Gay and Lesbian Marriage

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2005-03-24 08:08am

Axis has stated that he completely supports gay marriage. He's actually quite socially liberal.

I don't think Shep has ever made a statement. I don't know if he cares. His entire spectrum of political thought is based upon The Bomb, and the fury of the atom doesn't care if you're gay or straight.

I'm betting jegs2 voted No (and will, of course, refuse to defend his ideals in a stand-up debate. Must be learning from the Rapture Ready folk). I don't know who else.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2005-03-24 08:23am

[quote="HemlockGrey"]
I don't think Shep has ever made a statement. I don't know if he cares. His entire spectrum of political thought is based upon The Bomb, and the fury of the atom doesn't care if you're gay or straight.
[quote]

fuq!

Vicious · Post by **Vicious** » 2005-03-24 01:49pm

Wicked Pilot wrote: Gay marriage is like fixing a peanut butter and jelly sandwich with only peanut butter on both sides or only jelly on both sides. Traditionally peanut butter and jelly sandwiches featured both peanut butter and jelly, and most people still fix theirs in that way, but there is nothing inherently wrong with just peanut butter or just jelly. It's still a sandwich after all is it not? I tell you what; I'll fix my sandwiches my way, you put whatever the hell you want on yours, and that will be that. If you respect my choice in sandwiches I will return the favor by not trying to shove them down your throat. After all I'm hungry damnit, someone pass the milk.

Fuckin' A! Shame it's too long for a sig.

As to the issue, I'm not opposed to gay marriage at all. I know many gays, and they are wonderful people. They know I'm straight, and they respect that, just as I respect their lifestyle.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2005-03-24 02:48pm

They know I'm straight, and they respect that, just as I respect their lifestyle

Nitpick. It sounds better to say orientation.

Tommy J · Post by **Tommy J** » 2005-03-24 03:21pm

Justforfun000 wrote:
They know I'm straight, and they respect that, just as I respect their lifestyle
Nitpick. It sounds better to say orientation.

Justforfun, I'm even getting tired of that. When's the last time you heard, my friend so and so and his 'straight orientation.'

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2005-03-24 03:46pm

You don't describe things as a "straight" lifestyle. Neither does it make sense to apply it to homosexuality. If you are referring to someone being gay, then you are discussing their orientation. Their INDIVIDUAL way of living is their lifestyle.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2005-03-24 03:56pm

I just wrote a long rebuttal letter to a Bishop Fred Henry that writes editorials. He just had one in the Calgary paper. This is the link:

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnist ... 14390.html

I got so incensed I sent an email to him. I don't know if it will actually reach him, but at least I made the effort.

I'd appreciate you forwarding this to the author of this editorial

Contrary to what is normally alleged, the primary goals in seeking legalization of same-sex "marriage" are not financial or health benefits associated with marriage; nor are the goals the search for stability and exclusivity in a homosexual relationship.
The principal objective in seeking same-sex "marriage" is not really even about rights. The goal is to acquire a powerful psychological weapon to change society's rejection of homosexual activity and lifestyle into gradual, even if reluctant, acceptance.

This is pure opinion. It is about rights because there is no good REASON, and note I'm stressing that word, NOT "belief", that marriage should be restricted to man and woman as a CIVIL union.

The majority of Canadians understand marriage to be the union of a man and a woman, faithful in love and open to the gift of life.

The majority of the people in the United States a century ago understood that segregation was a "natural" thing that kept their race to their race, and whites to their own. What's your point? Traditional majority opinion has nothing to do with what is right or wrong. They are determined by sensible evaluation.

Marriage and the family are the foundations of society, through which children are brought into this world and nurtured as they grow to adulthood.

Sure family is the foundation of society. But just because a family is different from the typical one man = one woman = children, does not in itself make it wrong or immoral. Neither does it threaten the continued majority of people that will still have typical families. This is a scare tactic that is designed to give the impression that allowing alternative forms of family will destroy the prime example. This is ridiculous and unproven.

Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the State must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of the common good.

Bull! There is no proof that homosexuality "undermines" the family. When you are BORN homosexual, you are PART of the family. This is a play on words to make it sound like homosexuals are coming OUT of the normal mold and intruding on the "only" proper mold. It's deceptive and insulting to suggest such a thing. The other three examples have no similarities to them whatsoever. This is a completely false analogy. The "common good" is determined by compassion, sensitivity, and common sense. Not arbitrary morality judgements based on nothing more than scattered quotes from a 2000 year old mish-mash of contradictory proclamations.

While the privacy of the home is undoubtedly sacred, it is not absolute. Furthermore, an evil act remains an evil act whether it is performed in public or private.

And your judgement of "evil" is unfounded by anything other than your unsupported beliefs that no one has any right to hold up as truth since you cannot demonstrate it as such.

These do not depend on the will or sexual orientation of the contracting parties. They are rooted in natural law and do not change.

When it comes to man-made conventions like marriage, there is no "natural law" involved. This AGAIN is belief. You can choose to believe this and perform under this belief according to your established faiths in places like a church where people are DELIBERATELY getting married under a religious viewpoint. It does not apply to civil marriage. When a Hindu couple gets married under Canadian law, they are not doing so based on a Christian viewpoint. I don't see people picketing these marriages. This is hypocritical in the extreme.

The committed union of two people of the same sex is not the same human reality as the committed union of one man and one woman.

Reality? Who gives you the authority to define "reality"? If people get civilly married as two same sex partners and it's recognized by the government and society as the same basic contract with legality as a man and woman, then it IS reality. The problem is not reality, it's what you BELIEVE is reality in your own mind.

A same-sex union is not a physical union that transmits human life, producing children. A same-sex union is not the joining of two complementary natures that complete each other.

No it does not produce children in the conventional sense. Neither do men and women joining together when one or both is infertile. Neither are two seniors who are no longer capable of procreation. Since these cases are not being condemned, you are LYING to suggest that this is the only justification for being allowed to marry. It’s nothing more than a cop-out designed to highlight the very FEW differences that naturally differentiate between opposite sex marriage and same-sex. So what? Marriage is a union of two people wishing to be partnered in love for life (ideally). Children are a secondary consideration. To say otherwise is to invalidate the other two examples I gave above. You cannot deny this and not expose yourself as a hypocrite.

Simply stated, a same sex union is not marriage. The idea that homosexuals can create same-sex "marriage" through their individual choice is false. All the packaging in the world doesn't alter substance.

Simply stated according to YOUR beliefs. Unless you can prove your beliefs are more important than anybody else's, then you have no argument.

Some would allege that opposing same-sex "marriage" is pure prejudice.

This contention is also false. There are human rights laws, which say: Men and women must be paid the same wage for the same work; an employer may not refuse to hire someone because of skin colour; landlords may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

These decisions uphold the rights of the individual and, at the same time, strengthen Canadian society. They encourage us to recognize the humanity of the other person.
And religion fought every single one of these issues in the past, and is CONTINUING to fight the sexual orientation protection. Do a quick search of the news and you'll find a US state that is even NOW trying to prevent sexual orientation from being protected as a category regarding employment and housing.
Conveniently the religious right now accepts the changes to the other examples after many years and the sky hasn't fallen. They pretend they were never the ones trying to halt such rights in the first place.
Until you open your eyes beyond your Bible, you won't see clearly enough to recognize the totality of prejudice and the fact that you are being just as guilty in regards to this issue as the other examples you gave.

Furthermore, a man and a woman wanting to marry may be completely different in their characteristics such as: Colour, ethnicity, in wealth and social status, physical attributes, and educational background.

None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage.
They sure were before. The quote in the Bible about being "unequally yoked" is STILL used by extreme religious bigots against the "inter-marriage" of races. I personally know a friend that went through this with a girl's Mennonite family not accepting him because he is Asian.

The two individuals are still a man and a woman, and the requirements of nature are respected.

The requirements of what you BELIEVE is nature you mean. Nature is a poor argument for "respect". Anyone who knows anything about the natural order of things would have a hard time thinking natural is "moral" in terms of our human idea. It's a very uncaring, brutal, and extremely randomized hodgepodge of pleasant and unpleasant circumstances. Oh, but you're not really talking about REAL nature are you, you are referring to what you BELIEVE nature is according to religion. Very telling that is.

Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Again you fall back on the "procreation or bust" argument. It's no stronger the second time around.

The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to same-sex couples is not discrimination.

And what, pray tell, would you define it as?

Final word: A man I respect greatly said something that sums up the mentality of people on the religious side of things when it comes to things that compromise their beliefs:
" You have to realize that most Christian "moral values" behaviour is not really about "protecting" anyone; it's about their desire to send a continual stream of messages of condemnation towards people whose existence offends them. "
Kendall Partington

]

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-03-24 05:30pm

The word "discrimination" is sort of like "racism". Even if someone meets the textbook definition of it, they are rarely honest enough to admit it. There are cases where discrimination is perfectly reasonable (for example, disabled people would make poor firefighters). But the "D" word has taken on such a negative connotation that people are reluctant to admit they're advocating it even when they are in fact standing on the hilltop and stridently demanding it. Add to that the fact that gender discrimination (and by extension, gender preference discrimination) is outlawed in most civil-rights codes, and you have a situation where DoubleTalk must (as usual with right-wingnuts) rule supreme.

Vicious · Post by **Vicious** » 2005-03-24 06:30pm

Justforfun000 wrote:
Vicious wrote: They know I'm straight, and they respect that, just as I respect their lifestyle.

Nitpick. It sounds better to say orientation.

*shrug* Orientation works for me. Never really thought about it, is all.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-03-24 06:42pm

Vicious wrote:
Justforfun000 wrote:
Vicious wrote: They know I'm straight, and they respect that, just as I respect their lifestyle.

Nitpick. It sounds better to say orientation.
*shrug* Orientation works for me. Never really thought about it, is all.

lifestyle tends to imply more that sexual preference is a legitimate choice, as opposed to being simply innate.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2005-03-24 07:08pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:The government conservatives (Shep, Axis Kast) generally keep their opinions to themselves on gay marriage. To my knowledge they have never made any statements either way on it.

I thought Shep was gay.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-03-24 08:10pm

personally, i question how you can do a thesis on such a thing. i mean come on, there IS no argument that gays will ruin america beyond, "the bible says so." it all stems from that. most theses are more than 130 pages in length (though its supposed to be quality, not quantity). there simply isn't that much you can say.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2005-03-24 08:22pm

Uraniun235 wrote:
Cpl Kendall wrote:The government conservatives (Shep, Axis Kast) generally keep their opinions to themselves on gay marriage. To my knowledge they have never made any statements either way on it.
I thought Shep was gay.

course, you can be gay and opposed to gay marriage. its just rare.

Firefox · Post by **Firefox** » 2005-03-24 08:24pm

It's true. A Kansas state congresswoman (damned if I can remember the name) opposed women's suffrage. Don't ask me to explain her argument, however.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-03-24 08:33pm

dude, that's like an African-American wearing the confederate flag

Assassin X · Post by **Assassin X** » 2005-03-24 09:09pm

Yes im a chrisitan and believe it or not even though chrisitans are all bible thumpy about "No gay marrige" crap, i myself say let them be married. We all gotta live together on this sh*t-hole planet and you know what i dont have any problems with gays people or lesbians! I have a friend thats gay and i have two lesbian friends(no dont even ask the questions)

.

Pint0 Xtreme · Post by **Pint0 Xtreme** » 2005-03-25 08:07am

Contrary to what is normally alleged, the primary goals in seeking legalization of same-sex "marriage" are not financial or health benefits associated with marriage; nor are the goals the search for stability and exclusivity in a homosexual relationship.
The principal objective in seeking same-sex "marriage" is not really even about rights. The goal is to acquire a powerful psychological weapon to change society's rejection of homosexual activity and lifestyle into gradual, even if reluctant, acceptance.

You know, JustforFun00, it sure would be nice for society accept homosexuality since there really isn't a rational justification for stigmatizing it in the first place.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2005-03-25 11:41am

You know, JustforFun00, it sure would be nice for society accept homosexuality since there really isn't a rational justification for stigmatizing it in the first place.

Of course.

You do know that was me quoting someone don't you?

Pint0 Xtreme · Post by **Pint0 Xtreme** » 2005-03-25 03:21pm

Justforfun000 wrote:
You know, JustforFun00, it sure would be nice for society accept homosexuality since there really isn't a rational justification for stigmatizing it in the first place.
Of course.

You do know that was me quoting someone don't you?

Of course

UCBooties · Post by **UCBooties** » 2005-03-25 04:06pm

Hmm, I aprove of Gay marriage, and would like to comment on Darth Wong's statement about libertarienism. What you said is true regarding the pure libertarien ideal, but that's not how most people who identify as libertariens (at least in the Northeast of the Unites States) think of it. It has more to do with being socialy liberal, so we can't be republicans, but being fiscaly conservatives, so we can't be democrats (or, at the moment, republicans). Most of us are realy lamenting the old republican ideal, but since there's so little chance of saving that, libertarien is the closest identifier we have. My identifying as a libertarien means I oppose government heavyhandedness, and abhor any atempt by the government to restrict individual rights, but I don't go so far as to say we should abolish all government spending and wellfare programs.

I like the old catchphrase for libertarienism:

"Keep out of my bedroom and out of my wallet."

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2005-03-25 04:37pm

Firefox wrote:It's true. A Kansas state congresswoman (damned if I can remember the name) opposed women's suffrage. Don't ask me to explain her argument, however.

It's certainly not unheard of. Christian fundamentalists raise their little girls to think that they are sinful, evil creatures who are responsible for the damnation of all mankind. If your parents have told you since birth that your gender is responsible for all the suffering in the world that's ever happened, you learn to hate yourself.

Same deal with gay Christians who think they can be "healed" through prayer. Christians are very good at indoctrinating the notion of self-hatred into their followers. Look at the Catholic communion ritual. The congregation chants, "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you ..." The priest mentions that everyone is a sinner at least five times throughout the course of the ceremony. Even during what are supposed to be celebrations -- like weddings, first communions, confirmations -- the priests and bishops always find time to remind the congregation that they are dirty and sinful people. What's the first thing little Christian babies go through? Baptism! That's right. That innocent-looking little child right there is actually a dirty, guilty, unclean mongrel who needs men in funny collars to dunk him in water to be "forgiven" of the sins of imaginary people from a storybook fable.

It's truly a hideous religion.

Crossroads Inc. · Post by **Crossroads Inc.** » 2005-03-26 01:07pm

Wow, just found the thread, slowly reading my way though the psts, but have to say, to see that 112 yes votes vs the 6 or so no votes, well, it just warms my heart

Funny how StarWars, home of the evil Dictatorial Fascist Empire, harbours the more Liberal and accepting fans; While StartTrek,, the Utopian, peaceful live and let live show, seems to be home Creationists and Kooks

Oh yes, and as a Catholic myself, I can personally attest to the Christian lifestyle reminding you every two seconds that you’re a bad, horrible person and you should spend your whole life, not actually working to make the world a better place, but just asking for forgiveness.

aten_vs_ra · Post by **aten_vs_ra** » 2005-03-26 02:39pm

I have absolutely no problem with gay marriage. There is only one problem I can think of, but it is a doozy.

How is it going to change the wedding industry?

Will we have two bachelor parties? Will the gay man's straight friends get male strippers. What about the opposite sex attending?

What are we gonna say instead of, "Now you may kiss the bride."

This are the only problems I can think of actually.

Mr. T · Post by **Mr. T** » 2005-03-26 03:49pm

I fully support same-sex marriage. Its incredibly discriminatory and just plain stupid to limit marriage to only heterosexuals when it is against the law to discriminate based on sexual orientation. All the arguments against gay marriage are all based on laughable slippery slope fallacies and can be easily refuted.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2005-03-26 06:07pm

Mr. T wrote:I fully support same-sex marriage. Its incredibly discriminatory and just plain stupid to limit marriage to only heterosexuals when it is against the law to discriminate based on sexual orientation. All the arguments against gay marriage are all based on laughable slippery slope fallacies and can be easily refuted.

It's actually not against the law to discriminate based on sexual orientation most everywhere in the US, but it is if it's based on gender, and anyone who says that gender is not an issue in Same Sex marriage is too idiotic to be comprehended.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Gay and Lesbian Marriage

Gay Marriage?