NationStates

Kubrath wrote:

Quantipapa wrote:
Nope

Famous last words.

According your narrow minded point of view.

Quantipapa wrote:

Kubrath wrote:
Famous last words.

According your narrow minded point of view.

Can't be narrow-minded if you're open-minded about them eventually legalizing same-sex marriage.

Prydania wrote:

Kaggeceria wrote:But we are God's instruments.

Did you learn nothing in Bible school?

I never learnt I was G-d's instrument in Hebrew School. I was not charged by the Almighty Himself to judge others in His name.

I did learn, however, that the Bible says my dad can sell my sister and that picking up overtime hours over the weekend is punishable by death. So maybe not everything in the Bible is applicable to modern day society.

You censor yourself when you say God?

Seriously?

Kubrath wrote:

Quantipapa wrote:
Nope

Famous last words.

That was only one word.

Kubrath wrote:

Quantipapa wrote:
According your narrow minded point of view.

Can't be narrow-minded if you're open-minded about them eventually legalizing same-sex marriage.

You're narrow minded to think that all forms of sexuality are valid.

Kaggeceria wrote:

Prydania wrote:I never learnt I was G-d's instrument in Hebrew School. I was not charged by the Almighty Himself to judge others in His name.

I did learn, however, that the Bible says my dad can sell my sister and that picking up overtime hours over the weekend is punishable by death. So maybe not everything in the Bible is applicable to modern day society.

You censor yourself when you say God?

Seriously?

It's a Jewish tradition. The Hebrew name of the Almighty is so sacred you're not supposed to say it, or write it.
Now the English word "god," when used in singular and in reference to the Almighty, has become His de facto name among Jewish people in the English-speaking world. So we censor ourselves by removing the "o" so we do not use His name, which is supposed to be too holy to write in full. It's a sign of respect.

Quantipapa wrote:

Kubrath wrote:
Can't be narrow-minded if you're open-minded about them eventually legalizing same-sex marriage.

You're narrow minded to think that all forms of sexuality are valid.

This is just a wonderful quote.

You think he's narrow minded for arguing for a more inclusive society? You sure about that? I think you may have some definitions mixed up.

Kaggeceria wrote:

Kubrath wrote:
Famous last words.

That was only one word.

The burn is so powerful he has left this forum

Kaggeceria wrote:

Kubrath wrote:
Famous last words.

That was only one word.

Damn, you're right.

Quantipapa wrote:

Kubrath wrote:
Can't be narrow-minded if you're open-minded about them eventually legalizing same-sex marriage.

You're narrow minded to think that all forms of sexuality are valid.

When did I say all forms of sexuality?

Quantipapa wrote:

Kaggeceria wrote:That was only one word.

The burn is so powerful he has left this forum

Still kicking, buddy.

Kubrath wrote:

Quantipapa wrote:
The burn is so powerful he has left this forum

Still kicking, buddy.

A person falling down a building is always still kicking till he hit the ground buddy.

Quantipapa wrote:

Kubrath wrote:
Still kicking, buddy.

A person falling down a building is always still kicking till he hit the ground buddy.

Good thing I have a jet pack to soar over your bullshit arguments.

Kaggeceria wrote:

Prydania wrote:I never learnt I was G-d's instrument in Hebrew School. I was not charged by the Almighty Himself to judge others in His name.

I did learn, however, that the Bible says my dad can sell my sister and that picking up overtime hours over the weekend is punishable by death. So maybe not everything in the Bible is applicable to modern day society.

You censor yourself when you say God?

Seriously?

You're unaware that this has been common practice within Judaism for over 2000 years?

Seriously?

Kubrath wrote:

Quantipapa wrote:
A person falling down a building is always still kicking till he hit the ground buddy.

Good thing I have a jet pack to soar over your bullshit arguments.

WOW you have a jet pack! WHOA

The Archregimancy wrote:

Kaggeceria wrote:You censor yourself when you say God?

Seriously?

You're unaware that this has been common practice within Judaism for over 2000 years?

Seriously?

No. I'm not 2000 years old.

Kaggeceria wrote:

The Archregimancy wrote:
You're unaware that this has been common practice within Judaism for over 2000 years?

Seriously?

No. I'm not 2000 years old.

You don't need to be 2000 years old to be aware of something that has been common practice for that long.

Quantipapa wrote:

Kubrath wrote:
Good thing I have a jet pack to soar over your bullshit arguments.

WOW you have a jet pack! WHOA

Struggling with the comeback there, mate?

Eternal Lotharia wrote:

Kaggeceria wrote:No. I'm not 2000 years old.

You don't have to be 2000 years old to not be an ignoramus, not culturally insensitive, and not uneducated.

Oh well. Somehow I'll survive knowing that I wasn't aware that Jews censor themselves when referring to God.

Kubrath wrote:

Quantipapa wrote:
WOW you have a jet pack! WHOA

Struggling with the comeback there, mate?

I really am. I don't know how to deal with jet packs!

While I really don't care about the rights of homosexuals, I am worried it will cause problems should the parents be incapable of taking care of the child (dead, disabled, drug addicts etc.). Hopefully it will not make it more difficult for the extended family to step in should the need arise, because oftentimes the state already does not give them the first opportunity to adopt the child.

Andoros wrote:While I really don't care about the rights of homosexuals, I am worried it will cause problems should the parents be incapable of taking care of the child (dead, disabled, drug addicts etc.). Hopefully it will not make it more difficult for the extended family to step in should the need arise, because oftentimes the state already does not give them the first opportunity to adopt the child.

Oh be careful there, liberals are going to tell us that statistically, homosexual parents are better.

Quantipapa wrote:

Andoros wrote:While I really don't care about the rights of homosexuals, I am worried it will cause problems should the parents be incapable of taking care of the child (dead, disabled, drug addicts etc.). Hopefully it will not make it more difficult for the extended family to step in should the need arise, because oftentimes the state already does not give them the first opportunity to adopt the child.

Oh be careful there, liberals are going to tell us that statistically, homosexual parents are better.

Let them. Humour at the start of the day? Yes, please.

I favour reserving the term marriage for heterosexual couples because these have a distinct reproductive, cultural and religious-historical web of meaning.

But I think that it'd be a very good compromise to institute civil unions as encouraging settled romantic commitments allows and encourages more orderly and stable lives, which is surely of benefit. It's a shame that's not on the agenda.

If, as the OP suggests, this could potentially influence the inheritance or parental rights in gay relationships due to the constitution that would be a disappointing and retrograde step.

Dumb Ideologies wrote:I favour reserving the term marriage for heterosexual couples because these have a distinct reproductive, cultural and religious-historical web of meaning.

And all that can change, just as it has over the centuries, should society deem fit, without any noticeable repercussions. Appeals to tradition don't make much sense.

Kubrath wrote:

Dumb Ideologies wrote:I favour reserving the term marriage for heterosexual couples because these have a distinct reproductive, cultural and religious-historical web of meaning.

And all that can change, just as it has over the centuries, should society deem fit, without any noticeable repercussions. Appeals to tradition don't make much sense.

Only if you're operating with the idea that rationality is the sole thing that's of importance in all matters political and that breaking down all old ways is part of a march towards an objectively "better" future. That's part of a Whiggish historical conception that is itself ideological rather than "neutral" or reflective of an "as is" reality.

People vote and, more fundamentally, conceive of themselves and their place in the world based on the values of their community and an understanding of their history. Whatever the truth about pre-Christian marriage, in the cultural record of modern Europe marriage has been a primarily religious-based institution and has been about one man and one woman. As such, it's entangled very fundamentally in the semiotic web with religious and transitional values.

Attempts to overturn that will feel like an act of cultural theft and vandalism to many of those who have been brought up in such a context, and out of respect for that pursuing the civil unions path is in my opinion the best and most respectful approach when one considers circumstance, history, and the very real commitment that homosexual couples wish to demonstrate to each other which should be enabled and encouraged as an exemplar given the dysfunctional promiscuous culture that developed in much of the gay culture during the years of repression.