Bad Player wrote:But letting homosexuals marry or not doesn't change the fact that they can't have kids.
Precisely my point. In my opinion, Civil marriage is an incentive from state for people to procreate, establish a family and ensure the future demography of the country - as state has no interest, as long as it expects its population to be renewed by itself, in giving an incentive to people who can't put it to acts.
Bad Player wrote:But having bad eyesight will have an effect on your ability to be a good fighter pilot. What should your sexuality have to do with "a bunch of small fiscal advantages"?
Nothing. But that's not my definition of marriage.
I was quoting it from Sing', saying "it doesn't matter to give them, it's just a property contract". If it is, then it's not relevant to love itself, so they can establish pretty much any contract which does not bear the name "marriage". That's what Finland calls "Registered Partnership", for example. I am not comfortable with the idea, because I think giving the same incentives, actually encouraging homosexual relations, is wrong and could be troublesome for the future of society; but as I said, it's the state's decision where it wants to spend money or where he intends to give incentives, if it does not consider the stability of society to be at risk.
Marriage, however, is something else. The word means much more than a simple property contract.
Hodou Okappa wrote:The fact is, though, that to say a homosexual marriage is not socially acceptable is bigoted. Plain and simple. You cannot justify this by saying "children cannot grow up properly without a mother and a father." There is ZERO evidence to support that.
If I took your sentence litterally, I would remind you that having no father and/or no mother is what is called being an orphan, and it's not considered particularly happy for children.
Now, your real point was about having two fathers or two mothers... Well, true, there is no evidence that it is not possible; just as there is no evidence that it is. The only evidence we have is that the traditional family model works, as it had done so for thousands of years.
Officialising another kind of union is taking a risk regarding the overall future evolution of society, since there is no certitude of any kind regarding the result.
Also, interestingly, though the link is much more complicated than this, I wonder about the relation between these two facts :
- on the one hand, the progressive dismantlement of this established family structure by some "progressist" people that, since the 60s, have brought the generalisation of divorce, the idea that sex and love are unrelated, and things like that, in the name of "freedom", with stable families (built on undivorced couples) being less and less numerous, since about half first marriages result in a divorce in the US, and numbers are similar in France.
- on the other hand, the rise of suicide rate for young people (10-24 years old) which,
according to the WHO (not a religious instance, mind you) has become a major cause of mortality since the 50s.
So, I'm sorry, but I do believe that shifting away from the "strict" family structure is a risk, that you might be willing to take, but others may not be.
Willing to protect humanity, while it is based on personal beliefs, opinion and interpretation of the facts, is not what I consider bigotry.
a man/woman marriage is as much as "pillar of our society" as television; which is to say, a false one, which people fill with unjustified praise and acceptance.
Right. Comparing something that has existed for about 4 thousand years in all known organised societies, to a technological success of the last sixty years still not generalised in developing countries... and arguably already declining because of the free diffusion to Internet growing quickly. Really, 4000 years to 60 years of life span, no scaling problem ?
Hodou Okappa wrote:The Bible is NOT God's word. I believe in God, and I will never believe the Bible is God's word. It was written thousands of years ago by men.
Small digression from the subject of gay marriage, but...
Have you ever heard the word "prophet" ? Basically, its a man who speaks to express the will of God. The Bible is full of those.
Whether you believe in them or not is your choice, it depends on your religion. I also agree that, since they were men, what they wrote was dependent on the time they wrote it. But this does not mean that God's will is not expressed through their words at all.
Also, one precision about slavery - the old parts of the Bible actually define rules to protect slaves, since it was an unregulated practice before. The Bible was a factor of progress, here.
It also details ways in which to make sacrifices to God and notable priests, and what may be done if it turns out that your wife is not a virgin (read: kill or publicly humiliate her.)
But why do we not follow THOSE passages?
Because the New testament takes precedence over the old, since the new is considered to express what God himself said when he came to earth as Jesus. Therefore it represents God's will much more accurately than the Old testament, in which all things had to be interpreted by men; the prophets I just mentioned.
And then, of your two points :
- Jesus offered himself as sacrifice, so basically the Eucharist replaces the sacrifices of the Old Testament
- Jesus taught forgiveness during all his life on earth, and for your particular example, he had the opportunity of saying - when pharisians tried to trick him with this problem, kind of like you are doing - : "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".
A great deal has to be taken on faith here, but if we are all creations of God, then why would he forsake some of us just for being different?
[...]
Hateful. These men had nothing but contempt for us, straight and gay alike. They claimed to be spreading God's love, but whenever you would engage them in conversation or debate it became clear what we were to them: sinners, astray from the path of God, destined to hang in the fires of Hell forever.
Agreed - as you say, the whole Bible, and the New Testament in particular, say that we're all his children and that we should all respect and love each other.
Some people forget that - they are extremists of all kinds. What you described is not the point of view of the Catholic church, which I share. If they are really "hateful", as you say, then they are more "astray from the path" than most people.
But I can't let you use these people to discredit the whole Christian religion, sorry. To my knowledge, I have not at a single time lacked respect to homosexuals, even though I'm advocating the point of view of the Catholic Church.
So yes, perhaps the US HAS democratically rejected gay marriage. And on that note, I feel democracy has failed. As has society. We have been taken over, indoctrinated by the Church and turned against the minorities. It is a disgusting truth, and I spend every day trying not to face it.
Strange, I think the same think about democracy, but for a bunch of other reasons.
Anyway, the funny thing here is that you imply that people thinking differently from you cannot have made their mind by themselves - they have to be
indoctrinated to think that way.
If I were to say that you have been indoctrinated by pro-LGBT media - of course, since you don't think the same as my Edgewoth-like perfect mind does
- , and that following any of your opinion would be a failure of the system, would not that seem insulting to you ?
Hodou Okappa wrote:...Unfortunately, even Descartes could not oppose the church safely. He ended up providing what they misinterpreted as one of their greatest proofs, after all.
Again, you seem to consider that a clever man can not have freely advocated the Church. Do you have any reason to even imagine that he disagreed fundamentally with the Church ? I haven't seen any analysis presenting his thought this way, so I'd certainly be interested.
Hodou Okappa wrote:As for whether or not it's murder, that's an even stickier subject. Yes, it ends a potential life, but I'm also of the opinion that life begins with consciousness, which an unborn child does not yet have. Since the baby is not, IMO, alive yet, I do not view it as murder, and yet I still feel it's wrong to take away that life's chance to exist. As you said, it's a difficult topic, because everyone could have their own definitions.
What worries me is that, in spite of the fact that you admit people have different definitions, you said it was against your Constitution to forbid abortion. That would mean it's one of the fundamental rights.
But the same constitution forbids murder. So you imply that abortion is not a murder
from the Constitution's point of view (I'm not talking about yours, here). And that last part is only your interpretation of it - SG has a pretty different one, for example.
Therefore, as long as there is any doubt, you can't say that anything is against the Constitution in that respect - unless you claim to be the one of those who wrote it, but I won't believe you
Hodou Okappa wrote:I still have absolutely NO problem with people who follow a religion out of genuine faith and don't pervert it into a tool they can use to make sure the world stays exactly where they want it to be.
Then please stop considering that everyone of those religious people that express an opinion different from yours are perverting their religion.
BuddyFaithAKADiego wrote:I've heard people call gay people abominations and sinners and I was mad, and I mean really mad, I don't think that's right at all. Marriage should be available to all people of any race, S.O., religion, etc.
I agree with your first sentence - calling them abominations isn't right.
However, your second sentence is pretty much unrelated - like okappa, you seem to imply that everyone against gay marriage is motivated by hatred.
I'll repeat it as much as needed, but this is not the case.
LunchPolice wrote:I know saying somebody with bad eyesight shouldn't fly a plane isn't looking down on them - it's just a thing they can't really do, but...
If it was possible to make it so they could fly planes with no trouble at all, would you support that?
If the solution was perfectly safe and efficient, then the difference would be non-existent, so that rule would not be needed. But a perfectly safe and efficient technique doesn't exist...
One cannot erase difference completely, nor do I think it is desirable anyway.