Same-Sex Marriage: Yea or Nay? And Explain!

[The Tofu Islands]

I thought evolution was a theory, not a fact, because a fact is an 'objective and verifiable observation' and a theory interprets disparate facts to form a cohesive explanation.

Evolution is the explanation and the fossil record is a fact. It's possible for there to be more than one scientific theory of the same facts. I happen to believe the evolution one is correct.

Evolution is a fact. It’s been observed and verified.

The theory of evolution (actually there are several, but the one usually referred to is the theory of evolution through natural selection) is an explanation for the observed phenomenon, and also of things like the fossil record.

So it’s both.

[Muravyets]

Okay, I have to address this. I know Evolution isn't an opinion, I in fact said so: "Evolution sounds ridiculous, yet it is true"
Also, according to you, the opinion of homosexuals matters to no one but them, and so do yours, so since no-one's opinions on this topic matter, why are we debating?

In another post, you asked people who support marriage equality for gays to say why. You were answered by several posters, including me. You apparently ignored every single answer. That being the case, I refuse to repeat it for you, but it is the answer to your question of why we are debating. Read the damned thread if you want to know that. You won't have to read back far. Someone quoted my answer to you just a page or so ago.

[Albaron]

Okay, I have to address this. I know Evolution isn't an opinion, I in fact said so: "Evolution sounds ridiculous, yet it is true"
Also, according to you, the opinion of homosexuals matters to no one but them, and so do yours, so since no-one's opinions on this topic matter, why are we debating?

In another post, you asked people who support marriage equality for gays to say why. You were answered by several posters, including me. You apparently ignored every single answer. That being the case, I refuse to repeat it for you, but it is the answer to your question of why we are debating. Read the damned thread if you want to know that. You won't have to read back far. Someone quoted my answer to you just a page or so ago.

I have read them. I have bad short term memory, maybe. I was being abstract when asking why we were debating.

[Muravyets]

Nay Marriage is an religious institution as old as human history, if nations believe in the separation of church and state then this discussion is mute....gay activists have a better chance fighting for the right to civil unions.....and have it worded that way on the ballot.....people see the words "gay marriage" and they flip out....also its a matter of tradition

Marriage is not a religious institution. For the vast bulk of human history, it has been 100% a civil institution, either regulated by the state or by common law or community tradition. Religion had and still has virtually nothing to do with marriage except as a magic formula for bringing good luck from a god or gods to the married couple.

[Goath]

This whole debate reinforces for me the fact we, as people, haven't learned from the mistakes of our forefathers.

Not one of the arguments used by the anti-gay side of the question are new- all of them (including the religious ones and the slippery slope ones) were used by the anti-interracial marriage folk in the United States in the first half of the 20th Century. Those arguments were all obviously legally unsupportable because interracial marriage was legalized. Now, it's just another group fighting for the same rights as everyone else and they have to go through the same hoops and ladders.

Oh well. Eventually the courts will force the bigots to deal with gay marriage. Until then...

[Muravyets]

If you think this is a "strong argument," I think you badly need to be exposed to people who aren't in the "cognitively-challenged underclass," as he puts it. I mean, seriously? "Marriage has to be limited to heterosexual people because stupid people need something to aspire to"? The fuck?

Let's not even mention the leap from redefining to encompass a class of consenting persons to somehow slope into allowing the marriage to farm-animals and children.... Just the FACT that someone posits that automatically nullifies their entire argument.... Course, I'm not totally certain that the class of individuals actually realize how absurd they are...

Think a minute: If we legalize gay-marriage, and it ebcoems acceptable, people who want to marry their dogs will use the same arguments we use now: "You let interracial marriages happen, why not gay marriages."
"You let gays marry, why not me and Mr. Wuffles"

Rick Santorum -- is that you! Keep your freak-porn fantasies to yourself, okay?

What?

Oh, that's right -- you're not an American, which explains why you know jack-shit about an American legal issue you insist on arguing for hours and hours on end. Allow me to introduce you to the real-life poster-child for the "gay marriage will lead to animal marriage" slippery bullshit slope argument: Former US Senator Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum.

[Dempublicents1]

Nay Marriage is an religious institution as old as human history, if nations believe in the separation of church and state then this discussion is mute

The word is "moot". But you are right about the last part. If nations believe in the separation of church and state then this discussion is moot, as religion would not dictate the rules of civil marriage and equal protection under the law would require said nations to recognize same-sex marriage just as they recognize opposite-sex marriage.

....gay activists have a better chance fighting for the right to civil unions.

Sort of like how black people had a better chance fighting for separate water fountains and schools, but it didn't make that separation a good idea.

...and have it worded that way on the ballot.....people see the words "gay marriage" and they flip out

So people are idiots and bigots, therefore we should deny equal treatment under the law to certain groups?

....also its a matter of tradition

The definition of marriage has been changing with society as long as the concept has existed. At one time, it was basically a way for a man to buy a woman from her father. Should we go back to that?

[Cecilia Penifader]

I thought evolution was a theory, not a fact, because a fact is an 'objective and verifiable observation' and a theory interprets disparate facts to form a cohesive explanation.

Evolution is the explanation and the fossil record is a fact. It's possible for there to be more than one scientific theory of the same facts. I happen to believe the evolution one is correct.

Evolution is a fact. It’s been observed and verified.

The theory of evolution (actually there are several, but the one usually referred to is the theory of evolution through natural selection) is an explanation for the observed phenomenon, and also of things like the fossil record.

So it’s both.

Exactly, evolution is an observable, biological occurrence, and thus a fact, but the people in this thread are talking about evolution through natural selection, so it was incorrectly labeled as a fact.

[Flameswroth]

Oh well. Eventually the courts will force the bigots to deal with gay marriage. Until then...

It does make one wonder. I know from personal interaction with people of Christian faith (which is no clear indicator of the movement at large, but take it for what it's worth) that they believe the world is going to get shitty before the glorious Second Coming of Christ. It's inevitable. So in a way, the protests and anti-gay movements cannot reasonably be expecting to change things in their favor. Essentially, they know it's not going to work...they know "wickedness" will abound.

I just think it's interesting that in that context, it's less about actually causing change to come about than it is making sure that you did everything in your power to oppose it before it DID happen. It's about doing as much damage as you can on your way out, delaying things as best you can in the face of a change you know you can't stop.

Ironically, that's the mentality I always imagined the Satan of the common Christian church to have. Vain and power hungry as he may have been, I think he's smart enough to know (in that theology) that he has no chance of winning. He's never going to have God's power, or break free from the bondage of Hell. So he does what he can to hinder the progress of the opposition; he tempts man and leads him astray and whatnot and so forth. And he wins some significant victories in the short term in that sense...but he won't win in the end. Seems very similar, and to be a fairly effective strategy.

Disclaimer: I am not making any statements with regard to validity when I compare Christian anti-*whatever* tactics to Satan's tactics, nor in the indirect relation between pro-*whatever* and God. That is to say, I am not saying one side is right and one is wrong, merely that the situations are oddly akin to one another in the manner they are carried out.

Additional Disclaimer: I am aware that Christian beliefs run the gamut, and my limited view combined with the brevity of this post may not play full service to explanations that may differentiate between those beliefs. Nor do I intend to directly correlate religion with bigotry, beyond the notion that the "In the meantime..." statement in the above quote led me to think about this topic.

TL;DR - Anti-*whatever* movements seem to be a stall tactic, not a true belief that they can change things for the "better" permanently.

[Tekania]

Nay Marriage is an religious institution as old as human history, if nations believe in the separation of church and state then this discussion is mute....

Even if one were to accept that "marriage" is a religious institution; and I would side with you on ANY issue of separation of church and state... The it seriosly does become mute because measures to BLOCK same-sex marriage are VIOLATING the religious rights of Churches such as the UUA... The whole "Marriage is religious and there is a separation of church and state" argument by anti-SSM persons is dishonest at best... It's mostly arguments by the same people who want to IMPOSE religion through state power....

gay activists have a better chance fighting for the right to civil unions.....

Good idea.... so, when can I count on you to repeal all marriage laws, and make all former marital legal unions reclassified as "civil unions"? Because I will not have "Marriage" for heteros and CU for homos... either both are Marriage or both are Civil Union....

and have it worded that way on the ballot.....people see the words "gay marriage" and they flip out....also its a matter of tradition

"Tradition" means shit.... They had a name for "Traditionalists" during the America Revolution... they were called "Torries" or "Red Coats"...

[Feazanthia]

I am of the firm belief that Jesus wanted people to not hate each other, and to spread happiness and love.

Jesus would support equal marriage rights.


And as for "Cvili Unions"? Seperate but equal achieves only the former, not the latter. History has proven this is always true. Stop suggesting it.

[Kantria]

The extremely succinct and baseless rationale is "I don't like it". This is often followed by someone saying, "You think what you like or dislike should govern people's happiness?" or something to that effect. To this I usually respond with something like, "When you ask me to vote, you're asking me what I want. Which politicians I want, what propositions I support, etc. So I vote for what I want. If enough people think like me, then yes what I want might interfere with other people's happiness. But I'm not going to vote for what other people want with MY vote; let them vote for themselves. I'm going to vote for what I want."

It's extremely selfish, and I realize this. I have no problem with it however, since the clout of such selfish notions is minor compared to other movements and I never intend to run for an office where my personal opinion might have too much influence.

So - you don't have strong reasons to deny people equality, but you'll do it anyway?

Yes.

I just died a little inside.

[German Heresy]

YES! Why not? I mean, I'm not gay, and I don't care if someone is gay. Everyone can decide on its own if want to marry someone with the same sex or not.
And if you mean that this is unetical, GO HOME! Because whats etical and whats not, is ruled by some f***ing religions! See the facts, the most religions are very old and we don't life in the past

[Cypra Mundii]

I am a Christian. The Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman. So I say no to gay marriage. But the Bible also says we should live under the law that is in the land, in this case the U.S. Constitution so I support a civil union of homosexuals with totally equal rights as a marriage, but I cannot support a marriage of homosexuals. If the American people/government say that it's ok, then I am obliged to follow it, but till then, this is what I stand for.

[The Tofu Islands]

-snipped-

Firstly, does the Bible actually say that? If so, where?

Secondly, why should your religion be the basis for what anyone else should do or be allowed to do?

[EvilDarkMagicians]

I am a Christian. The Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman. So I say no to gay marriage. But the Bible also says we should live under the law that is in the land, in this case the U.S. Constitution so I support a civil union of homosexuals with totally equal rights as a marriage, but I cannot support a marriage of homosexuals. If the American people/government say that it's ok, then I am obliged to follow it, but till then, this is what I stand for.

You don't want me to get married?....

[Bormanico]

I will never get that moronic argument of "The gays marrying hurts our marriage because it trivializes it". If thats the case, i don't want the same people who use that argument to marry, because stupid people marrying trivializes my marriage.

[German Heresy]

-snipped-

Firstly, does the Bible actually say that? If so, where?

Secondly, why should your religion be the basis for what anyone else should do or be allowed to do?

Firstly
Book of Leviticus

Secondly
Exactly!

[German Heresy]

You should read Book of Leviticus it's funny! OK, not really funny, it's horrible!!!

[German Heresy]

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

That should be a good answer to your question

[Farnhamia]

I am a Christian. The Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman. So I say no to gay marriage. But the Bible also says we should live under the law that is in the land, in this case the U.S. Constitution so I support a civil union of homosexuals with totally equal rights as a marriage, but I cannot support a marriage of homosexuals. If the American people/government say that it's ok, then I am obliged to follow it, but till then, this is what I stand for.

You don't want me to get married?....

Or me? *sniff*

If you support a "civil union of homosexuals with totally equal rights as a marriage" then all we're talking about is the word "marriage," right? What gives you - you Christians, I mean - exclusive rights to that word? And what possible harm would me and Mine using it do to you? Please explain this, I'm genuinely curious.

[Farnhamia]

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

That should be a good answer to your question

We should follow the laws of a Bronze Age desert tribe from 3,000 years ago?

[Bormanico]

If you don't support gay marriage then don't marry any gays.

[The Tofu Islands]

Firstly
Book of Leviticus

I’d prefer Cypra Mundii’s answer on this.

If eir answer is Leviticus, then I’d ask why the majority of the laws in Leviticus (such as not wearing cloths with mixed fabric, the food commandments, various orders to stone people, etc.) are not followed. I’d also note that what’s forbidden in Leviticus is male-male sex, not same-sex marriage.

If eir answer is one of Paul’s letters, then I’d ask why he’s any more qualified to interpret things then any modern Christian. I’d also note that Paul seems to be going against Jesus’ command of not judging others.

If it’s something else, I might have to concoct a different response...

You should read Book of Leviticus it's funny! OK, not really funny, it's horrible!!!

I’ve read it. I’ve read the entire Bible.

[German Heresy]

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

That should be a good answer to your question

We should follow the laws of a Bronze Age desert tribe from 3,000 years ago?

Yes! Let us be real Christians!