Homosexual marriage

[Falagar]

I'll move along then.

[GrayMouser]

I'd be wary of banning marriage for groups of people based on what their divorce rates might be:

Twenty seven percent of those describing themselves as born-again
Christians are currently or have previously been divorced, compared to 24
percent among other adults.

"While it may be alarming to discover that born-again Christians are more
likely than others to experience a divorce, that pattern has been in
place for quite some time," said George Barna, president of Barna
Research Group.

http://www.divorcereform.org/mel/rbaptisthigh.html
Baptists have highest divorce rate

[hectorberlioz]

Me too...I'm honestly bored with this subject now...

[Falagar]

Continuing from the Elton John-thread...

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But shouldn't people be allowed to make that decision for themselves? Who are you to decide how they want to live their own private lives?

In the drug case all you have to do is looking at people living on the street. Drugs alter the chemistry in your brain and create addiction, if people suddenly realize they've made a mistake there's no turning back - and are less likely to realize it.

True. And humbug wickedness- I'm not talking about it. You were asking why we aren't denying marriage to "swindlers," or any of those others, and I believe I've answered that. You might think they're right in redefining marriage, but that has nothing to do with the reason why Christians respond specifically to homosexuals and not to "swindlers," on the marriage issue.

Messed that one up a bit, sorry. I'll rearticulate: why aren't there any laws adultery? Swindling obviously crosses other peoples' rights. Same goes for thievery. Both of these are prohibited. But why aren't there any laws against adultery? Drunkards? These are also immoral, and thus, according Christianity, hurt society as a whole. To be consistent you should also be working for passing laws against these (whether the laws would be impractical or not shouldn't be an issue, they're still immoral).

Agreed. But I think this is more akin to the Supreme Court stating, "there has been a new discovery- drugs don't hurt people!" By saying something is fine when it isn't (by giving it the same status as heterosexual marriage), they are going to hurt some people who have hitherto suppressed homosexual instincts.

Drugs can be proven to hurt people (both the victim and their family), homosexuality not.

It is just your opinion that being given marriage status will benefit homosexuals. I think it would hurt them- I get into that some in my post on the other thread. You can post there to disagree with me. I can't promise that I'll respond, but if you make an argument I think is very interesting, I will research it further and think more on it.

Not only my opinions, but also the opinions of the homosexuals themselves (not an argument in itself, true). Drugs lead to physical and often economical ruination, and may also cause death, where a direct correlation between drug-abuse and addiction can be found. No such thing when it comes to homosexuality.

Now on the subject of happiness, here's an article from CNN that was published today, and which I found interesting.
The truth about happiness may surprise you!

Nope, not really. Nothing new in people making stupid decisions, nor that all our choices are based upon what will make us most happy (a pretty fundamental thought in philosophy). And as far as I can see it only deals with the US...

# Married people are happier than singles.

Even better reason for allowing gay marriage. Also, perhaps gay marriage may prevent some of the 'promiscuous' behaviour - after all, it's much easier to let a relationship die when there hasn't been any official approval and won't be any paperwork afterwards.

Edited for spelling and added a few sentences to clearify. Getting tired. :/

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Why isn't it? And why is the reason that they should get married just because they can, good enough? If our reasons aren't good, why are yours, which try to be just as assertive about the way things should go?

It's not "just because they can", it's because of the privileges they're denied.

I don't deny that drunkards, impotents get married etc...first, you couldn't tell right off about either one of them.

If marriage is to be defined as between a man and woman, and always has been, why should that change?
The requirement of priests are that they believe in God, and why should that change? (I'm not saying you say that it should...because you haven't as far as I've seen...)

Because marriage isn't just a word, it's also an institution. See previous responses. Priests need to believe in God to fullfil their functions.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Falagar

It's not "just because they can", it's because of the privileges they're denied.


Because marriage isn't just a word, it's also an institution. See previous responses. Priests need to believe in God to fullfil their functions.

Priesthood isn't just a word either.

My main point in using that example repeatedly, is of the scale of change gay marriage will bring, as opposed to the usual "we're all going to be sad and stay in our houses" type thing.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Falagar

It's not "just because they can", it's because of the privileges they're denied.

It has NEVER been a "privilege" in this country to marry whomever you wish. People can't be denied a privilege when they never had it in the first place.


And re: why the fuss about homosexuality and not other things - another angle is this: for example, if some people really thought that the prohibition against lying was really just inhibiting people's happiness and our morals have evolved past all those silly things, and they wanted to make laws saying that lying is fine, even on public documents, then by golly there'd be a thead about lying that would be really active. The whole point is that the homosexual groups are pushing to get gay marriage legally recognized in our society - yes, THEY are the ones changing things, there were NOT tons of homosexual marriages in years past that are now getting denied - so that's why the discussion is a hot one - the whole legislation aspect.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Falagar

Messed that one up a bit, sorry. I'll rearticulate: why aren't there any laws adultery? Swindling obviously crosses other peoples' rights. Same goes for thievery. Both of these are prohibited. But why aren't there any laws against adultery? Drunkards? These are also immoral, and thus, according Christianity, hurt society as a whole. To be consistent you should also be working for passing laws against these (whether the laws would be impractical or not shouldn't be an issue, they're still immoral).

I think in a world of limited resources, one has to be practical and prioritize, too. Hey, I think intentionally saying mean things is immoral! Would I say we need a law against it? No - I'd rather have our resources used to track down murderers and those despicable people that swindle the elderly

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lady Willow Rose

I'd love to meet the dog that can sign a marriage contract.

All that people needed to do was put a mark on a document if they were unable to sign. Why wouldn't that be OK for a dog? What is all this species snobbery, anyway?

[The Gaffer]

Important point of information there:

It is not only "the homosexual lobby" (whatever that is) that is pushing for change. It is also "all right-minded" people, gay or straight, who support it.

A much better analogy than lying is the civil rights movement.

[The Gaffer]

Nice to see you talking sense as ever Falagar!

Originally Posted by Falagar

Also, perhaps gay marriage may prevent some of the 'promiscuous' behaviour

An interesting point. Two things to add:

1) Promiscuity, as you note with you reference to the absence of any prohibition on adultery, is a behaviour neither unique to homosexuals nor legally prohibited. One might have moral objections to it but that can be no basis for legislation unless it is applied to all sorts of promiscuity, not just gays.

Hey, maybe it's even OK to be promiscuous... either way, it's not relevant in law.

2) The particular reasons why a person or group engages in promiscuous behaviour can be manifold.

The promiscuity we associate with particularly male homosexual behaviour can be accounted for at least in part by its moral and legal status, and how these pressures assert themselves upon individuals.

Secrecy and anonymity encourage clandestine, one-off relationships and inhibit long-term commitments. Even clandestine long-term relationships are dangerous to closet gays. Ask Ted Haggard.

Then you've got the "relief" factor of finally coming out and realising that it's OK to do what you want to in the bedroom.

Given that many/most/all gays spend a large portion of their adolescence and adulthood knowing that they are gay but trying to hide it, we should not be surprised that such patterns of behaviour carry over once they come out.

[Earniel]

The thread 'Elton John's suggestion' has been merged into the thread 'Homosexual marriage'.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

On the contrary, the examples I gave were directly related to my main point, just as everything I said above is. I think that it is a cop-out to not respond to them and say you're going to differentiate between reality and hypothesis (in other words refusing to respond to any examples), just as though voting for what makes people happy even if it's wrong is a good way to go. Though it's true that it might make you popular, so for personal gain such a choice might be the smartest (Case in point: The Democrats who voted for the war in Iraq.).

All I'm doing is trying very hard to restrict the discussion to the issue at hand.

Can you understand my point that there are certain things that are illegal, and will always be illegal in modern society because just about every sane person finds them detrimental to society? (i.e. pedophilia, because it involves children, not adults)

And there are other things that, while not supported by a majority, are highly debatable? (i.e. gay marriage, because it only involves adults)

You can allow one while not allowing the other. Just like you can allow people to drink, which can and does kill both the person drinking and sometimes innocents as well, while not allowing something like hard drug abuse.

We, as a democratic society, don't normally make something illegal just because it can be detrimental to society in some cases. We typically only make something illegal if it is detrimental in all, or almost all, cases. This is why it is not illegal for a heterosexual former child molester to get married and have children.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

It has NEVER been a "privilege" in this country to marry whomever you wish. People can't be denied a privilege when they never had it in the first place.

And re: why the fuss about homosexuality and not other things - another angle is this: for example, if some people really thought that the prohibition against lying was really just inhibiting people's happiness and our morals have evolved past all those silly things, and they wanted to make laws saying that lying is fine, even on public documents, then by golly there'd be a thead about lying that would be really active. The whole point is that the homosexual groups are pushing to get gay marriage legally recognized in our society - yes, THEY are the ones changing things, there were NOT tons of homosexual marriages in years past that are now getting denied - so that's why the discussion is a hot one - the whole legislation aspect.

By that logic, the supreme court should have never forced the overturn of laws in states that made interracial marriage illegal since:

1) The privilege never existed in the first place

2) A majority of the people in those states believed it should be illegal

Do you think the supreme court was wrong in those cases?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

It is not only "the homosexual lobby" (whatever that is)

It's where homosexuals stand while waiting for their elevator ...

...that is pushing for change. It is also "all right-minded" people, gay or straight, who support it.

Sorry, one can't simply prove "rightness" by saying it. I'll just come back and say that "all right-minded" people support man/woman marriage. That doesn't get us anywhere.

A much better analogy than lying is the civil rights movement.

I think that's a very poor analogy, and from what I hear, so do a lot of African-Americans.

[Falagar]

Priesthood isn't just a word either.

Didn't say it was. Might have been implied, though, sorry bout that. Marriage is currently a secular institution (religious diversity and diversity in world views make marriage as a purely religious thing impossible), while priests, by their very nature, are a religious institution.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

It has NEVER been a "privilege" in this country to marry whomever you wish. People can't be denied a privilege when they never had it in the first place.

Black people didn't have the privilege of marrying white people for quite some time. Would you say they didn't have any reason to demand equal treatment since they never had it?

I think that's a very poor analogy, and from what I hear, so do a lot of African-Americans.

Why?

Sorry, one can't simply prove "rightness" by saying it. I'll just come back and say that "all right-minded" people support man/woman marriage. That doesn't get us anywhere.

Which I think is why he put it in ""'s.

All that people needed to do was put a mark on a document if they were unable to sign. Why wouldn't that be OK for a dog? What is all this species snobbery, anyway?

I think the ability to know what you're signing under for is crucial here. You're comparing gays to animals?

I think in a world of limited resources, one has to be practical and prioritize, too. Hey, I think intentionally saying mean things is immoral! Would I say we need a law against it? No - I'd rather have our resources used to track down murderers and those despicable people that swindle the elderly

But, hypothetically, if you had the resources, would you prohibit homosexuality? Drunkeness?

Nice to see you talking sense as ever Falagar!

Thanks. Same to you, largely agree with your points.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

It's where homosexuals stand while waiting for their elevator ...

LOL. Going down?

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Sorry, one can't simply prove "rightness" by saying it.

Damn your eyes woman! Of course I can...

But presumably you will acknowledge that a significant proportion, if not the majority, of people who support the right to gay marriage are not in fact gay themselves. They just happen to think it's right.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think that's a very poor analogy, and from what I hear, so do a lot of African-Americans.

I'm wasn't aware that I needed to ask the analogees' opinions before making it. Did you ask liars if they minded before drawing the analogy with them? Thought not.

[Rían]

just a quick post, because we're leaving for Arizona to pick out a house - we're definitely moving But it's a great job for my husband, and the kids will be right next to their cousins that they love, and I really love my sister-in-law, so it will be a good move. But I'll miss all my California friends and family tremendously ...

Originally Posted by Falagar

You're comparing gays to animals?

Of course not, except in the same way that the non-creationists do.

Originally Posted by Gaffer

But presumably you will acknowledge that a significant proportion, if not the majority, of people who support the right to gay marriage are not in fact gay themselves.

Sure I'll acknowledge that - I always acknowledge facts

Rats - out of time! Have a great Thanksgiving, USA-ers!

[Rosie Gamgee]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

All I'm doing is trying very hard to restrict the discussion to the issue at hand.

Can you understand my point that there are certain things that are illegal, and will always be illegal in modern society because just about every sane person finds them detrimental to society? (i.e. pedophilia, because it involves children, not adults)

And there are other things that, while not supported by a majority, are highly debatable? (i.e. gay marriage, because it only involves adults)

You can allow one while not allowing the other. Just like you can allow people to drink, which can and does kill both the person drinking and sometimes innocents as well, while not allowing something like hard drug abuse.

We, as a democratic society, don't normally make something illegal just because it can be detrimental to society in some cases. We typically only make something illegal if it is detrimental in all, or almost all, cases. This is why it is not illegal for a heterosexual former child molester to get married and have children.

I sort of dissagree with the people who put child molestation and homosexuality on the same level. Yes, I agree they're both wrong, but the crime is different.
And so I was thinking about it today, and I had to wonder: Why is it that America has laws on incest? If a parent is molesting a child, yes, that is wrong. But, using the argument of some people here in favour of homosexuality, why should it be forbidden between two adults? What makes that wrong and homosexuality right, seeing as in both cases the people would be only pursuing happiness?
I just wanted to throw that in as a thought. *shrug*

[Falagar]

Hm, is it forbidden? A consideration could be future generations, as children born from incest are more likely to have genetic disorders.

Of course not, except in the same way that the non-creationists do.

Non-creationists aren't suggesting gays should be denied privileges because dogs don't have them. Well, most of them aren't. Rationality is still the clue.

LOL. Going down?