[Mustang1]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

simjanes2k simjanes2k:

lily lily:

I asked for a *good* reason.

Try again.

I can't help but laugh in real life. Give me any reason that has been more used throughout history to guide mankind than religion.

Also, please specify what is wrong with the reasoning. Christian nation makes Christian laws. More at 11?

Well actually, the Bible instructs its followers to kill male homosexuals. So I think that's what's wrong with the reasoning.

Exactly, who realistically clings to an archaic source (written by numerous individuals over numerous milieus with numerous motivations) that advocates acts that modern, civilized, secular society no longer condones.

And...to be blunt...do you really want to see how the Bible clarifies marriage?

[Zipperfish]

lily lily:

simjanes2k simjanes2k:

lily lily:

I'm very serious here. Give me one good reason why SSMs shouldn't be allowed. "Because it's against my religion" is NOT a good reason.

I already did. In fact I just started typing up about three more, but I'll hold them until you can stick to one point at a time. The best and most COMMON reason people are against gay marriage is because of religion. That is not only a good reason, it's pretty much the only one.

If you're searching for more, they are hard to find. Address the issue at hand before dismissing it, please.

It's pretty much the only reason.

That's what I thought... you have nothing.


Are you aware that there are Christian churches here in Canada that support SSMs?



If I understand what you're saying... the US is a Christian country based on Christian laws and therefore religion should factor in when deciding what's best for the citizens.

What exactly do you have against the Taliban again?

Lily moves her queen annnnnnd....check!

[simjanes2k]

I don't know how detailed we want to get into theology here, but yeah...

The Old Testament says many things that are retracted and rectified in the New Testament. Throwing around verses and statements and laws that were overturned just for the sake of a "point" in an argument is easy, but easily countered, but makes EVERYONE extremely bored.

The fact is, Christians generally oppose gay marriage. This country was founded with that religion in mind and has many, MANY laws which still enforce those values. That is the big reason why, and applying the tag "silly" just doesn't make much of a difference.

[hurley_108]

lily lily:

If you're looking for an argument against polygamy between consenting adults... I can't think of a single valid reason.

I would put it that there probably aren't any examples of polygamy between consenting adults that justify the legalization of the practice given the abuses at Bountiful.

[Brenda]

I thought laws were there to make sure people are not discriminated against. I guess that goes for everything as long as it "is in the Bible".

[simjanes2k]

Brenda Brenda:

Excuse me Simjanes, but... aren't church and state seperated?
That makes your point invalid.

Then, The Netherlands, Belgium and the other countries mentioned are Christian countries to. Belgium is even Catholic. Makes your point completely bull. So, now a valid point please?

1. Yes, theoretically. But as we just saw in California, not always.

2. Those countries are not even CLOSE to as tied to religion as we are. Their half-assed piousness does not in anyway make our ideology "bull."

3. My valid point has not yet been in earnest challenged. Still waiting.

4. FYI, I'm a fucking ATHEIST here, arguing for religion. What the hell has the world come to?

[roger-roger]

simjanes2k simjanes2k:

lily lily:

I asked for a *good* reason.

Try again.

I can't help but laugh in real life. Give me any reason that has been more used throughout history to guide mankind than religion.

Also, please specify what is wrong with the reasoning. Christian nation makes Christian laws. More at 11?

First of all American did NOT start off as a Christian nation, and the founding fathers intention was NOT to have America in its current state.

Religion does not guide the moral reasoning of any western country today. So saying that "Gay marriage is wrong because the Bible says so" is a not a basis for GOVERNMENT policy.

[Zipperfish]

simjanes2k simjanes2k:

Brenda Brenda:

Excuse me Simjanes, but... aren't church and state seperated?
That makes your point invalid.

Then, The Netherlands, Belgium and the other countries mentioned are Christian countries to. Belgium is even Catholic. Makes your point completely bull. So, now a valid point please?

1. Yes, theoretically. But as we just saw in California, not always.
yadda...

Well, I don't agree with your position, sim, but I do somehwat pity the numbers here. You got like five of us all over you! I guess the conservatives are licking their wounds today and the liberals are all fired up.

From a Conservative standpoint, I imagine it's as Yeats said:

$1:

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

[Mustang1]

Let's look at marriage over time, shall we?

1. Polygamy (Solomon)
2. Levirate Marriage - widowed women who had not given birth to a son could be required to marry and procreate with their brother-in-law. Biblical example: Tamar and her brother-in-law Judah
3. Women as property - Biblical example: Sarah gave Hagar (whom she owned as property) to Abram in Genesis
4. Male and Female Slave - a male slave owner could designate one of his slaves to act as a wife. Biblical example: Exodus
5. Pre-Civil War era U.S. - some states would not allow African-Americans to marry
6. 20th Century U.S. - some states (ex: California) would not allow interracial couples to marry

If the DEFINITION of marriage has historically transformed why can't it change now to recognize OUR specific cultural and temporal milieu?

Lastly, where exactly did Jesus say that homosexuals shouldn't marry?

[Brenda]

simjanes2k simjanes2k:

Brenda Brenda:

Excuse me Simjanes, but... aren't church and state seperated?
That makes your point invalid.

Then, The Netherlands, Belgium and the other countries mentioned are Christian countries to. Belgium is even Catholic. Makes your point completely bull. So, now a valid point please?

1. Yes, theoretically. But as we just saw in California, not always.

2. Those countries are not even CLOSE to as tied to religion as we are. Their half-assed piousness does not in anyway make our ideology "bull."

3. My valid point has not yet been in earnest challenged. Still waiting.

4. FYI, I'm a fucking ATHEIST here, arguing for religion. What the hell has the world come to?

And you know that how exactly? Half-assed?

Your point is not valid. Their is NO reason other than moronity to ban gay marriage... It is discriminatory. Gays in California are second rank citizens this way.

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

simjanes2k simjanes2k:

Anyone who thinks same-sex marriage is a clear-cut issue with an obvious solution when it's being voted down all over the place is at LEAST stupid. Maybe shallow too, but I can't confirm it.

Ahhh, but it hasn't been voted down all over the place. Massachusetts and Connecticut both allow it. Plenty of other jurisdictions (Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, and South Africa to name a few) around the world allow it too.

The Massachusetts legislature has so far blocked every attempt to get a state constitutional amendment on the ballot because the polling in MA shows it will pass. Connecticut's courts just forced the matter. In neither state has it gone to a vote. Yet.

[scarecrowe]

Tell me, is there any financial benefit to be hitched in any way shape or form in this country? If the answer is yes, then why is there a financial benefit for getting hitched and who pays for the benefit?

[BartSimpson]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Give me one good reason why what goes on in Bountiful shouldn't be allowed?

But to play ball, here's why it's different.

Firstly, it's noteworthy that you can bring up polygamy without even using that word. You merely have to drop the name of some podunk little town in BC and everyone knows what you're talking about. Why? Because polygamy is that far out of the mainstream.

Homosexuality is, too. So I can defend my side by stating that the mainstream of California spoke and said that gay marriage is not the equal of normal marriage.

$1:

And why is it that far out of the mainstream? Because it's not about rights and equality, it's about power and subjugation. It's about a few men asserting control over a few more women, making themselves kings in their own nutshells. And that's not okay. Those men don't have the right to brainwash and lord over their wives (plural) and daughters. That "marriage" is a part of the way they assert their power doesn't make that issue equal to the issue of marriage in the context of same-sex couples.

And here we have you imposing your morality on these people. What's it to you how they choose to live their lives and raise their kids?

$1:

With same-sex marriage, it is about equality. It's about two men or two women being equal to one man and one woman in the eyes of the law. It's about allowing same-sex couple all those great things that come with marriage without going through a whole circus of saying yes, you can have survivor benefits, and be named on each other's health plans, and all thos other things, but you can't call yourselves married.

The two issues are not the same.

They are the same because we're talking about undoing the definition of marriage. If there is no secularly justifiable reason to prevent six men from marrying each other then there is also no secularly justifiable reason to prevent one man from marrying five women. As we are seeing with gay marriage this is something the courts will rule on and courts work on precedent. If there is no reason to limit marriage to one man and one woman then there is no reason to limit it at all.

[uwish]

tax advantages mostly plus pension, death etc for legal spouses only. And the legal definition of spouse was opposite sex.

[BartSimpson]

lily lily:

Come on, Bart. Stay on topic.

Why shouldn't SSMs be allowed?

Repeat after me, Lily: I WANT my children to grow up to be gay or lesbian.

Say it.

Out loud.

Really.

Tell me that having your little boy grow up to be by random men is just as appealing to you as having him grow up to be a husband to a loving wife and a father to your grandchildren? Tell me that having your little girl with some crew-cutted mean faced lesbian appeals to you more than having her married to a nice guy and raising grandkids?

I doubt you'll admit to me on this board that you don't want your kids to grow up gay and you'll probably give me the usual pabulum of how you'll love them no matter what (I'd expect that since I know you to love your kids anyway) but I do expect in the back of your mind that you'll have a pang of regret if your kids all turn out queer.

And that's what's wrong with SSM - it tells society to accept as 'normal' something that is destructive and repugnant to normal and decent people.