Printable View
I just don't think it's right, basically CV's views are my own. I was actually in agreement with the discussion earlier about taking marriages out of the government and let people do it on their own. If they can't get married it's not like they still can't spend the rest of their lives with each other, it's just not legally recognized.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
But the chances of marriage being removed from government recognition are slim to none... and since that is so, then Gays should be allowed to marry. It's not like they're asking to do it in your church and then spit on teh Jesus when they're done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
Then you're not treating them equally. Make up your mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
And if you want the government to stay out of marriage, supporting a law/amendment that involves the government in marriage more than ever before is counterproductive.
What does the law have to do with God? He's only specifically mentioned in all books of law when people want to know the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
Actually, God hates me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
And, through a rather comical cosmic mixup, he can't do anything about me.
What does the law have to do with God? He's only specifically mentioned in all books of law when people want to know the time.
And even then he has to share limelight with the independence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Constitution
Dear God, what time is it? I really want to know...Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
He was the original time and temperature chick. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
Weeeell... to be fair, I think there is some choice involved. I don't think anyone choses what to be attracted to, but there's an understanding in this society, that while, for example, a pedophile may not choose to be attracted to children, he's still accountable for what he does to them. So in that sense it is possible for someone to, for whatever reason, be attracted to do something he ought not to do, and also possible for him to choose not to act on it. In otherwords, you don't choose to be attracted to the same sex, but you do choose to act on your urges.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
THAT SAID, I can't think of any reason besides religion why someone would want to forego a loving and functional relationship to deprive himself of his/her urges besides religion. I'm sort of playing devil's advocate here, but I think that the argument that it's innate or natrual within them is not sufficient for its morality. The fact that it can allow certain people to live more happily than they might otherwise, and not harm the uninvolved might be, however.
It is on some level a choice, but wether it is a wrong one is arguable.
If it's choice. Then why do some people "resist" being gay, like it's a natural urge that they try to overcome?
I don't think I suddenly woke up when I was 9 or so and thought "I think I'll go for women, because they have titties". It just naturally happened; I made no conscious decision. I still can't understand why I like titties so much, since they are just sacks of lymph and fat.. but I still find them so beautiful and wonderous, for no good apparent reason at all.
I believe there are people that are physiologically gay, and people that are psychologically gay.
Choice is for pussies that don't believe in determinism.
"As life's road in front unravels, We get to do the driving, But don't choose the direction we travel."
No such thing as fate.
Of course, because fate implies that everything is already set out by some supposed force.
However, everything is still going to play out the same way, or did your brain suddenly defy the laws of physics?
There is no such thing as free will. Mankind is nothing more than biological nachines. All our actions are based on the conditioning we get from the internal and external environments of our past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Listen next time, bub.Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
Kinda like the way a couple of dogs act upon each other when there's no females around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Quote:
Originally Posted by voltz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Brown
Perfect reply! :lol:
I actually am a hard determinist, but I still think ideas like choice and freedom are fine for talking about how we perceive our existence.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
I don't think determinism neccessarily contradicts the notion of ethics. Some forms of ethics, sure, but not all.
Understood and agree :nod:Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Have you actually tried talking to gay people about this? I've known a number of gay people and they all say they were gay from the beginning, even if they didn't realize it conciously at first. I knew one kid since he was like six years old since he was the younger brother of a friend of mine. He always seemed... different in a way my young mind couldn't understand, and surprise, surprise he turned out to be gay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
Sure, they can refrain from these natural urges, just as straight people can resist being attracted to the opposite sex, but it seems kind of stupid for the goverment to start legistlating it.
Also remember these people writing down the 'words of God' had their own prejudices and agendas. 'Thou shalt not be gay' wasn't in the ten commandments... but maybe they can make an admendment and add it in. :p
That's the main point, right there. Why, besides religion, would they WANT to resist their urges when they could live happier, more fulfilled lives if they acted on them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ammadeau
Actually, I didn't know this was possible until I began visiting these boards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ammadeau
I am a heterosexual.
I want the right to gay marry, because it's discrimination if only gays can gay marry. Do you want to deny a straight person the right to gay marry?
I’m straight. I wish being gay was contagious and 80% of the world is in danger of getting it. Imagine how much better the world would be in fifty years if most of the people living today just didn’t have children.
That wont help since we invented invitro(sp?) fetilisation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malkut X
It's not like they don't want to keep gay people from adopting or having children in the first place.
Now, I haven't read this thread (it's boring, 15 pages, and I don't care what any of you think anyway), but polls indicate that most people who are against gay marriage are for an "separate but equal" (hahahahahaha!) "civil union" that's exactly like marriage except it's two words instead of one. Since nobody seems to mind the "separate but equal civil unions", I suggest somebody go back over all current legislation dealing with marriage, and replace the word with "civil union". That way, we’re all equally oppressed and the churches can decide who is and isn’t married (as the term is rendered meaningless).
Well, on CNN (or CNBC) they say that many states are starting to try to pass laws making it harder to get a divorced. Maybe people are starting to see how much the term has been weakened and are starting to do something about it.
If same sex civil unions get passed, I want to start a heterosexual civil disobedience movement whereby straight couples try to get civil unioned.
I don't understand the state interest in forcing people who don't want to be together, to be together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brotherman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malkut X
They don't like you at Neomega?Quote:
Originally Posted by Malkut X
I seriously want to reach into the screen and shake your little black mage hand. You're a genius.
Malkut's our dark lord and he entertains the hell out of us.
It's just Rich that doesn't like him... and that's because Rich is a dipshit.
I believe that news.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malkut X
Good show.
Regarding your longer post: Done before, though.
Hard to believe, perhaps, but one of the principal problems that many western countries are facing is underpoplulation -- fewer people (by far) are getting married, fewer (by far) are having kids, and while the aging population requires more and more benefits/entitlements, there's no new work force to keep the money flowing. Immigration offsets this problem to a degree, but not enough to stave it off entirely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malkut X
I think we need to be much less populated than we are...
And let robots do the rest of the work. :)
Pretty much for the children. Divorce isn't good for them. They need stable homes. Some couples are quick to get divorces over things that can be worked out through time or counciling, so they are putting more effort in making sure that people are sure they are sure. Especially those with kids.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
I never understood this. It's better for the kids that the two parents who now hate each other stay together and argue all day? I understand the fact that people are quick to divorce, but you don't have time for counciling if you have kids! (Well, you shouldn't, at least.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Brotherman
As a child of parents who fought all the time before divorcing, I assure you that this much is wrong. I also highly doubt that anyone takes divorce as lightly as you seem to believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brotherman
Well, what they are talking about is extending the time before you get a divorce, and forcing counciling. There are situations where people suddenly realize they are happy with each other an the marriage becomes even stronger than before they considered the divorce. It's not to say that this is the solution for everything, but hopefully by strengthening things like this it will strengthen the true commitment that marriage is so that people won't enter into it so quickly unless they are sure that they are ready for that step.
I see what you're saying, but I just don't buy into it. I don't think anyone gets married thinking "Hey, we'll try this for a year, and if it doesn't work, no biggie," so I don't think any amount of toughening up divorce laws is going to matter before the fact, which is what counts. People were miserably married long before divorce was accepted. They just couldn't do anything about it.
If anything, there should be mandatory waiting periods and counseling...before marriage.
Brittney Spears. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
I agree with you here. The best idea is to make them live together for a while and have some conseling before the fact. That way they'll find out if they really should get married.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
Damn straight. Like I said, I'm not going back and reading this whole thread, but I've read about 10,000 other debates on this issue, and nobody has given me a reason why I should give 2/5ths of a shit rather to men file taxes jointly or not. And I've looked. Hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
Mostly, I've heard people say:
1) Gay people are icky
-Then don't look at them.
2)God doesn't want gays to get married, because that's not part of His plan for plan for sex
-God's plan for sex seems to involve a lot of polygamy and sex slavery, but I don't see you trying to pass that into a law. That's too bad, too, I could live with having a harem.
3)Gays spread AIDS
-Straight people, too.
4)It’s part of the Homosexual Agenda
-I’d be more worried about the Malkut Agenda, if I were you.
And so forth. I honestly can't believe that people reject gay marriage on such flimsy grounds. I can't help but suspect that the real reasons are somewhat less then rational.
As for making them live together before marriage, that’d never pass. There are still plenty of Christians who believe that dating is too forward. What we really need is some kind of training that prepares people for it. Perhaps a kind of pre-counciling that works through these issues before they become a problem.
Actually, if marriage is going to be such a big deal, perhaps we should have marriage caseworkers, like they have with children, kind of a mandatory counciling for couples who are in trouble.
I remember bush talking about adding classes to schools about marriage and family. That's a start.
And yes, while I'm all for counciling, I would definitley be against people moving in with each other.
Also, if I remember correctly, the Bible speaks against Poligomy and Sex Slavery. Yes, it was in the Bible, but there are scriptures that back that this wasn't how it was meant to be.
No, there is plenty of support for polygamy in the Bible. Serious scholarship shows this to be the case. Rules for it are given in Exodus 21:10, I believe (know thy enemy. . .I am evil, after all).
Sex slavery is also biblical, in fact, my favorite part of the whole gosh darn Bible says:
If Bush had instituted this policy, there would have been no war protesters at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nm 31:9 (NJV)