Jump to content
Forums upgraded! Read more... ×
cn-nadc.net | North Atlantic Defense Coalition
Sign in to follow this  
The Shah

Gay Marriage

Recommended Posts

It is defined by Christians/Jews, because it was first practiced by Christians/Jews (they were one and the same at the time). Read about it in Genesis.

 

A union between a man and a woman, in the beginning, by God.

 

Marriage has been practiced all around the world for rather a long time. And, for example, Confucius (lived in 500 BC) defined marriage as "the union (of the representatives) of two different surnames, in friendship and in love, in order to continue the posterity of the former sages, and to furnish those who shall preside at the sacrifices to heaven and earth, at those in the ancestral temple, and at those at the altars to the spirits of the land and grain".

 

Also, the definition of many things have changed over time - I see no reason why this should be any different. Christians (and Jews) are known to have been wrong a time or too in the past...

 

 

I understand how people support civil unions which give gay people the same rights as marriage (which it sometimes doesn't), but isn't that same as saying that they can't get married because they're different, and we have created their own thing for them to show that they are different. In other words, discrimination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand how people support civil unions which give gay people the same rights as marriage (which it sometimes doesn't), but isn't that same as saying that they can't get married because they're different, and we have created their own thing for them to show that they are different. In other words, discrimination.

IMO, yes. It's certainly better than nothing, of course, but ultimately, separate but equal isn't really equal at all.

 

Either everybody should be able to get married to the person they love, or everybody should get civil unions as the 'government approved' portion of marriage with all the legal and financial stuff, and have marriage be a purely religious thing. That has the same effect as legalising gay marriage without actually doing so, since there are churches willing to marry gay couples right now.

 

As long as marriage provides economic and material benefits, it's not really justifiable to deny it to one specific minority because a religious group doesn't like the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thought is civil union for everyone, not just gay couples. Then, if you want a public ceremony in a church or whatever, it's just that - a ceremony, it's not legal.

 

Turning this to theology would be bad, although it's already gone that way when you start quoting from the bible. *points up*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree.

In fact, that's what many couples do here. I know Christians who get legally married in a fairly informal ceremony at a registry office, and then have the Christian aspect of it inside a church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its time for me to weigh in on a subject I happen to be most passionately against!

 

The issue of gay marriage is an insult to every single tradition we hold dear...marriage is one man and one woman, forever til death do they part. The Bible specifically condemns gay marriage, it doesn't mention gay marriage directly, however, and I shall quote:

 

"Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? (This shoots down the unscriptural Doctrine of Unconditional Eternal Security.) Be not deceived (presents the same words of our Lord, "let no man deceive you" [Mark 13:5]): neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind (the proof of true Christianity is the changed life), nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the Kingdom of God (refers to those who call themselves "Believers," but yet continue to practice the sins mentioned, whom the Holy Spirit says are not saved, irrespective of their claims)." -- 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

 

The effeminate means "men who behave as women"...hence gay marriage is morally, socially, and scientifically wrong. Morally wrong per the verse I quoted (there are more if you need further evidence). Socially wrong; just think back to high school when you found out someone was gay, what did you do to that person? I remember getting a group of friends and well let's just say we made it incredibly difficult for such a person. And finally, scientifically wrong, and this is for you Darwinists out there (also a preposterous theory...but let's save that for another thread), think of evolution and the whole 'survival of the fittest' theory; well to be 'fit' partly means that you have the capability to reproduce...can gays reproduce at all?? I think you find that gay marriage, when tested morally, socially, and scientifically, fails miserably all three.

 

In short, don't be gay xD!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] hence gay marriage is morally, socially, and scientifically wrong.

Just because some book has it written on it, it doesn't mean it's absolutely right.

 

Morally wrong per the verse I quoted (there are more if you need further evidence).

Oh? Well, guess what? I am Lailander, the son of God and Everything there Is, and I say that you are wrong. I wrote a Holy Book according to the Words and the Will of God, and there it says that gay marriage is legal and that is the Word of God.

 

Now I have as much authority as what you believe in. Oh yeah, believe in. Doesn't that mean that you believe in something, but not necessary everyone else?

So if I believed that it's right to hit people named Kirk with a bat, it would be right? According to you it would.

 

Socially wrong; just think back to high school when you found out someone was gay, what did you do to that person? I remember getting a group of friends and well let's just say we made it incredibly difficult for such a person.

....I am somewhat glad to you that we're talking online. Otherwise, I think you'd be in that "incredibly difficult" position right now.

 

If I found out that someone was gay, I'd say "you be what you want". If I found out that someone was "making it incredibly difficult" for her/him because they just happen to be Christians...they'd get to see their precious "God" rather early.

 

What are you, thinking that because a book says it, you can do anything you want? Did Jesus say to hate those who are different than you? You seem to know the bible so well, you tell me. You sound nothing more than the other bullies who used to beat up the small kids. Actually, I think you are that bully.

 

Being gay is not socially wrong, being YOU is socially wrong.

 

 

And finally, scientifically wrong, and this is for you Darwinists out there (also a preposterous theory...but let's save that for another thread), think of evolution and the whole 'survival of the fittest' theory; well to be 'fit' partly means that you have the capability to reproduce...can gays reproduce at all??

Ah, now I know why you keep failing science at school (did you fail everything but religion, by the way?).

Something is not "scientifically" wrong if it can't reproduce. Or do you claim people that, let's say, can't reproduce for biological reasons are scientifically wrong? A guy that's "shooting blanks", for example, must not be right then.

 

I don't know what you were taught (but I'm positive that you were home-taught, there's no other explanation), but you can't just go around and twisting the words of science, or anything/anyone else.

 

 

I think you find that gay marriage, when tested morally, socially, and scientifically, fails miserably all three.

You fail. It doesn't "fail" in any of them. Maybe if you looked up beyond your precious little "book", you might find some more reliable information.

Oh wait, you can't. You're afraid that you might find that some of your beliefs are wrong. Haha, sorry.

 

 

 

In short, don't be gay xD!!

In short, don't be fundementalist-asshole-because bible said it-Christian xD!!

 

And, oh, this just a personal opinion, nothing related to anyone else, but I really mean it...

 

Please, die. You are not human. You're not even Christian. You are plain rotten. Die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its time for me to weigh in on a subject I happen to be most passionately against!

 

The issue of gay marriage is an insult to every single tradition we hold dear...marriage is one man and one woman, forever til death do they part. The Bible specifically condemns gay marriage, it doesn't mention gay marriage directly, however, and I shall quote:

 

"Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? (This shoots down the unscriptural Doctrine of Unconditional Eternal Security.) Be not deceived (presents the same words of our Lord, "let no man deceive you" [Mark 13:5]): neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind (the proof of true Christianity is the changed life), nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the Kingdom of God (refers to those who call themselves "Believers," but yet continue to practice the sins mentioned, whom the Holy Spirit says are not saved, irrespective of their claims)." -- 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Blah Blah Blah, I could mention 100 quotes from the bible that are preposterous too, such as not eating shellfish because they are unclean. I'm not going to get into Christianity being a flawed religion from the beginning since nothing was written about Jesus until 120 years after his death. But nothing I say will sway your "faith" because I'm one of "them".

 

The effeminate means "men who behave as women"...hence gay marriage is morally, socially, and scientifically wrong. Morally wrong per the verse I quoted (there are more if you need further evidence). Socially wrong; just think back to high school when you found out someone was gay, what did you do to that person? I remember getting a group of friends and well let's just say we made it incredibly difficult for such a person. And finally, scientifically wrong, and this is for you Darwinists out there (also a preposterous theory...but let's save that for another thread), think of evolution and the whole 'survival of the fittest' theory; well to be 'fit' partly means that you have the capability to reproduce...can gays reproduce at all?? I think you find that gay marriage, when tested morally, socially, and scientifically, fails miserably all three.

You know, I saw a gay guy in high school get shoved into a locker and get called a fag. I was on my feet before I even knew what I was doing and I slammed that ignorant A-hole's face into the locker so hard I broke his nose. I still remember the satisfying crunch and then listening to him cry like a little girl. It was the best 10 day suspension of my life. There's certain things that are and are not acceptable in life. Picking on those weaker than you is not acceptable. Whether the gay guy was effeminate or not really doesn't matter. It's his life and he can choose how to live it. America is the land of the free, is it not? Or does that only apply to white christians? Homosexuals tend to commit suicide at a rate that is so much higher than straight people that it is startling. They do it because of people like you who make their life harder because they're different. Do you think it's okay to make a Jew's life harder? How about a black person? Probably not. So why is it okay to make a gay person's life harder?

 

Next, on to your Darwinist rant. Why are you calling it a preposterous theory then using it as a defense? Can't have it both ways.

 

Then for your scientific evaluation. I can name quite a few species of mammals, reptiles, amphibians and insects who all engage in same sex relations. I can also name some species that don't even have defined sexes. So that throws your theory right out the window.

 

In short, don't be gay xD!!!

 

This is the dumbest part of all. Nobody WANTS to be gay. It's MUCH easier for people to be straight. Why would somebody consciously open themselves up to ridicule, humiliation, violence and nonacceptance? Then to top it all off, they have to fight to be accepted by their own government who taxes them yet does not represent them. Didn't America have a little Tea Party because of that a while ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That is my point. Allowing gay marriage would change the fundamental definition of marriage, thereby changing the status of every person that ever was, is, or will be married.

 

Kajy, you're young so I'll be a little more patient with you. You're naming some vague way that this will affect you. If the definition of marriage according to your government is changed to "a union between two consenting adults" how does that affect you at all? Does it cost you money? Does it do you any physical harm? Does it take away your freedom? Does it stop you from being able to have relations with your wife? Does it stop you from having children? Does it stop you from moving to some suburb and buying a house to raise your family in? Does it stop you from being able to visit her in the hospital? Does it change your rights to inherit your wife's assets, should she pass away? So tell me, how does it affect you in any REAL way? Because if you can't come up with a way, you're using the same argument that people used 40 years ago against interracial marriage. Yes, 40 years ago, the Catholic Church actually said that God was against interracial marriage. They have since said "Woopsie! We didn't mean interracial marriage! We meant gay marriage!"

 

Do you know the kinds of rights that unmarried couples give up? They have no legal right to visit their partner in the hospital, even if they are dying. They have no right to make medical decisions should their partner become incapacitated. They have no inheritance rights, even though they may have helped their partner to accumulate that wealth. They can't file joint income taxes, which means they pay more taxes than straight, married people of comparable income levels. I could name hundreds more but I've made my point. This is not just an issue of a title. This is an issue of actual rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Snip Christian stuff*

So, not being a Christian, why should I allow that any of that is a decent argument? Discriminating against somebody because your religion doesn't like their lifestyle is pretty reprehensible. Why is your religiously motivated point of view any more valid than the Christian denominations that think gay marriage is perfectly acceptable? Why is it more valid than the purely secular position that not allowing them to marry is denying them the same rights as everybody else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lailander, I love you. (In the gay way)

Yes, Kirk, you're incredibly lucky that this is online. Man. That post was so screwed up and dire that I'm speechless. I say that as a Christian. I say that as a human being. That was retarded.

 

Also, lol: "The Bible specifically condemns gay marriage, it doesn't mention gay marriage directly, however"

 

Nice going, Michael. That's the kind of thing a lot of us wish we were brave enough to do, or at least got a chance to do ;P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Everyone!

 

Let me start by warning one and all that this will be another N.K. Wall Of Text™.

 

I am not sure what the original poster was thinking when he thought that this would not turn into a gay marriage debate, but whatever.

 

When I read the arguments by people who are opposed to gay marriage (both here and elsewhere), I find that their arguments are usually rooted in religious or social traditions, which are so subjective that there will never be a conclusion to the debate.

 

I am interested to know what all (both for and against gay marriage) would think of this argument against gay marriage (and I remind everyone that THIS IS NOT MY PERSONAL OPINION, just a thought exercise on an idea I came up with a while ago).

 

---start of thought problem---

 

Let's look at the biological implications of the institution of marriage in the world. Like most species, human beings pair off, usually male and female, and then have sex and procreate. Many believe that this is one of the most fundamental instincts of life; if the species does not reproduce, the species will die off. Humans, being social animals who developed a civilization and a society with culture and ethics (and some bad stuff, too), along with a more regulated society, created an institution of marriage around this act of procreation. Why this happened, I am not entirely sure (I am not an anthropologist), but either way, it did.

 

Back 1000, 2000, or 3000 years ago or so, life expectancy was very low (30s?), and many children did not survive the early years of childhood. Therefore, it wasn't uncommon for a woman to give birth to 6 or more children, only to have two or three survive to adulthood and have children of their own. This biological imperative to further the species was codified in various cultural norms around the world. One of them regarded children as a sign of wealth. A family with many children and grandchildren was usually a family held in high regard, and this emphasized the biological imperative...children were a source of valuable labour in a lifestyle that was extremely labour intensive for most. This was further developed for example, in ancient China in the Confucian and later Mencian traditions, where the wealth and power of a state was determined by its population; the more people a state or city had, the wealthier and more powerful it was regarded as. Most cultures had similar characteristics. Perhaps marriage was a way to ensure stability in the society as law developed, in order to determine ownership of assets by bloodline from generation to generation...if just anyone procreated with anyone else, well things get confused...kind of like on Maury.

 

Most cultures soundly rejected homosexuality. This is most likely because a homosexual relationship by itself cannot produce offspring. In order for a homosexual couple to raise children, one of them must have sex with someone who is not his or her partner, which would violate many cultural taboos against fornication (I am not sure if this is the right word, but either way, there is usually a taboo against having sex with someone who is not your partner). Fornication of course would be discouraged because of the aforementioned legal problems that would be caused in a society where bloodline was often a basis for many applications of law. Therefore, no one would want any kind of homosexuality because it would lower the overall birth rate, and thus cause a decline in population. Though much of this had social rules that enforced this derision of homosexuality, it might ultimately come back to the biological imperative to further the species through procreation.

 

With a conservative point of view, this logic could be applied to society today. By legalizing gay marriage, a society would be, in essence, lifting the taboos against homosexuality that existed for centuries in cultural institutions like "traditional" marriage that had ultimate basis in biological imperatives. With the taboos lifted, many homosexuals who might have forced themselves into a heterosexual relationship that produced children, would feel less inhibited to pursue a homosexual lifestyle in a culture which still frowns on fornication, and thus wouldn't produce children.

 

In the world today, as nations industrialise, it is usually accompanied by a precipitous drop in birth rate (consider Japan, northern and western Europe, for example). Legal gay marriage would only exacerbate a trend that could lead to population trends that become unsustainable and lose genetic diversity, and in thousands of years, result in the extinction of the human species.

 

---end of thought problem---

 

Again, this doesn't represent my personal opinion on gay marriage, so if you disagree, please attack the argument, not me!!

 

I am not even sure if this idea makes sense, so please feel free to pick it apart. I am not an anthropologist or biologist, I just have a little too much time to think. But, it would seem to me to be a more objective basis of the conservative argument that gay marriage is "unnatural", rather than the subjective arguments from religion. I don't think I have ever heard anyone argue this point of view without attachments and references to religion (but please correct me if I am wrong).

 

For full disclosure, in my personal opinions, I agree with Nadjia; that marriage should be relegated to religious institutions only where they would have the freedom to extend marriage to whomever they want. For legal purposes, we should have civil contract unions, available to any committed couples regardless of race or sexual orientation or otherwise.

 

Also, I mean no offense to anyone here, homosexual or otherwise.

 

Cheers,

-N. Kizuna.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be silly, legalizing gay marriage is not going to lead to extinction. Recent studies show that only 5% of people are gay or lesbian, and with modern science and technology lesbians can give birth. There's also the option to adopt children. Declining birth rate is a problem, but it's not because people are going to stop having children (it's more because we're living longer, and are having fewer young people to support the elderly).

 

As society changes, so does the incentive for people to get married. Today it's not so much about having children, it's about what people perceive as love along with receiving greater benefits (which is why the divorce rate is 50% in the U.S). Marriage today is supposed to represent a community recognizing a lasting bond between two individuals that care for each other. Excluding gays from that title, in my opinion, infringes on their rights guaranteed by the 14th amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kajy, you're young so I'll be a little more patient with you. You're naming some vague way that this will affect you. If the definition of marriage according to your government is changed to "a union between two consenting adults" how does that affect you at all? Does it cost you money? Does it do you any physical harm? Does it take away your freedom? Does it stop you from being able to have relations with your wife? Does it stop you from having children? Does it stop you from moving to some suburb and buying a house to raise your family in? Does it stop you from being able to visit her in the hospital? Does it change your rights to inherit your wife's assets, should she pass away? So tell me, how does it affect you in any REAL way? Because if you can't come up with a way, you're using the same argument that people used 40 years ago against interracial marriage. Yes, 40 years ago, the Catholic Church actually said that God was against interracial marriage. They have since said "Woopsie! We didn't mean interracial marriage! We meant gay marriage!"

 

First of all, don't even consider my age. Just don't.

 

Michael, apparently marriage isn't that big of a deal to you. Obviously it's not that big of a deal to gay/lesbian couples, if they can't understand that we hold the title of marriage not only highly important, but sacred. Marriage is the biggest thing that will happen to me in this life, and it will affect me for eternity (again, getting into theology). Changing the definition (even though it is only in the eyes of men) of marriage even slightly would affect me very much, as it would change the definition of the relationship between me and my companion, who will be the biggest influence on my life. So don't say that it will only change me in a vague way, it will truly affect me.

 

Also, I'm not Catholic. :P

 

 

 

 

As for Admiral Kirk.... that's barbaric. I say I don't want to share the title of marriage (which was defined through Christianity; read Genesis) with homosexuals, but that does not make it ok to treat anybody that way. That is not Christian at all, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Be Christ-like, don't judge. That's his job. Our job is to love everyone, no matter how they act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael, apparently marriage isn't that big of a deal to you. Obviously it's not that big of a deal to gay/lesbian couples, if they can't understand that we hold the title of marriage not only highly important, but sacred. Marriage is the biggest thing that will happen to me in this life, and it will affect me for eternity (again, getting into theology). Changing the definition (even though it is only in the eyes of men) of marriage even slightly would affect me very much, as it would change the definition of the relationship between me and my companion, who will be the biggest influence on my life. So don't say that it will only change me in a vague way, it will truly affect me.

 

To be frank, I don't understand your reasoning whatsoever. I'm just glad an Atheist like me could get married to a prostitute whom I've only known for two hours and it would be okay; but two men who love each other is suddenly destroying your relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Shah said (sorry, I can't figure out how to quote in this new forum yet)

"Don't be silly, legalizing gay marriage is not going to lead to extinction. Recent studies show that only 5% of people are gay or lesbian, and with modern science and technology lesbians can give birth. There's also the option to adopt children. Declining birth rate is a problem, but it's not because people are going to stop having children (it's more because we're living longer, and are having fewer young people to support the elderly).

 

As society changes, so does the incentive for people to get married. Today it's not so much about having children, it's about what people perceive as love along with receiving greater benefits (which is why the divorce rate is 50% in the U.S). Marriage today is supposed to represent a community recognizing a lasting bond between two individuals that care for each other. Excluding gays from that title, in my opinion, infringes on their rights guaranteed by the 14th amendment."

 

I certainly agree with this, and like I said in my previous post, that argument I presented does not reflect my personal views on gay marriage.

 

In contemporary society, something like gay marriage is a far more viable idea than in the past. Today, we have modern medicine and modern infrastructure providing water and sanitation to more people than ever in the past. As a result, people are living much longer, and conception options for lesbian couples are available which weren't available in the past, and adoption has become more socially acceptable, which wasn't always so in the past.

 

I posited that argument because so often, the people who advocate a ban on gay marriage invoke religious principles to defend their arguments, which let's face it...in modern nation-states which often have religiously diverse populations, religion-based arguments often fall flat on their faces since the principles cannot be applied to the society as a whole. I am wondering if my argument as presented above might be a non-religious alternative to many anti-gay marriage arguments often presented.

 

Look at my argument in the context of a society 2000 years ago. They did not have modern medicine, and the infant mortality rate was quite high. There was also little work in the field of demographic research, so there was no way back then to really know what percentage of the population was potentially homosexual. At a time where a child's survival into adulthood was not guaranteed, and that adulthood was relatively short, would it not be in the best interests of the State to actively promote a culture which placed a taboo on homosexuality, and thus homosexual marriage?

 

In so many ancient cultures, the size of your population was one of the most important factors in a State's wealth and power. There was no such thing as individual liberty; liberty was secondary to basic survival of the State. You can see some of these archaic beliefs in some of today's less socially developed countries. I look at my own country China, as a nation-state which is lagging behind in social development. Despite Communist Party population reduction policies (like the One-Child Policy), the Chinese culture as a whole sees their massive population as a key strategic advantage over other major nations, including Europe and the USA. China already is a leader in a number of economic factors, solely on our having such a massive population. China has more cellphone users than the USA has people. If only 25% of China's population breaks out of poverty into a middle-class lifestyle or better, that in and of itself will exceed the population of the USA and Canada combined. We are far away from that reality now, but it may happen in the coming 100 years.

 

I know that I am going off in many different directions, but I presented my previous argument as a potentially objective argument against gay marriage in a historical and biological context, rather than the indefensible religious context so often presented.

 

Again, not my personal opinions, and I welcome your comments and responses.

 

Cheers,

-N. Kizuna.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nami, I've heard that argument before and I've even heard people go so far as to say that homosexuality will lead to the end of the human race. Your argument was well thought out but I still think it's absurd. No offense. First off, if I'm gay, I'm not going to be having children. I'm not going to get married to a woman just to have children. In my opinion, that would be a terrible thing to do to a woman. Lying to the mother of your children for years is really the sick part of this and sadly, it does happen all to often in our society. There are certain expectations of men and often those expectations lead people to lives that will only end in disaster. What is so wrong with letting people live the lives they were meant to live?

 

Kajy, you may not be Catholic but most religions base their stances on issues off of the Catholic religion. Your religion is no different.

 

Not wanting to share marriage with homosexuals sounds alot of like not wanting to share the same drinking fountain as black people. I also still fail to see how anybody else being married will affect you. I can't understand it. If your marriage is so weak that it can't withstand others being married, even those you consider unclean, it's most likely going to end just like 50% of all STRAIGHT marriages anyway. Have you ever seen some of the straight people getting married? *shivers* I don't see how two successful homosexuals having a beautiful and tasteful ceremony is worse than two fat people exchanging their vows at the mud bog and having a Budweiser toast at their reception. I really think that it's all about people getting a certain amount of joy from denying others rights that they are entitled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kajy, you may not be Catholic but most religions base their stances on issues off of the Catholic religion. Your religion is no different.

 

Not wanting to share marriage with homosexuals sounds alot of like not wanting to share the same drinking fountain as black people. I also still fail to see how anybody else being married will affect you. I can't understand it. If your marriage is so weak that it can't withstand others being married, even those you consider unclean, it's most likely going to end just like 50% of all STRAIGHT marriages anyway. Have you ever seen some of the straight people getting married? *shivers* I don't see how two successful homosexuals having a beautiful and tasteful ceremony is worse than two fat people exchanging their vows at the mud bog and having a Budweiser toast at their reception. I really think that it's all about people getting a certain amount of joy from denying others rights that they are entitled.

 

Michael, you assume far too much about me. My religion does not base its stance by how the Catholic church stands, it bases its stance by what God decides.

 

And again you assume far too much when you think I find joy in denying others rights. This has been one of the hardest, and most contreversial subjects that I have personally thought about, and I have decided where I stand. You think I enjoy the fact that gays shouldn't be able to marry? I support my stance, and have come to understand it because I know that's what God wants. God loves all his children, but that does not mean he will allow them to defile the sanctity of marriage. If I did not know what God wanted, or how he wants me to act, I would support gay marriage. I do not know of God wants gays to be able to come together in a civil union, therefore I take up my own feelings there, and say that they should be allowed that privilege. But should I ever find if God wills that gays are to remain totally separate, then that will be my stance, because I know that God has been, is, and always will be right, and he will be my deciding factor.

 

Again, theology. You can't debate beliefs; I again recommend this ends here, though I will defend my stance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God's a real dick. I mean what kind of person whould take a kid, send him throughout his childhood to be confused, socially akward and picked on for no reason. Then when he finally has the courage to come out and find someone he loves, he can't marry them because God doesn't want him to spoil the -as you put it- definition of straight relationships (becuase they have such a crappy relationship that it depends on a title). God's such a douchebag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael, you assume far too much about me. My religion does not base its stance by how the Catholic church stands, it bases its stance by what God decides.

 

And again you assume far too much when you think I find joy in denying others rights. This has been one of the hardest, and most controversial subjects that I have personally thought about, and I have decided where I stand. You think I enjoy the fact that gays shouldn't be able to marry? I support my stance, and have come to understand it because I know that's what God wants. God loves all his children, but that does not mean he will allow them to defile the sanctity of marriage. If I did not know what God wanted, or how he wants me to act, I would support gay marriage. I do not know of God wants gays to be able to come together in a civil union, therefore I take up my own feelings there, and say that they should be allowed that privilege. But should I ever find if God wills that gays are to remain totally separate, then that will be my stance, because I know that God has been, is, and always will be right, and he will be my deciding factor.

But how can you claim to know what God believes? Because of a book? Now has it ever occurred to you that the Bible has been translated, transcribed and re-translated so many times that there may be very little of the original message left? You see how politicians act today. What do you think was stopping a king from saying to a Monk, "Hey Monk! I need to increase my kingdom's population. Can you throw something in there about no fornicating with men and how it is our duty to populate the world?"

 

Kajy, don't you think this world has enough people? What was the last world census? Like 8 billion people? Did you ever think that maybe homosexuality is nature's way of trying to control the population? Nature keeps everything in check with predators and/or scarcity of food. Man has to worry about neither of those things. Is it really so hard to believe that homosexuality is just a natural segment of the population?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree with Michael. I think people nowadays are giving far too much importance to the Bible, the supposed message from God. Are you sure the Bible we have this very day contains the exact same messages that he gave Moses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PART 1:

 

Okay, Ladies and Gentlemen, its seems you guys didn't take my advice and end this thread before it began. You all have heard the saying "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it", right? Well, you guys are on a pretty good path of repeating something that already happened in the NADC. Some of you might remember, some of you won't. For those of you who have forgotten, let me just copy a little bit. If you want to see it for yourself, this is the link. http://forum.cn-nadc.com/index.php?showtopic=15488&st=125 (Yes, its on the old forums)

 

"QUOTE(TankKiller @ Nov 10 2008, 07:26 PM)

 

Arkantos, I think this is:

 

1. Not adding/relevant to the debate at hand.

2. Hugely insensitive. So much so it's borderline flamebaiting, in my opinion.

 

I believe you would not like it if you were in a loving relationship, a marriage, with a woman you care about, and someone came to you and said your relationship is worth less than the one he/she is in, and that you don't really care about each other, and if you do, you're less than him/her.

 

So, please, be considerate of the feelings of other members.

 

--------------END QUOTE---------------------------------------------------------

 

Oh tankkiller stop being such a liberal prick! I hate people that are more concerned about being "politically correct" than they are about their own hygiene! I say screw political correctness!"

 

I can't copy anyone because the next sentence was determined to be a breach of the ToS of the forums, under hate speech. Suffice it to say, it was bad. Very, very bad. And you guys are heading the same direction in this thread. Feelings get hurt, emotions are rattled, and before you know it, your posts are either moderated or completely suspended (the punishment for the poster I quoted above).

Now, if you guys think your fine and in the clear, then good for you. However, not everyone engaged in this debate has shown a great deal of restraint. I'm trying to do this as a friend, before what happened happens again. If you don't think you've made any inappropriate comments, let me give you a few examples.

 

 

 

 

Marriage is a legally binding contract thats it, so as far as saying who can and can't get married based on the "Defenition of marriage" as put forth by the church is a bunch of krap. The church has the right to refuse marriage to anybody "gay" or "straight", the government does not. Prop 8 was a crock of **** they don't teach marriage in schools at all, they certanly will not teach gay marriage.

 

 

I think its time for me to weigh in on a subject I happen to be most passionately against!

 

The issue of gay marriage is an insult to every single tradition we hold dear...marriage is one man and one woman, forever til death do they part. The Bible specifically condemns gay marriage, it doesn't mention gay marriage directly, however, and I shall quote:

 

"Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? (This shoots down the unscriptural Doctrine of Unconditional Eternal Security.) Be not deceived (presents the same words of our Lord, "let no man deceive you" [Mark 13:5]): neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind (the proof of true Christianity is the changed life), nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the Kingdom of God (refers to those who call themselves "Believers," but yet continue to practice the sins mentioned, whom the Holy Spirit says are not saved, irrespective of their claims)." -- 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

 

The effeminate means "men who behave as women"...hence gay marriage is morally, socially, and scientifically wrong. Morally wrong per the verse I quoted (there are more if you need further evidence). Socially wrong; just think back to high school when you found out someone was gay, what did you do to that person? I remember getting a group of friends and well let's just say we made it incredibly difficult for such a person. And finally, scientifically wrong, and this is for you Darwinists out there (also a preposterous theory...but let's save that for another thread), think of evolution and the whole 'survival of the fittest' theory; well to be 'fit' partly means that you have the capability to reproduce...can gays reproduce at all?? I think you find that gay marriage, when tested morally, socially, and scientifically, fails miserably all three.

 

In short, don't be gay xD!!!

 

 

Just because some book has it written on it, it doesn't mean it's absolutely right.

 

 

 

Oh? Well, guess what? I am Lailander, the son of God and Everything there Is, and I say that you are wrong. I wrote a Holy Book according to the Words and the Will of God, and there it says that gay marriage is legal and that is the Word of God.

 

Now I have as much authority as what you believe in. Oh yeah, believe in. Doesn't that mean that you believe in something, but not necessary everyone else?

So if I believed that it's right to hit people named Kirk with a bat, it would be right? According to you it would.

 

 

 

....I am somewhat glad to you that we're talking online. Otherwise, I think you'd be in that "incredibly difficult" position right now.

 

If I found out that someone was gay, I'd say "you be what you want". If I found out that someone was "making it incredibly difficult" for her/him because they just happen to be Christians...they'd get to see their precious "God" rather early.

 

What are you, thinking that because a book says it, you can do anything you want? Did Jesus say to hate those who are different than you? You seem to know the bible so well, you tell me. You sound nothing more than the other bullies who used to beat up the small kids. Actually, I think you are that bully.

 

Being gay is not socially wrong, being YOU is socially wrong.

 

 

 

 

Ah, now I know why you keep failing science at school (did you fail everything but religion, by the way?).

Something is not "scientifically" wrong if it can't reproduce. Or do you claim people that, let's say, can't reproduce for biological reasons are scientifically wrong? A guy that's "shooting blanks", for example, must not be right then.

 

I don't know what you were taught (but I'm positive that you were home-taught, there's no other explanation), but you can't just go around and twisting the words of science, or anything/anyone else.

 

 

 

 

You fail. It doesn't "fail" in any of them. Maybe if you looked up beyond your precious little "book", you might find some more reliable information.

Oh wait, you can't. You're afraid that you might find that some of your beliefs are wrong. Haha, sorry.

 

 

 

 

 

In short, don't be fundementalist-asshole-because bible said it-Christian xD!!

 

And, oh, this just a personal opinion, nothing related to anyone else, but I really mean it...

 

Please, die. You are not human. You're not even Christian. You are plain rotten. Die.

 

 

Blah Blah Blah, I could mention 100 quotes from the bible that are preposterous too, such as not eating shellfish because they are unclean. I'm not going to get into Christianity being a flawed religion from the beginning since nothing was written about Jesus until 120 years after his death. But nothing I say will sway your "faith" because I'm one of "them".

 

 

 

You know, I saw a gay guy in high school get shoved into a locker and get called a fag. I was on my feet before I even knew what I was doing and I slammed that ignorant A-hole's face into the locker so hard I broke his nose. I still remember the satisfying crunch and then listening to him cry like a little girl. It was the best 10 day suspension of my life. There's certain things that are and are not acceptable in life. Picking on those weaker than you is not acceptable. Whether the gay guy was effeminate or not really doesn't matter. It's his life and he can choose how to live it. America is the land of the free, is it not? Or does that only apply to white christians? Homosexuals tend to commit suicide at a rate that is so much higher than straight people that it is startling. They do it because of people like you who make their life harder because they're different. Do you think it's okay to make a Jew's life harder? How about a black person? Probably not. So why is it okay to make a gay person's life harder?

 

Next, on to your Darwinist rant. Why are you calling it a preposterous theory then using it as a defense? Can't have it both ways.

 

Then for your scientific evaluation. I can name quite a few species of mammals, reptiles, amphibians and insects who all engage in same sex relations. I can also name some species that don't even have defined sexes. So that throws your theory right out the window.

 

 

 

This is the dumbest part of all. Nobody WANTS to be gay. It's MUCH easier for people to be straight. Why would somebody consciously open themselves up to ridicule, humiliation, violence and nonacceptance? Then to top it all off, they have to fight to be accepted by their own government who taxes them yet does not represent them. Didn't America have a little Tea Party because of that a while ago?

 

 

 

Lailander, I love you. (In the gay way)

Yes, Kirk, you're incredibly lucky that this is online. Man. That post was so screwed up and dire that I'm speechless. I say that as a Christian. I say that as a human being. That was retarded.

 

Also, lol: "The Bible specifically condemns gay marriage, it doesn't mention gay marriage directly, however"

 

Nice going, Michael. That's the kind of thing a lot of us wish we were brave enough to do, or at least got a chance to do ;P

 

God's a real dick. I mean what kind of person whould take a kid, send him throughout his childhood to be confused, socially akward and picked on for no reason. Then when he finally has the courage to come out and find someone he loves, he can't marry them because God doesn't want him to spoil the -as you put it- definition of straight relationships (becuase they have such a crappy relationship that it depends on a title). God's such a douchebag.

 

This entire post is completely insulting and inappropriate. (PERSONAL NOTE: I'll be waiting for an apology and/or government intervention in his posting abilities.)

 

 

Those are some that I was able to pull out. Some are worse then others, but (I think) all the bolded sentences were inappropriate in some way or another. If you don't get why I bolded a certain post, feel free to ask her and I'll respond. I think that most are pretty obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PART 2

 

 

Above, I tried to be an neutral as possible in an attempt to rein in this thread before it got out of hand. Now, I'll leave my own personal comments which will reflect my personal opinion on this issue.

 

To be frank, I don't understand your reasoning whatsoever. I'm just glad an Atheist like me could get married to a prostitute whom I've only known for two hours and it would be okay; but two men who love each other is suddenly destroying your relationship.

 

Okay, this post just seemed like you pulled it out of thin air. an atheist marrying a prostitute? lolwut?

 

 

Nami, I've heard that argument before and I've even heard people go so far as to say that homosexuality will lead to the end of the human race. Your argument was well thought out but I still think it's absurd. No offense. First off, if I'm gay, I'm not going to be having children. I'm not going to get married to a woman just to have children. In my opinion, that would be a terrible thing to do to a woman. Lying to the mother of your children for years is really the sick part of this and sadly, it does happen all to often in our society. There are certain expectations of men and often those expectations lead people to lives that will only end in disaster. What is so wrong with letting people live the lives they were meant to live?

 

Kajy, you may not be Catholic but most religions base their stances on issues off of the Catholic religion. Your religion is no different.

 

Not wanting to share marriage with homosexuals sounds alot of like not wanting to share the same drinking fountain as black people. I also still fail to see how anybody else being married will affect you. I can't understand it. If your marriage is so weak that it can't withstand others being married, even those you consider unclean, it's most likely going to end just like 50% of all STRAIGHT marriages anyway. Have you ever seen some of the straight people getting married? *shivers* I don't see how two successful homosexuals having a beautiful and tasteful ceremony is worse than two fat people exchanging their vows at the mud bog and having a Budweiser toast at their reception. I really think that it's all about people getting a certain amount of joy from denying others rights that they are entitled.

 

For the Catholic bit, I assume you mean not other religions but different denominations of Christianity. Even if thats the case, I disagree. But, thats not a big deal so I'll move on.

Your last sentence is just plain weird. You obviously don't understand that we don't view gays as having the legal right to "marry". Civil Unions with the same rights is one thing that would probably work. However, changing the traditional sense of the word "marriage" is something we don't want, thats all.

 

 

 

But how can you claim to know what God believes? Because of a book? Now has it ever occurred to you that the Bible has been translated, transcribed and re-translated so many times that there may be very little of the original message left? You see how politicians act today. What do you think was stopping a king from saying to a Monk, "Hey Monk! I need to increase my kingdom's population. Can you throw something in there about no fornicating with men and how it is our duty to populate the world?"

 

Kajy, don't you think this world has enough people? What was the last world census? Like 8 billion people? Did you ever think that maybe homosexuality is nature's way of trying to control the population? Nature keeps everything in check with predators and/or scarcity of food. Man has to worry about neither of those things. Is it really so hard to believe that homosexuality is just a natural segment of the population?

 

You think nature makes guys like other guys? Could you explain to me how that would work?

 

Kajy, you're young so I'll be a little more patient with you.

 

First of all, don't even consider my age. Just don't.

 

I :wub: you Kajdav. (In a non-gay way)

 

 

Sorry for the long two posts everyone, but 3 pages is a lot to process. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Segregation was banned for a reason, the argument back then of giving blacks separate but "equal" does not work.

 

Same thing here, having homosexuals get "civil unions" instead of marriages are the same thing. You are treating them differently, which obviously is correct, since a good portion of the Christian community see homosexuality as a "sin" for whatever reason instead of focusing more on more important issues like the massacre in Darfur.

 

For me, who cares what people do in their bedrooms as long as its between two consenting adults? Does it physically or financially hurt me or anyone else? No. Then great, the fact it's a "bad thing" is no more arbitrary than why Jews don't eat pork.

 

When you get to the bottom of it, it's never an issue of the semantics between civil unions/marriage. It's a way of lowering the status of homosexuals.

 

You think nature makes guys like other guys? Could you explain to me how that would work?

Can you explain the exact scientific mechanics behind why most men are attracted to women? Of course, you can't. But you can draw a broader picture by looking at other things, there are tons of mutations everywhere for humans that make them less normal, Asberegers(?) syndrome, physical mutation from down syndrome, etc. Why would it be hard for you to believe that such a small thing such as sexual orientation be mutated to be different? Especially since the consensus of doctors is that homosexuality is not an acquired trait.

 

And again, why would people choose to be gay when there are obvious social repercussions for doing so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand behind my words.

 

I am not ashamed that I insulted Kirk. I feel as though he needs some insulting.

 

And, I am certainly not ashamed of this:

 

Maybe if you looked up beyond your precious little "book", you might find some more reliable information.

Oh wait, you can't. You're afraid that you might find that some of your beliefs are wrong. Haha, sorry.

 

While I respect religions beliefs and I don't hate people because they believe in God or whatever, I do NOT consider Bible or any other "holy" book a book from where you can draw moral guides and laws and such, and then try to force them on others. You can live by them, but you can't do ANYTHING about anyone else not doing the same.

As long as you are allowed to be yourself, you have no right to touch others. And no, you can't complain if a gay couple makes out in front of you (just an example that goes with the topic of the discussion). You can still be yourself even if something like that happens.

 

 

I apologize if any, like Kochers, who I have nothing against, got hurt because of something I say, but I will not stand by when someone practices discrimination and racism just because it reads on a BOOK, no matter how holy it is.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our job is to love everyone, no matter how they act.

 

Wait, did am I getting this correctly? Our job is to love everyone, no matter how they act?

 

That statement contradicts your whole argument!

 

I personally don't want to get into the debate, except that I believe there is NOTHING wrong with being gay and that they should be allowed to marry.

 

That is all.

 

Cheerio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×