Is making gay marriage illegal censoring relationships? - Page 5

Ming · February 10, 2004, 10:28

Kontiki... so true.

That check list is not going in BK's favor.

I again ask him for logical reasons beyond religious beliefs.
Every one he has brought up to date has indeed been shot down, or he has shot himself in the foot trying to respond.

It comes down to equal rights for all... it's that simple.
Gays need the legal protections offered by marriage just like heterosexual couples. If a religion doesn't want to recognize such relationships... fine... that doesn't effect the legal standing in the eyes of the Government.

Flubber · February 10, 2004, 11:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Kontiki... so true.

It comes down to equal rights for all... it's that simple.
Gays need the legal protections offered by marriage just like heterosexual couples. If a religion doesn't want to recognize such relationships... fine... that doesn't effect the legal standing in the eyes of the Government.

Ming · February 10, 2004, 14:55

I await BK's next reason why gay marriages are bad

chequita guevara · February 10, 2004, 14:57

Marriage is for fags!

Marriage is also for breeders!

Kontiki · February 10, 2004, 14:59

I'm waiting for his full-blown "allowing gay marriages is such an affront to straight people that they will stop getting married and having children, eventually leading to the complete collapse of society" arguement. That's basically what he's been hinting at in this thread, but I want to see him take it to the next level.

Agathon · February 10, 2004, 15:10

Isn't the answer that God made ****s to go up ****s?

Damn, even the autocensor forces sexual ambiguity upon us! I can't even express God's word without it making my post ambiguous between Godly love and the evil Satanic sort that homosexuals practice.

Apolyton is promoting the homosexual agenda!!!! Nofaaiiiirrrrr!!

Ming · February 10, 2004, 15:11

If any straight people stop getting married and having children because gay people are allowed to get married in the eyes of the government, then one must truely question whether they really love each other and should be getting married in the first place. Marriage is commitment between two people who love each other... what other people do should have no impact on that.

Whaleboy · February 10, 2004, 16:18

Ming:

The main problem I have with BK is that he talks about "morality" but offers no clear definition of that, nor any particular reason why his is better than mine, the latter allowing gay marriage. I ask for clarification and enlightenment *drags on spliff*.

MrFun · February 10, 2004, 17:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
I await BK's next reason why gay marriages are bad

No -- don't encourage him!

GePap · February 10, 2004, 17:47

Damn, Ben can make any thread about abortion or gays 150 post long!

it's a gift really.

MrFun · February 10, 2004, 17:50

You call this a *****ing gift??

I call it punishment.

gunkulator · February 10, 2004, 18:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Marriage is commitment between two people who love each other... what other people do should have no impact on that.

Just to play Devil's Advocate: Why limit marriage to only two people? Is there a reason I can't marry, say, all my roomates or the entire floor of my apartment? Would it be fair to sue my employer if they objected to providing insurance for all these people?

yavoon · February 10, 2004, 18:28

Quote:

Originally posted by gunkulator

Just to play Devil's Advocate: Why limit marriage to only two people? Is there a reason I can't marry, say, all my roomates or the entire floor of my apartment? Would it be fair to sue my employer if they objected to providing insurance for all these people?

I do agree that the 2 ppl limit is about as arbitrary as the man/women limit.

Ming · February 10, 2004, 22:42

Hmmm... I noticed BK was posting, so I figured I would bump this

But... he will probably stay away and just start his arguments all over again in the next thread on this subject... figuring how hammered he got in this thread

Flip McWho · February 10, 2004, 22:47

Het gets hammered in every thread and then some when its raised briefly. He's the single most pig headed person I've seen.

Ming your a devious bastard bumping this thread just for that reason.

Ming · February 10, 2004, 22:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Flip McWho
He's the single most pig headed person I've seen.

I disagree with that statement. But when it come to religious issues, he supports the church's position strongly.

Quote:

Ming your a devious bastard bumping this thread just for that reason.

Yep

Flip McWho · February 10, 2004, 22:55

Yeah but he won't admit that its the church's position that he is stating. He tries to state rational arguments and refuses to admit when people prove him wrong. In my book he is pig headed because he won't see reason at all.

I respect the church's position even if there is no real reason why. I've also seen BK argue effectively in other threads. Just never about this issue, he seems to get clouded by his religion.

Agathon · February 10, 2004, 22:56

We live in a secular, liberal state. Since in all religions the commands of the Deity take precedence over those of human beings, it follows that the religious man, whether he knows it or not, must be in a condition of perpetual war against the state.

I'm not surprised these debates get nowhere.

GhengisFarb™ · February 11, 2004, 15:56

I have tried to stay out of the discussion on Gay Marriages for several reasons.

First, I was raised in Oklahoma (the gaudy brass buckle of the Bible Belt) and so I have very conservative beliefs on religious issues. I realize that and I don't feel its anyone's place to force their beliefs on someone else. God directed Christitans to convert 'the heathens' but I believe he meant for us to do it with reason. If they are doing something because they are forced to do it against their true beliefs then I think that isn't accomplishing God's goal at all. Christians should get others to believe their viewpoint not force them to abide by it through laws.

Second, one of my first jobs after college (I went to a strict Conservative Christian college) had me working in a company with a large homosexual employee percentage. (Its also funny that while in college I worked for a museum conglomerate and I was one of only two heterosexual men in the company.) At this company I was joking referred to as the corporation's "token heterosexual male" that they had to hire to meet Equal Opportunity quotas. Which was a joke (a funny one) but I was the only heterosexual in Management. Anyway, I came to see issues and understand a lot more about that perception and viewpoint over the years so I don't just take the position of my "religious belief" in these matters anymore.

That said, I have long taken the position that while religiously I am against homosexuality and same sex marriage, politically I do not oppose it as I feel that all citizens should have the same rights and priviledges.

In the last week I have come to change my mind.

I have come to believe that the purpose of Marriage and the tax/legal benefits of such (Civil Union) are INTENDED to encourage the rearing of children. Most of the arguments and passion of this debate has centered on the legal/tax benefits and it has centered on the rights of life partner and their committment to one another.

Fine, but I don't think the reason for the tax/legal benefits of Marriage are to reward someone for enjoying sex. They are there to support and offset the cost of rearing and caring for offspring and to allow the couple to be able to raise the child(ren) with as much opportunity for success as possible.

Why would the government care if you have good sex? Why would they feel the need to build in a tax benefit for good sex? There really isn't a logical reason for it. Child rearing? A society needs a continuous supply of new members to continue to exist, these new members replace deceased ones and generate tax revenue. There is a reason for the government to support this as it generates a future benefit for their "investment" of tax credits/benefits.

Do all heterosexual marriages produce offspring? No, many are simply taking advantage of the tax breaks and benefits for those purposes. Many heterosexual marriages exist for the life partner communion that same sex couples also exist for and that is the argument that the proponents of legalizing same sex marriages are using and its a valid point.

But I do not believe that is the reason why the tax benefits and legal distinction exist. Perhaps if all tax/legal benefits were tied to the existence and cost of the offspring and childrearing and Marriage itself did not offer tax/legal benefits the issue wouldn't be fought for as hard.

Once again, I have no hatred or dislike toward homosexuals. I have many good friends who are homosexuals and I consider them some of my most trusted and loyal friendships. They are fully aware of my religious beliefs and we often discuss these issues during our Poker games. My religious belief is that Homosexuality is a sin but that doesn't mean I should treat those people as a pariah to be purged from society, they can contribute to our society too.

Ming · February 11, 2004, 16:09

You focus only on the tax breaks... not the legal bond that is formed between two people. It is more than just good sex... it's a parntership. The laws give them rights to make decisions for each other, to look after each other, to protect their best interests. To make life and death decisions for your loved one has nothing to do with having children.

Now, gays have to watch in agony as they are excluded from life and death decisions of their partners because the "law" doesn't recogonize their relations. This is a farce. They deserve the same rights and ability to make those kind of decisions as straight couples.

Again... while children do come from marriage, there are far more legal issues involved than just raising a family.

No... the bennies you get aren't just for having free sex... that's just a cheap shot at the whole insititution of marriage...

chequita guevara · February 11, 2004, 16:19

The tax breaks in marriage are not there to support the rearing of children. If they were, there never would have been a so-called "marriage penalty." There are special tax breaks for having children.

MrFun · February 11, 2004, 16:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
You focus only on the tax breaks... not the legal bond that is formed between two people. It is more than just good sex... it's a parntership. The laws give them rights to make decisions for each other, to look after each other, to protect their best interests. To make life and death decisions for your loved one has nothing to do with having children.

Now, gays have to watch in agony as they are excluded from life and death decisions of their partners because the "law" doesn't recogonize their relations. This is a farce. They deserve the same rights and ability to make those kind of decisions as straight couples.

Again... while children do come from marriage, there are far more legal issues involved than just raising a family.

No... the bennies you get aren't just for having free sex... that's just a cheap shot at the whole insititution of marriage...

great post Ming

I hate it when people have to sexualize homosexual relationships in a way that degrade them as being less dignified.