Opinion On Same-Sex Marriage

[Punished UMN]

Why would one not feel the need to push their value system on others? If you don't, people will adopt other value systems which might be detrimental to your own interests.

Is gay marriage detrimental to the interests of the religious?

In my opinion? No. But In general terms, pushing one's value system is the best way to ensure that it survives. You yourself are doing it for presumably the same reason Sun is doing it.

[Katganistan]

Fortunately, there is a separation of church and state in the US, and the First Amendment gives people the right to worship as they please or NOT worship if they please, and there is an absolute prohibition against ANY religion being recognized as the official US religion.

So frankly, once again, your feelings about why a secular state should enshrine discrimination and inequality in its laws about marriage is irrelevant.

The state and church serve different functions but they should absolutely not be separate.

Bishops shouldn't be governors, but each role in government and the church should certainly be distinguished. The separation of church and state is unacceptable, the two should be integrated.

Then go join some theocratic state. Don't try to say my secular one needs religious oversight.

[Jedi Council]

There is no intent to sexual activity, especially among a species as evolved as we are. You can intend to procreate, and you can engage in intimacy without this intent. We are not even the only animals to do this. Moralizing the point is just being a prude.

humans are no more "evolved" than any other extant species. what are you smoking and where can i get some?

It's an expression and I think you know that.

Is gay marriage detrimental to the interests of the religious?

In my opinion? No. But In general terms, pushing one's value system is the best way to ensure that it survives. You yourself are doing it for presumably the same reason Sun is doing it.

But see theres the difference. I am not saying that the Catholic Church should recognize Gay marriage, they, like any religious organization, should be allowed to practice their beliefs. If they dont recognize gay marriages, that's fine.

But they should not be trying to impose their morality upon the government or other people. Especially when there is no imminent harm to them.

[Cekoviu]

HOMOSEXUAL PATTERNS OF THOUGHT
I am aroused. This person is arousing me. I want to get close to this person and stimulate my genitals upon him until my arousal reaches a peak and is satisfied.
HOMOROMANTIC PATTERNS OF THOUGHT
We are both attracted to each other's personalities. This strong attachment is a bond which we identify as Love. Our marriage is a token of this Love.

The moral problem, for me, is the confusion or the two, in an ideal which is termed 'homosexual marriage.

Have you never loved someone or anything? Because you act as if humans are robots

i mean, you are talking to turelisa, sooooo

HOMOSEXUAL PATTERNS OF THOUGHT
I am aroused. This person is arousing me. I want to get close to this person and stimulate my genitals upon him until my arousal reaches a peak and is satisfied.
HOMOROMANTIC PATTERNS OF THOUGHT
We are both attracted to each other's personalities. This strong attachment is a bond which we identify as Love. Our marriage is a token of this Love.

The moral problem, for me, is the confusion or the two, in an ideal which is termed 'homosexual marriage.

why does homosexuality exist in nature if its so inherently wrong? its well documented. or is it only in humans its morally wrong?

why does rape exist in nature if it's so inherently wrong? ducks and dolphins do it, therefore why can't humans do it!

Some values are irreconcilable to the degree that they contract. The legal status of marriage should be between a man and a woman. However, that edict should not incur any undue suffering on people of any sex.

And why do you feel the need to push your values onto others?

that's basically what you and the other atheists have been doing this entire thread, m'dude. i'd ask you the same.

humans are no more "evolved" than any other extant species. what are you smoking and where can i get some?

It's an expression and I think you know that.

it's an idiotic expression that a smug atheist who professes to be logical and science-minded should not be using :)

[Necroghastia]

Well, someone hasn't read up on everything the prostate does...

the prostate is coincidentally a site of sexual pleasure, yep. what is your point. this is a garbage argument for gay sex being morally ok (i don't necessarily think it isn't, but you're making me want to side with turelisa just by virtue of how poorly you're making your case.)

Did I say anything about morality in that quote? Or is it maybe more likely I'm referring to the "designed" bit?

So, what about gay couples where one person is cis and the other is pre- or non-op trans?

well, frist of all, "non-op trans" is made up;

lmfao no it isn't

second of all, it's doubtful a pre-op + cis couple would want to engage in typical PiV sex due to dysphoria;

Eh, it could happen. And like I said, non-op people exist.

[Katganistan]

Why would one not feel the need to push their value system on others? If you don't, people will adopt other value systems which might be detrimental to your own interests.

Is gay marriage detrimental to the interests of the religious?

Yes. The purpose of marriage is to have more children that can then be indoctrinated from birth into their religion.

[Punished UMN]

humans are no more "evolved" than any other extant species. what are you smoking and where can i get some?

It's an expression and I think you know that.

In my opinion? No. But In general terms, pushing one's value system is the best way to ensure that it survives. You yourself are doing it for presumably the same reason Sun is doing it.

But see theres the difference. I am not saying that the Catholic Church should recognize Gay marriage, they, like any religious organization, should be allowed to practice their beliefs. If they dont recognize gay marriages, that's fine.

But they should not be trying to impose their morality upon the government or other people. Especially when there is no imminent harm to them.

I mean, personally, I think the Church should recognize gay marriage, de facto if not sacramentally.

[Jedi Council]

humans are no more "evolved" than any other extant species. what are you smoking and where can i get some?

It's an expression and I think you know that.

it's an idiotic expression that a smug atheist who professes to be logical and science-minded should not be using [/quote]

1. Hardly. I've said numerous times any religion should be free to define marriage however they like into the privacy of their places of worship or their own homes and institutions. They should not force their values upon the government nor other members of the public.

2. It's an expression. Get over it.

[Cekoviu]

the prostate is coincidentally a site of sexual pleasure, yep. what is your point. this is a garbage argument for gay sex being morally ok (i don't necessarily think it isn't, but you're making me want to side with turelisa just by virtue of how poorly you're making your case.)

Did I say anything about morality in that quote? Or is it maybe more likely I'm referring to the "designed" bit?

i'm in moral mode rn so i missed that, that is actually my bad so i apologize

well, frist of all, "non-op trans" is made up;

lmfao no it isn't

second of all, it's doubtful a pre-op + cis couple would want to engage in typical PiV sex due to dysphoria;

Eh, it could happen. And like I said, non-op people exist.

yeah i'll agree that it could happen but it's going to be uncommon enough that it probably doesn't need to be addressed in a conversation of this nature. and non-op """trans""" people do exist but shouldn't, but that's not a topic for this thread

[Jedi Council]

It's an expression and I think you know that.

But see theres the difference. I am not saying that the Catholic Church should recognize Gay marriage, they, like any religious organization, should be allowed to practice their beliefs. If they dont recognize gay marriages, that's fine.

But they should not be trying to impose their morality upon the government or other people. Especially when there is no imminent harm to them.

I mean, personally, I think the Church should recognize gay marriage, de facto if not sacramentally.

Which is a far more defensible position

[Cekoviu]

It's an expression and I think you know that.

But see theres the difference. I am not saying that the Catholic Church should recognize Gay marriage, they, like any religious organization, should be allowed to practice their beliefs. If they dont recognize gay marriages, that's fine.

But they should not be trying to impose their morality upon the government or other people. Especially when there is no imminent harm to them.

I mean, personally, I think the Church should recognize gay marriage, de facto if not sacramentally.

i think given the abundance of clear doctrine considering marriage as a sacrament betwixt a man and a woman, it'd be odd to recognize it on an official basis, but de facto is fair i guess

[Novus America]

The state and church serve different functions but they should absolutely not be separate.

Bishops shouldn't be governors, but each role in government and the church should certainly be distinguished. The separation of church and state is unacceptable, the two should be integrated.

The integration of the two inevitably means one will subvert the other.

Exactly. Then the church just becomes a corrupted political tool, or just becomes the de facto government (thus becoming a corrupt political entity.

Also this:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... et/305774/

The more outwardly pious a system is, often the more hypocritical it is. If you feel the need to force your religion on everyone and make it an outward show, it is usually because of a lack of confidence.

[New haven america]

well no, we are not talking about lewd and livcious gays of the bath house era. Sexual arousal is only a part of it..

This is two people trying to make a lifelong commitment to each otherbefore their God an community in an act of blessed sacrament. In a time of declining religious investment by the masses why in gods name would you want to discourage that behavior.

HOMOSEXUAL PATTERNS OF THOUGHT
I am aroused. This person is arousing me. I want to get close to this person and stimulate my genitals upon him until my arousal reaches a peak and is satisfied.
HOMOROMANTIC PATTERNS OF THOUGHT
We are both attracted to each other's personalities. This strong attachment is a bond which we identify as Love. Our marriage is a token of this Love.

The moral problem, for me, is the confusion or the two, in an ideal which is termed 'homosexual marriage.

Is no one gonna point out that Tur's made a faulty argument by using Homosexuality vs. Heteromanticism?

Probably because, Tur knows as well as I do that if they used "Heterosexual patterns of thought" that it's going to be the same thing as "Homosexual patters of thought" and thus wouldn't actually have an argument.

Isn't that right Tur?

[Punished UMN]

I mean, personally, I think the Church should recognize gay marriage, de facto if not sacramentally.

i think given the abundance of clear doctrine considering marriage as a sacrament betwixt a man and a woman, it'd be odd to recognize it on an official basis, but de facto is fair i guess

Yes, I don't think gay marriage actively harms the religious life of anyone other than gay people, so there's little reason to actively force gay people out of the Church or outwardly criticize them, so a de facto recognition of partnerships should be allowed under the economy of salvation.

[Novus America]

Is gay marriage detrimental to the interests of the religious?

Yes. The purpose of marriage is to have more children that can then be indoctrinated from birth into their religion.

But banning gay marriage dies not create more children. Gay people are not more likely to have children because you ban them get married or especially having children.

[Neutraligon]

i think given the abundance of clear doctrine considering marriage as a sacrament betwixt a man and a woman, it'd be odd to recognize it on an official basis, but de facto is fair i guess

Yes, I don't think gay marriage actively harms the religious life of anyone other than gay people, so there's little reason to actively force gay people out of the Church or outwardly criticize them, so a de facto recognition of partnerships should be allowed under the economy of salvation.

And depending on your own sect, it might not harm the religious life at all.

[Jedi Council]

Yes. The purpose of marriage is to have more children that can then be indoctrinated from birth into their religion.

But banning gay marriage dies not create more children. Gay people are not more likely to have children because you ban them get married or especially having children.

Exactly the point

[New haven america]

Yes, I don't think gay marriage actively harms the religious life of anyone other than gay people, so there's little reason to actively force gay people out of the Church or outwardly criticize them, so a de facto recognition of partnerships should be allowed under the economy of salvation.

And depending on your own sect, it might not harm the religious life at all.

Technically it should be all sects, because conversion/being a Christian is already the path to salvation.

This hatred of non-heterosexuality comes from the days when Christianity was still a minority religion in the Roman Empire and tried making its way up the ranks by adopting Roman customs even if they went against Christian messages. (And the Romans fucking hated homosexuality, which is weird cause the romans also had a massive case of Androphilia tbh)

[Godular]

And depending on your own sect, it might not harm the religious life at all.

Technically it should be all sects, because conversion/being a Christian is already the path to salvation.

This hatred of non-heterosexuality comes from the days when Christianity was still a minority religion in the Roman Empire and tried making its way up the ranks by adopting Roman customs even if they went against Christian messages. (And the Romans fucking hated homosexuality)

Hmm... sex buddies or sects buddies...

[Neutraligon]

And depending on your own sect, it might not harm the religious life at all.

Technically it should be all sects, because conversion/being a Christian is already the path to salvation.

This hatred of non-heterosexuality comes from the days when Christianity was still a minority religion in the Roman Empire and tried making its way up the ranks by adopting Roman customs even if they went against Christian messages. (And the Romans fucking hated homosexuality)

There are some denominations that officiate ssm, so no.

[Cekoviu]

i think given the abundance of clear doctrine considering marriage as a sacrament betwixt a man and a woman, it'd be odd to recognize it on an official basis, but de facto is fair i guess

Yes, I don't think gay marriage actively harms the religious life of anyone other than gay people, so there's little reason to actively force gay people out of the Church or outwardly criticize them, so a de facto recognition of partnerships should be allowed under the economy of salvation.

yeah, that seems like a completely reasonable position to take. simple via media: recognize same-gender legal marriages and don't limit their participation in christ's ministry or anything, but don't perform gay marriages.

[New haven america]

Technically it should be all sects, because conversion/being a Christian is already the path to salvation.

This hatred of non-heterosexuality comes from the days when Christianity was still a minority religion in the Roman Empire and tried making its way up the ranks by adopting Roman customs even if they went against Christian messages. (And the Romans fucking hated homosexuality)

There are some denominations that officiate ssm, so no.

That does nothing to change what I just said though.

[Telconi]

Some values are irreconcilable to the degree that they contract. The legal status of marriage should be between a man and a woman. However, that edict should not incur any undue suffering on people of any sex.

And why do you feel the need to push your values onto others?

Doesn't everybody?

[Jedi Council]

And why do you feel the need to push your values onto others?

Doesn't everybody?

Provided another's peoples values are harmless, why feel the need to change them?

Gay marriage is harmless.

[Katganistan]

Yes. The purpose of marriage is to have more children that can then be indoctrinated from birth into their religion.

But banning gay marriage dies not create more children. Gay people are not more likely to have children because you ban them get married or especially having children.

I didn't say it was logical.

And gay people can, in fact, have children, so.....