Homosexual marriage II

[Midge]

Originally Posted by Tessar

If you would rather not be torn to pieces for your opinion, you should find a less abrasive way of expressing it than telling a gay man that you find him abhorrent. Or if you intend to express your opinion so strongly, then be prepared for consequences .

I am not meaning to imply that you should not express your opinion, but if you give a strong comment don't preface it by basically saying, "go easy on me."

Well, I was careful to word that to where it's not the gay man or woman that disgusts me, but the practice. On that same note, I apologize for making anyone in this forum feel like I abhor them, because it's not true.

Basically, the "don't tear me to pieces" was because I figured the end result of my post would be that I was discarded as a hopeless case in the argument. After all, I am blinded by my faith and therefore refuse to follow good logical reason. Because I knew that was probably where all the arguments against me were going, is there really any need for me to have to hear them and others to have to give them?

Hirulin, if all marriage is to you is a piece of paper, it is not a powerful item. Marriage is more of a covenant, a promise. It's you publicly announcing that you will only love your spouse romantically, that you will not abandon him or her (for better or worse, etc.), that you will not betray him or her. It's quite a weighty thing, if one takes it seriously, which I and my husband do. If you've simply been together for a very long time, you have longevity on your side, but really that's it.

As to people being miserable, Gaffer, that's really up to you. Several things that people attribute to emotions are actually choices. Joy is a choice. Love is a choice. I can't do anything about that.

[Hirulin]

Originally Posted by Midge

Hirulin, if all marriage is to you is a piece of paper, it is not a powerful item. Marriage is more of a covenant, a promise. It's you publicly announcing that you will only love your spouse romantically, that you will not abandon him or her (for better or worse, etc.), that you will not betray him or her. It's quite a weighty thing, if one takes it seriously, which I and my husband do. If you've simply been together for a very long time, you have longevity on your side, but really that's it.

Fair point well made darling! But you can still make those vows to each other in your own way! Chris and I have decided that we will be staying together, till death us do part, and we do take that very seriously. Just because we don't have the ceremony, doesn't make us any less commited to each other!

although, I must admit, I'd look Stunning in a wedding gown!

[Hirulin]

Originally Posted by Midge

I apologize for making anyone in this forum feel like I abhor them,

You didn't make me feel like that! I believe we are all entitled to our own opinion, and as I previously stated, if your faith tells you these things, then thats up to you and your god to sort out how you feel about the individuals involved! I'd gladly invite you out for a coffee regardless of your faith!

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Midge

Several things that people attribute to emotions are actually choices. Joy is a choice. Love is a choice. I can't do anything about that.

,
Weird. Interesting, but weird.

Personally, I chose to get divorced, and the world has more love and joy as a result, for everyone involved.

[GrayMouser]

Actually I think Midge made her distinction quite clear. In my case, I abhor the belief that homosexuality is abhorrent, but I don't abhor the people who hold that belief- why, some of my best friends are homosexuality-abhorrers...but I wouldn't want my brother to marry one....

As for marriage, I'm a bit of both of a ceremonialist and communalist. I think ceremonial occasions are important and I like the idea of making a formal statement as a member of a society. A wedding banquet is ( or should be) a communal gathering of friends and family to recognise a new stage of life for a couple. (Of course, it should be totally optional).

Concerning vows, Elrond says

"no oath or bond is laid upon you to go further than you will. For you do not yet know the strength of your hearts, and you cannot foresee what each may meet upon the road," and adds "let him not vow to walk in the dark who has not seen the nightfall"

but I tend to agree with Gimli that "sworn word may strengthen quaking heart" - though Elrond warns, "Or break it."

I hasten to add that after having been married for twenty years I am in no way comparing it to an almost hopeless quest through a barren and desolate land filled with treachery, enemies and foul beasts, whose only aim is to destroy a Ring and set yourself free before you become a will-less enslaved wraith, helplessly grovelling before an all-seeing Eye... Ouch, of course I wasn't talking about you, darling.

[GrayMouser]

Oh, and belated congrats to Portugal, for joining the small but growing ranks of the enlightened.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Concerning vows, Elrond says

"no oath or bond is laid upon you to go further than you will. For you do not yet know the strength of your hearts, and you cannot foresee what each may meet upon the road," and adds "let him not vow to walk in the dark who has not seen the nightfall"

but I tend to agree with Gimli that "sworn word may strengthen quaking heart" - though Elrond warns, "Or break it."

Elrond isn't held as one of wise for nothing!

While I enjoy marriage for the ceremony and tradition, it has nothing to do with commitment. It's not something you can promise, but only something you can do.

[The Gaffer]

Someone explain to me why divorce is a bad thing.

[The Gaffer]

Oh, and on topic:

What do we make of the low rates of divorce amongst gay marriages?

For 2008, in the UK:

* 11.9 divorces per thousand staight married men and women, about 144,000 in total.
* The rate for civil partnership dissolutions is about 4 per thousand.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1685
2007

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Someone explain to me why divorce is a bad thing.

Divorce isn't a bad thing at all. In fact, it's a much more thoughtful commitment than marriage ever is.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Oh, and on topic:

What do we make of the low rates of divorce amongst gay marriages?

For 2008, in the UK:

* 11.9 divorces per thousand staight married men and women, about 144,000 in total.
* The rate for civil partnership dissolutions is about 4 per thousand.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1685
2007

As to this, a couple of guesses

a) civil partnership has only been around for six years; give it time.

b) because civil partnership is a new and hard-won right, people entering it might take it more seriously than marriage.

c) OTOH people might take it less seriously and therefore not bother to get the partnership dissolved

IOW, I have no idea.

[BeardofPants]

Give it time is probably the best answer. I suspect those statistics will equalize soon enough. Humans are more suited to serial-monogamy.

[inked]

Nicht! Nein! Nada! Nope!

EuroCourt goes all out in affirmation of multiculturalism.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100625/...e_gay_marriage

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

Nicht! Nein! Nada! Nope!

EuroCourt goes all out in affirmation of multiculturalism.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100625/...e_gay_marriage

Hmmm...I wonder if that applies to cross-state recognition. Could a gay Polish couple living and married in Holland have their adoption rights stripped away by a Polish court if they moved back to Poland?

[Midge]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Someone explain to me why divorce is a bad thing.

The Bible says in Genesis: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

Genesis 2:24.

For those of you who do not take the Bible seriously, this won't change your mind. It won't make you believe me, either. However, in marriage, the husband and wife are literally bonded together to be "one flesh" in the sight of God. If you believe this, then divorce is never good. The Bible gives only two provisions for divorce: in the case of infidelity, and only the faithful partner can make this choice, or in the case of an "unequally yoked" marriage, if the non-Christian wants a divorce. The Bible never makes any references to "irreconcilable differences" for Christians. Marriage is a holy ordinance and few people actually believe that.

That's why divorce is a bad thing.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Midge

Marriage is a holy ordinance and few people actually believe that.

That's why divorce is a bad thing.

I hope I'm getting you right. In short, your response to the Gaffer is that divorce is bad because marriage is holy.

A less religious person would see from your answer how a Christian considers divorce. But there's nothing in there to suggest why divorce should be a bad thing for the non-believer himself/herself.
And although I wouldn't disregard from the "holy" aspect myself, I think the Gaffer (unless he was being rhetorical) was fishing for more mundane and pragmatic approaches as to divorce being bad ("bad" as in non-functional rather than decadent).

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Hmmm...I wonder if that applies to cross-state recognition. Could a gay Polish couple living and married in Holland have their adoption rights stripped away by a Polish court if they moved back to Poland?

As far as I know, that's precisely the case. A couple married in one EU country wouldn't necessarily be considered married if they moved to another. And I should think adoption rights in general are quite hard to retain if you move abroad. I bet you'd need to apply again.

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Give it time is probably the best answer. I suspect those statistics will equalize soon enough.

Well I get your point. But statistics schmatistics! Break out any group (high-income earners, young couples, Californians...) and compare it to a national average, and you'll see statistical deviations. Over time they might deviate further or possibly even out, but genuine equalization could be fleeting and rare.
Personally I don't consider it that important whether gay marriages last longer or shorter than some hypothetical national average. At least not for the sake of the argument of gay marriage's right to be.

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Humans are more suited to serial-monogamy.

Can't judge all alike. I say it depends hard on culture.

[BeardofPants]

I guess that's true. Longevity of life just adds an additional complication to the relationship. There's a lot more potential time together after the "lust" factor wears off.

[Comic Book Guy]

Biblical authority is totally bankrupt as an idea. It's incredible to me that people aren't embarrassed when they try to use the bogus doctrines of religions to justify their own bigotry.

[inked]

Sorry, CBG, but biblical authority is no more a totally bogus idea than yours. I find the bogus ideas of materialists just as embarrassing. As in, "It's incredible to me that people aren't embarrassed when they try to use the bogus doctrines of (materialism) to justify their own bigotry."

Why, for instance, do you not rail against the totally bogus ideas of communism and it attendant enforced atheism? Seems just as bigoted. It killed way more people, too, than religion ever has.

[Comic Book Guy]

What idea of mine? I don't know what you or anybody else means by materialism, but I do know that there is zero evidence or reason to take the Bible anything other than an interesting compilation of ancient Palestinian folk tales, Hebrew propaganda and scientifically illiterate scribblings from desert nomads. Some of the writing is elevated and elegant poetry, other barbaric and incoherent vulgar demagoguery . Attempting to extrapolate some moral law by postulating that it's absolute truth and authority to the on everything to the letter is crass, and a "category mistake", to quote the Bishop of Cantenbury Rowan Williams, as it has to be conceded that it's both internally incoherent and incongruent with reality. It it stupid and it leads to serious pathological behaviour from humans.

I say it's only used to justify bigotry not that it's a very easy intellectual rationalisation (Just saying "The Bible says so" then selectively picking something vile from Leviticus is something any moron can do), but perhaps particular case of professed Christians. If they really were Christians, then why don't follow the teachings of their favourite moral philosopher Jesus Christ, who over various lectures and parables defined a hypocrite as someone who constantly moralises about the lives of other individuals, something they have no control over, and have zero responsibility for, and never paying attention to themselves, something they do have control over, and have total responsibility for. Another lesson of Jesus that homophobic bigoted Christians don't appear to be too familiar with would be the parable of the Good Samaritan, the moral of which is not to be like the bigots and give in to prejudices but to treat other people like human beings, regardless to how different they are to yourself. I could forgive them for not being aware of those two elementary lessons of their hero Jesus, but not if they ignore his all time classic the Golden Rule: treating other people like you yourself would like to be treated. Who would like to be abused, vilified, persecuted and discriminated against merely for what is to you, a beautiful, life-affirming act of love with someone who feels the same way? These are as close to moral truisms as you're going to get, it's a shame religious bigots don't have the courage to follow them.

Most people on this Forum are Americans, which is not a bad thing at all, but for those in Britain and Ireland will know that the recent political career of Iris Robinson, former MP for the Hard-Right, Christian Fundamentalist DUP, is a perfect example of hypocrisy and bigotry by someone who used the Bible to justify hate speech against gay people, only to have it revealed later that she herself was committing indiscretions at the same time.

I'm not sure why Communism has been brought up, as it's not anything to do with what I said, nor anyone else on this thread, but indulge me briefly so I can "rail against" this irrelevant subject.

Communism is tyranny. The Soviet states of the 20th Century committed crimes that aren't disputed by anyone, including myself. It may or may not be responsible for more deaths than the entirety of religion throughout the entirety of history, but I'm inclined to doubt that it can claim more victims in it's rap sheet than religion. Plus, unlike religion, Communism really isn't around anymore to keep adding to it's tragically massive figure.

"Attendent forced atheism" is an absurd phrase, which literally makes no sense, so I won't comment on it.