Gay Marriage views at Apolyton

[Proteus_MST]

I agree with the Article insofar, as new nationwide Laws should be passed, which separate Civil Union and religious Marriage
so that on the one hand all legal issues like adoption, Tax reliefs and the like come with a Civil Union and the religious marriage is nothing more than a ceremony (although if people undergo a religious marriage, but don´t form a civil union, they might also be considered relatives for claims to an inheritance or Visits in a Hospital).
All the thing myself and other people already mentioned before.

It should solve all Problemms.
On the one Hand you have a clear Separation of State and Religion.
On the other Hand Priests are absolutely free to decide who is allowed to marry and who isn´t.
So the Priests have every right to decide that for example Gays aren´t allowed to marry, or they might refuse to marry a member of their parish to someone who isn´t a christian or belongs to another christian Sect.

So, if everything is just a religious issue, as Priests and Believers don´t think that gays should be united before god, there is no real reason for them to oppose a strict separation of the religious ceremony and the civil rights and advantages, a marriage gives to people.

[Arrian]

[Rogan Josh]

I am surprised by how many posters want polygamy to be legal. Where is that coming from?

[Elok]

Well, Che, for my part, I've been cruising forums for seven years, and not once have I heard a single blunt insult against my god that seemed convincing to me as a logical argument. Methinks it would be arrogant for you to think you could succeed where Sava's brick-wall sarcasm, Molly Bloom's pit-bull loquacity, Curt's slightly-more-refined insolence and even Asher's "abstractions must die" tenacity have failed. All that crap does is irritate me, and if you think it convinces Ben you're the one who's ignoring history. Hmm?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
Missed the beginning of this thread.

I voted "in USA, full gay marriage rights."

However, the more I think about it, the more I think that the State (US Government) should call all unions (gay, hetero, whatever) "civil unions" with respect to its laws, and leave the "marriage" bit to religion. Thus, I would not get married to my girlfriend, but rather enter into a civil union. I don't really give a flying **** what it's called, and honestly I'd rather it doesn't have any religious mumbo-jumbo attached.

Then there is the issue of special rights/privileges attached to marriage or civil unions under the laws of the US of A. I agree with those who say that, if the purported reason for such benifits is childrearing, then attach it to having kids (birth or adoption. Frankly, more for adoption - that should be encouraged, don't you think?) not marriage/union.

-Arrian

I hope I had something to do with this position. The only distinction I would make is that we should call it marriage. I agree with the Mass. Sup. Ct. that separate but equal is not equal.

[Ned]

Cali, what that article ignores is that the Mass. Sup. Ct. that came out with the rulings is composed of 6 Republicans and 1 Democrat.

Equal rights is bi-partisan.

[Ned]

Another problem with confining the word marriage to religious ceremonies is that marriage has been arround a lot longer than religious marriages. There is evidence of marriages (or at least monogamy) from the days we were still living in caves.

I have no doubt that when religion arose so did the blessing of marriages. But religion had nothing to do with the institution in the beginning.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Elok
Well, Che, for my part, I've been cruising forums for seven years, and not once have I heard a single blunt insult against my god that seemed convincing to me as a logical argument. Methinks it would be arrogant for you to think you could succeed where Sava's brick-wall sarcasm, Molly Bloom's pit-bull loquacity, Curt's slightly-more-refined insolence and even Asher's "abstractions must die" tenacity have failed. All that crap does is irritate me, and if you think it convinces Ben you're the one who's ignoring history. Hmm?

‘Pitbull talkativeness’?

Is that meant to be an insult?

Of course coming from someone who thinks I’m female because of my forum nom-de-plume, and didn’t understand the meaning of asceticism, I’m not entirely sure.

‘Methinks it would be arrogant’- what is it with religionistas and fustian verbiage? Almost of the same kind as Obi Gyn’s ‘gay marriages can’t be fruitful.’

Whatever ‘fruitful’ means- of course, it would all depend on the context Obi Gyn wanted for it to be read in, much like the vague bits of the Bible.

I wasn’t actually aware that insults against gods were meant to be logical arguments- aren’t they meant to be insults? I’ve yet to see a convincing logical argument for god or gods, for that matter, blunt insults against atheism, agnostics and the non-religious notwithstanding. But then I've yet to read about a god that didn't behave at some point like a spoilt child.


Ned, could you tell us what the Stone Age evidence for monogamy is? I'm curious as to what you're referring.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Ned
Another problem with confining the word marriage to religious ceremonies is that marriage has been arround a lot longer than religious marriages. There is evidence of marriages (or at least monogamy) from the days we were still living in caves.

I have no doubt that when religion arose so did the blessing of marriages. But religion had nothing to do with the institution in the beginning.

That monogamy has around for much longer than religious marriages may be. And I think it is very likely.
After all you also find monogamous Relationships (even livelong) in other animals, such as for example the Graylag goose (Anser anser).
Maybe you´ll find also homosexual monogamous relationships in other animals (as you also find homosexuality in other species of animals )

I don´t know if there were marriages around before the advent of Religion, but I think, confining Marriages to relationships between a man and a woman was something which came much later (and in Conjunction with Religion).
And I also think that combining Marriages with some real social and financial advantages (such as lesser taxes or claims to heritage) was something which evolved much much later.

*Added these lines, as I think they might be important*
For the separation of civil and religious marriage of course it doesn´t matter at all if Religious marriage was first or not.
If you alter laws so that Civil Union entails all the advantages you formerly got with marriages (and letting homosexual relationships also get those advantages) you just create something completely new.
There is nothing which says that you should always stick to the old ways. Progress is possible, not only in Science and Technology, but also in social things (and Laws)

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Ned
Cali, what that article ignores is that the Mass. Sup. Ct. that came out with the rulings is composed of 6 Republicans and 1 Democrat.

Equal rights is bi-partisan.

Well I'd guess that even the repubs in Mass are pretty liberal. I don't think that was the main point of the article though. His main points seemed to be that a minority of Americans support gay marriage and that they are not respecting the rule of law by getting married anyway. Personally I'm undecided as far as the moral question goes, but I do think that if you disagree with a law you should work to change it instead of breaking it.

[Ben Kenobi]

and if you think it convinces Ben you're the one who's ignoring history.

Thanks Elok.

As for Rogan, I will stop posting here if Rogan gets banned, for the precise duration of his ban. No loss to me to stand by what I believe.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why don't you homosexual gentlemen

Thanks for the laugh, Rogan. Over the top.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

But not in this piece. I condemn him when he says things like this. The piece you cited says nothing of the sort.

His views on the "militant sodomite agenda" are well known, and in case you didn't know them he links to his site godhatesfags.com

Some choice snippets from that site.

An image of Westboro Baptist members dancing on the grave of a dead gay guy



Or this unjustified slur

Fags commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming fags make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 fags is a child molestor, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molestor

Or..

33% of fags ADMIT to minor/adult sex

Or...

Fags live filthy, unhealty, dangerous, unhappy, and in many cases, violent lives

Or his equation of homosexuality to:

• Exhibitionism - involves people who are sexually aroused by the idea of exposing their genitals to a stranger.
• Fetishism - involves people who are sexually aroused by nonliving objects.
• Frotteurism - involves people who are sexually aroused by the idea of touching and rubbing against a nonconsenting person.
• Pedophilia - involves people who are sexually attracted to prepubescent children (usually 13 years or younger).
• Sexual Masochism - involves people who are sexually aroused by being "humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer."
• Sexual Sadism - involves people who are sexually aroused by causing the psychological or physical suffering of a victim (e.g., "restraint, blindfolding, paddling, spanking, whipping, pinching, beating, burning, electrical shocks, rape, cutting, stabbing, strangulation, torture, mutilation, or killing").
• Transvestic Fetishism - involves people who are sexually aroused by cross-dressing.
• Voyeurism - involves people who are sexually aroused by watching unsuspecting strangers have sex.
• Telephone Scatologia - involves people who are sexually aroused by making obscene phone calls.
• Necrophilia - involves people who are sexually attracted to corpses.
• Partialism - involves people who are sexually attracted to exclusively one part of the body.
• Zoophilia - involves people who are sexually attracted to animals.
• Coprophilia - involves people who are sexually aroused by feces.
• Klismaphilia - involves people who are sexually aroused by enemas.
• Urophilia - involves people who are sexually aroused by urine.

Or his anti-semitism...

WBC to picket sodomite Jew Wesley Clark (real name "Kanne") stumping for sodomite Jew John Kerry (real name "Kohn") -- Fri. Mar. 5, 8 p.m., Ramada Inn Downtown, Topeka -- in religious protest & warning: "God is not mocked!" God Hates Fags! & Fag-Enablers! Ergo, God hates John Kerry, Wes Clark, and the whole fag/Jew/Homo-Fascist/Pink Swastika Tyranny/Same-Sex Marriage Holocaustic machine calling itself the Democratic Party (ditto Republicans) leading America irreversibly to eternal perdition!

Enough???

Again, I ask what would you have me condemn in your citation?

Supporting this deranged hatemongering individual. Hitler may have agreed with me on things like the provision of state health care, but I wouldn't defend him merely because of that.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

As for Rogan, I will stop posting here if Rogan gets banned, for the precise duration of his ban. No loss to me to stand by what I believe.

Super.

Another self-appointed religionista martyr. How very dreary of you, Obi Gyn.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Maybe you´ll find also homosexual monogamous relationships in other animals (as you also find homosexuality in other species of animals )

You will indeed. You will even find monogamous homosexual pairs involved in child-rearing (e.g. male black swans).

[Ben Kenobi]

Hitler may have agreed with me on things like the provision of state health care, but I wouldn't defend him merely because of that.

And neither does my defense of phelps here imply that I defend him in all circumstances.

[Ben Kenobi]

Fags commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming fags make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 fags is a child molestor, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molestor

Why is this unjustified? What is his source for these statistics?

33% of fags ADMIT to minor/adult sex

Just because he says something does not make this automatically false. What proof does he offer for the claim?

Fags live filthy, unhealty, dangerous, unhappy, and in many cases, violent lives

While I would not suggest that all of these statements apply, just being promiscious is going to be unhealthy.

equation of homosexuality to:

Why not equate homosexuality to pedophilia? You are a philosopher, so refute the man.

Jew/Homo-Fascist/Pink Swastika Tyranny/Same-Sex Marriage Holocaustic machine calling itself the Democratic Party (ditto Republicans) leading America irreversibly to eternal perdition!

His brush is rather wide, and I do not see any indication that he would desire to narrow the brush to only tar Jews.

[Ben Kenobi]

How very dreary of you, Obi Gyn.

I never implied I was the life of the party.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Why is this unjustified? What is his source for these statistics?

Just because he says something does not make this automatically false. What proof does he offer for the claim?

While I would not suggest that all of these statements apply, just being promiscious is going to be unhealthy.

Why not equate homosexuality to pedophilia? You are a philosopher, so refute the man.

His brush is rather wide, and I do not see any indication that he would desire to narrow the brush to only tar Jews.

So you don't do independent checks on the research of people you quote?

You're content to promote inaccuracy and prejudice and hate, as long as you can glena some 'facts' however dubious to promote your religionista agenda?

Yes, I think I understand how you put Christian love into practice now. I also understand the meaning of 'whited sepulchre'.

While you're at it, why not equate heterosexuality with bestiality and necrophilia, give us the percentage of children molested by a heterosexual family member or friend of the family, and some statistics for heterosexual promiscuity.

[Ming]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Yes, I think I understand how you put Christian love into practice now. I also understand the meaning of 'whited sepulchre'.

What part of "discuss the topic and not the people" do you not understand?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Why not equate homosexuality to pedophilia? You are a philosopher, so refute the man.

Why not equate connection to the Catholic church to a predilection to pedophilia? After all, Catholic priests abuse children.

[Ben Kenobi]

So you don't do independent checks on the research of people you quote?

I get source called quite frequently, so I try to find the best source I can.

However, my point still stands, that just because Fred Phelps says something does not mean that he is automatically incorrect.

Even a blind horse can find water.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why not equate connection to the Catholic church to a predilection to pedophilia? After all, Catholic priests abuse children.

4% accused is not many, when you consider that this fact is reported by folks who are not inclined to protect the church, and that not all allegations will prove true.

Secondly, you still have not managed to refute Fred Phelps. Surely you can do better than this.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


Where is the nasty slur in what you quoted? Gay men are, by definition, butt****ers surely? (Or is my implication that gay men have gay sex a nasty slur? )

Bullsh*t!

You knew the context in your use of this word was a bigoted slur, so stop pretending innocence.

[Jaguar]

MrFun, you know you enjoy it.

[MrFun]

You have the worst timing with attempts at humor, don't you, Jaguar??

[Jaguar]

I am going to clown about in this thread, because it is heading for disaster.

[Kuciwalker]

finally voted, for option #3

[Jaguar]

#3 w00t!

[Agathon]

I'm going to be bad and post about a person.

Ming - I have never seen him so gun shy... what's up?

Anyway, Ben I'll pick one: homosexuality is distinct from paedophilia in that children cannot consent to sex and that it seems to irreparably damage them in most cases. You can quibble about when someone is mature enough to consent but that doesn't mean that there is some age when they aren't old enough, nor does it hide the fact that paedophiles visit a form of abuse on their victims.

Neither is the case in homosexual relationships. Generally, both parties consent and both find the experience enriching rather than abusive.