving. Also, gay people are gonna have sex, wether they're married or not, so there won't be a rise in anal cancer.

So tell me again where your good arguments are?
Didn't you read the post above by whiteflip? America is underpopulated. Canada is very underpopulated. We could support many many more people if we could just cut down on our use of resources.

Quote:
Originally posted by xzxzzx
The world does *not* need any more people. The current fucked up ones are enough, thanks. I'd rather have stable gay parents than instable non-gay ones, thank you.

Furthermore, what does anal sex have to do with anything?

If some idiots want to do something hazardous to their health, you think a legal marriage certificate is going to do anything?

I'm sorry Nimelennar, where are your arguments? You've argued against anal sex, that's for sure, but *what* is wrong with same-sex marriage, or even just "civil unions" with the same benefits, if you find the idea of "same-sex marriage" abhorrent?
The world does need more people: more morally grounded people. If more people had ironclad morals, and followed them, then the world would be a much better place. Sadly, schools aren't teaching kids morals, and few parents are either.

A legal certificate that, in essence says, "sure, endanger your own health as much as you want?" Of course it will change things for the worse.

I'm against legally recognized "same-sex civil unions," because they take the world one step closer to casting off every piece of morality and people, literally and metaphorically, fucking each other over whenever they feel like it, because it benefits themselves and no one else. It's already started to happen. I've read magazines with features telling gay people how to get married and still stay available to date other people. To borrow a line from gay activist and founder of HOPE (Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism) John McKellar, "Again and again, it has been shown that whenever humankind fails to protect time-honored political, moral, and social institutions, whenever humankind attempts to embrace pride as a virtue and mainstream behavior that contravenes natural law, civilization fails--always and without exception."
Quote taken from John McKellar, "The Irony of Same-Sex Marriage," in Ethics and Medics, Volume 27, Number 12, December 2002, pp.3.

The world is made of conflicts: good and evil, order and chaos, light and dark, hot and cold. All are essential to life. None can prevail for any length of time, or life will fail. In the end, the best any can hope for is balance.
Nimelennar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th April 2004, 20:28   #160
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
why are adulterers allowed to get remarried? and arent forced to get divorced.. why are divorces legal at all?

divorce only encourages people to have sex with more people, and it helps no one but the person who got it...(and often hurts the spouse)

and it was originally considered wrong... but they changed their mind

how is this so different from same sex marriage? why can divorce change, and suddenly be okay, but same sex marriage(which has the meaning of love instead of divorce's meaning of the opposite) will always be considered wrong, because 'thats how it always was'

and once again... you dont have to have anal sex, and anal sex isnt just for gay people, so that whole point has nothing to do with anything, and you should stop bringing it up

you act as if because a magazine says it, it must be true, or what most gay people are thinking... thats not true at all, just look at that tea coasy thread... do you also think that putting a tea coasy on your head automatically makes you trustable? but i do agree with you, people (gay and straight) who got married and still date other people ARE wrong (and stupid), but that doesnt mean you should ban same sex marriages

most people dont get married unless they love each other, and want to make a commitment to each other in which they decide to take a part in the community together... and i still dont see why that is selfish, and fucking the world

and the fact that you see something wrong with two people who love each other and want to say that they love each other, and want to become part of their community together, is sickening

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > General Discussions

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump