Boba Fett Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 [center][img] http://jedgarnieta.250free.com/NoGay.gif[/img][/center] [quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet']There's been some talk about the moralityof allowing same sex couples to marry. I'll probably sound either stupid or redundant but how can allowing two people who are in love be considered imoral? Explain that.[/color][/quote] [color=green]When they?re in the same family or are of inappropriate ages (10 year old girl and a fifty year old man), I consider those pairings immoral and disgusting to boot.[/color] [quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet']As TN has been saying, this idea has nothing to do with religion and I agree with him on it. What it has to do is with allowing people the right to marriage-the ability to enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples. The right to see their partner in ICU and to adopt children. Basic human rights which are given to most couples.[/color][/quote] [color=green]Did anyone ever say it was about religion? No. We?re talking about government and gay marriage. If someone brings religion into this discussion, then that?s his or her prerogative. However, their points will be moot due to separation of church and state.[/color] [quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet'] I can argue logically and legitamately on this topic. My husband had a much more stable home life when he lived with his auint and her partner than when he lived with his mother and her string of live-in boyfriends. So I fail to see how two men or two woman could fail in their attempt to offer a child a stable loving home.[/color][/quote] [color=green]Stay on topic, stay on topic! *Crashes into Death Star* Gay Marriage is the issue, not gay adoption.[/color] [quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet']I was watching World News Tonight a few minutes ago and one of the legislator's from California says that in the long run this could be detrimental to the complete legalization of same sex marriages. This legislator is gay. I'm curious to see what other people think about this man's opinion. Do you feel that one person's opposition to a state's ruling could help or hurt people in the long run?[/color][/quote] [color=green]The mayor of San Francisco is breaking the law and committing a felony by allowing gays to marry. This gives Gay Marriage a bad name and an added air of illegitimacy. It could definitely hurt in the long run.[/color] [quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet']I'm all for democracy, but I can't see how a country that denies a group of people the basic right of marriage can be considered a democracy. If there was a law baring people from different religions or different ethnic backgrounds from marrying people would be all over the place to take down that law. How is homosexual marriage any different? (Try to stay away from bringing up incest, that isn't the same thing at all) Even if you don't want to give them a right to marry, atleast give them a civil union-or even a right to common law marriage (if that's anywhere close to the same thing. IF I got that wrong let me know.)[/color][/quote] [color=green]You got it wrong. America isn?t a democracy; it?s a republic. In a republic, the majority can, if it is a sufficiently large majority, make decisions that may seem unfair to minorities. It can also make decisions unfair to the majority. You bring up a good point about denial of rights to Gays. I feel that Gay people, as gay people, should not be allowed to marry. Marriage, in my opinion, is between a man and a woman. I?ve explained why I feel this way twice already. Gay people can still have all the rights of married people (Hospital visitation, Adoption, etc.), but they shouldn?t be allowed to marry.[/color] [QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet]As for marriage being a sacred thing. Throughout history it hasn't been very sacred at all. People were married off like property to secure land or dimplomatic ties. Besides that fact, many of the european monarchs had mistresses, only sleeping with their legal spouses to produce legitamate children. Infact, King James I of England as well as a few of the French kings were homosexuals. [/color][/QUOTE] [color=green]Marriage is supposed to be sacred. In the modern era, marriage has been about love between a man and a woman. Sure, there have been and will always be arranged marriages that serve as political bridges, etc. These are a thing of the past now, in most parts of the world. European royalty is irrelevant. Just because several kings had affairs and others were homosexuals doesn?t have bearing regarding this conversation.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godelsensei Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 [COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2][FONT=Courier New]Boba: I don't mean to sound stuck up, but I'm not American. I would not want to be part of any America that supported denying a certain group of people their rights as human beings to openly love some one through both emotional openness and law. I'm sure that there are many people, already Americans, who share my views. I am not attacking your country, or your values, mind you. Another thing, whoever said that it was our duty as a species to reproduce...well, think about it: there will be a population explosion in approximately ten years, according to data projections. We've reached the 6 billion mark and are steadily growing. More and more children are being born, and so many of them are neither wanted nor expected. I think that samesex couples, unable to have children of their own, are actually a plus for a country in the fact that if they chose to have children, it would provide homes for all those kids waiting out there for adoption. We are not in the same situation as Nausicaa and Asbel: we are not desperate for population growth. But, I do think it is our duty, as humans who have progressed so far by means of intuition, to assure that, as far as each individual can help, every one is treated as fairly as possible. Providing two people who love each other with rights--regardless of their gender, race etc...--is not going to shatter the bedrock of society. What is going to shatter that bedrock is humanities failure to learn that we are all born into this worn wet, naked and helpless. It's other people's accepting or rejecting us that makes us who we are. I don't want to see this turn into a flaming war, as some one put it previously. This is not an assult on any one's ideals or beliefs etc..., and, quite frankly, nothing should be.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrist cutter Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 [quote name='Boba Fett']Marriage is supposed to be sacred.[/quote] Yes. It's supposed to be. But the fact is, it isn't. Remember that whole Britney Spears thing awhile back? She got married ON A DARE. She was probably drunk at the time and so was her husband. There's no sanctity in that. Then they got divorced the next day or something. As I recall the marriage vows including something along the lines of taking each other in sickness and health yadda yadda FOREVER. The whole fact we allow divorce pretty much blows that vow out the window. Let's face it - marriage isn't in a beautiful state right now, gays or no gays. It's still possible to have a "sacred" marriage, I'm sure they happen every so often. But the whole idea has become so bastardized that I really can't see how allowing gays to get married as well is going to make it any less sacred than it currently is. Whether gays are ever allowed to marry or not, marriage is no longer a sacred thing. Unless you're going to protest rednecks and drunks and a whole gaggle of other people getting married, there's very little reason to oppose gays in this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godelsensei Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 [QUOTE=wrist cutter]Yes. It's supposed to be. But the fact is, it isn't. Remember that whole Britney Spears thing awhile back? She got married ON A DARE. She was probably drunk at the time and so was her husband. There's no sanctity in that. Then they got divorced the next day or something. As I recall the marriage vows including something along the lines of taking each other in sickness and health yadda yadda FOREVER. The whole fact we allow divorce pretty much blows that vow out the window. Let's face it - marriage isn't in a beautiful state right now, gays or no gays. It's still possible to have a "sacred" marriage, I'm sure they happen every so often. But the whole idea has become so bastardized that I really can't see how allowing gays to get married as well is going to make it any less sacred than it currently is. Whether gays are ever allowed to marry or not, marriage is no longer a sacred thing. Unless you're going to protest rednecks and drunks and a whole gaggle of other people getting married, there's very little reason to oppose gays in this situation.[/QUOTE] [COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New] [SIZE=2]*clap clap* Well, somebody's earned my respect.[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR] [color=darkred] Sentiments aside, please avoid spam. ~Drix [/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boba Fett Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 [quote name='Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2][FONT=Courier New]Boba: I don't mean to sound stuck up, but I'm not American. I would not want to be part of any America that supported denying a certain group of people their rights as human beings to openly love some one through both emotional openness and law. I'm sure that there are many people, already Americans, who share my views. I am not attacking your country, or your values, mind you.[/FONT][/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote] [color=green]I would love to be part of an America that has banned Gay Marriage. Gay people, who fall in love can live together, adopt children and live their lives how they choose. I?m fine with that. Gay?s who are open about their emotions and their relationships with other homosexuals are fine by me. Legalizing this relationship under the banner of Marriage or Civil Union is not. Marriage has been between a man and a woman for over two millennia now. It?s responsible for the moral society. This kind of stable relationship is at the very core of our society. Legalizing Gay Marriage will blur both the definition and the sanctity of marriage. The meaning of this bond will be greatly diminished. I once again ask you to look at the Netherlands as an example of an experiment in Gay Marriage gone wrong. That country now has one of the world?s largest numbers of children born out of wedlock. Social problems run rampant and children are hurt by their dysfunctional families (I?m not saying Gays are bad parents here, I?m saying that the state of social degradation that exists there is hurting children born out of wedlock). There are indeed many people who share your views Godelsensei. Unfortunately for proponents of Gay Marriage, they?re in the minority. In one of my pervious posts I linked to a poll that showed that 56% of Americans oppose Gay Marriage and only 30% support it. That?s almost a two to one difference in opinion. Even if every undecided voter became a supporter of Gay Marriage, that side would still be in the minority. Due to this, most savvy politicians will not support Gay Marriage. They may not attempt to outlaw it, for fear of upsetting supporters of Gay Marriage, but they will not support it either. I don?t see this issue going anywhere fast.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drix D'Zanth Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 [quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet']There's been some talk about the moralityof allowing same sex couples to marry. I'll probably sound either stupid or redundant but how can allowing two people who are in love be considered imoral? Explain that. [/color][/quote] Well, you are being fairly redundant. What does love have to do with it in the first place? Lets say I loved my mother so much that I killed her.. I felt nothing but love for her and I killed her. Perhaps it?s possible, allow the point to sink in though. The action that?s taking place is immoral because of my common sense, biological logic, and spiritual morals. I don?t mind if homosexuals have a relationship, when someone bring it into a citizen-run government, one asks for my opinion and vote. [QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet] As TN has been saying, this idea has nothing to do with religion and I agree with him on it. What it has to do is with allowing people the right to marriage-the ability to enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples. The right to see their partner in ICU and to adopt children. Basic human rights which are given to most couples. [/color][/QUOTE] As I?ve said before? if you are asking why this is immoral, religion is taken into perspective. Religion is important, it?s this Judeo/Christian philosophy from which I believe we derive our rights! How can you expect someone to vote on anything without thinking if it will benefit or detriment society?? How can you disregard religion at all? "Basic human rights" (it seems that term is used loosely, as now we have some god-given right to visit people in the ICU) can most commonly be secured quickly through power of attorney. As for adoption, well, that?s a whole other issue? [quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet']. Do you feel that one person's opposition to a state's ruling could help or hurt people in the long run? [/color][/quote] Who exactly would be the "people" that are helped/hurt? Elaborate a bit more, please. [QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet]. I'm all for democracy, but I can't see how a country that denies a group of people the basic right of marriage can be considered a democracy. If there was a law baring people from different religions or different ethnic backgrounds from marrying people would be all over the place to take down that law. How is homosexual marriage any different? Even if you don't want to give them a right to marry, atleast give them a civil union-or even a right to common law marriage (if that's anywhere close to the same thing. IF I got that wrong let me know.) [/color][/QUOTE] Because you are changing the definition of marriage.. or opposing it?s current definition. Denying the right is a pretty scewed way of saying it. That?s like me trying to change the definition of "menopause" to include men! You are changing the dynamics of the word completely, in that sense. There?s your opposition, at a basic form. In this argument I see civil union as being debated here. Marriage refers to the religious act. In essence, asking for homosexual marriage destroys the concept completely, or, reverts it to nothing more than a "civil union". The state cannot oppose religion or ethnicity, so why would it bar marriage in that circumstance? [QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet]. (Try to stay away from bringing up incest, that isn't the same thing at all) [/color][/QUOTE] Why? Because you cannot legitimately say it is wrong and support homosexuality? Sure they aren?t the same thing, but they are definitely analogous. [QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet]. As for marriage being a sacred thing. Throughout history it hasn't been very sacred at all. People were married off like property to secure land or dimplomatic ties. Besides that fact, many of the european monarchs had mistresses, only sleeping with their legal spouses to produce legitamate children. Infact, King James I of England as well as a few of the French kings were homosexuals. [/color][/QUOTE] ?. European royalty? You are opposing the sanctity of a present-day holy matrimony by citing medieval history? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boba Fett Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 [quote name='wrist cutter']But the fact is, it isn't. Remember that whole Britney Spears thing awhile back? She got married ON A DARE. She was probably drunk at the time and so was her husband. There's no sanctity in that. Then they got divorced the next day or something.[/quote] [color=green]This is the exception, not the rule. The actions of stupid young female pop stars should have no bearing on a debate regarding Gay Marriage. You?re absolutely right, there is no sanctity whatsoever in Ms. Spears brief union with some random guy. [/color] [quote name='wrist cutter']As I recall the marriage vows including something along the lines of taking each other in sickness and health yadda yadda FOREVER. The whole fact we allow divorce pretty much blows that vow out the window. Let's face it - marriage isn't in a beautiful state right now, gays or no gays.[/quote] [color=green] This all the more reason not to further endanger and blur the definition of marriage by legalizing Gay Marriage. It?d add more fuel to the fire?[/color] [quote name='wrist cutter']It's still possible to have a "sacred" marriage, I'm sure they happen every so often. But the whole idea has become so bastardized that I really can't see how allowing gays to get married as well is going to make it any less sacred than it currently is. Whether gays are ever allowed to marry or not, marriage is no longer a sacred thing. Unless you're going to protest rednecks and drunks and a whole gaggle of other people getting married, there's very little reason to oppose gays in this situation.[/quote] [color=green]Sacred Marriage is still the norm in America. Only [URL=http://www.cfc-efc.ca/docs/vanif/00005_en.htm]44%[/URL] of marriages end in divorce. This percentage is far too high, but marriage is still the norm. I oppose any marriages between any two people who aren?t completely committed and devoted to each other. Gay Marriage would obscure the true definition of marriage and fudge it?s meaning, beginning a chain reaction that ends with a morally bankrupt society.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drix D'Zanth Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 I also see this issue is starting to travel in circles. I think the opinions of both sides have been represented to about their limit. I've seen this debate 3 times within the last few months. By all means search the others. The last two times ended with a liberal end-note. I guess I'll let boba's post end this one off. A good debate, interesting opinions. May there be no bad blood between the parties. ^_^ This has been milked for all it's worth. Thread closed. Edit: Chibi, I deleted your message, as it was redunat and driving the thread in circles, which is the reason I've closed it. Please feel free to forward your debate through PM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts