The Gay Marriage debate!

Sly, are you happy in your current inter-ethnic civil union? Is that the real issue here?

 

Sly's inter-ethnic civil union aside, the notion of clinging to an outmoded definition is usually the act of someone perhaps fearful of social change/social acceptance of others different from oneself. Traditional marriage was exclusively a religious institution, but it no longer is.

Now people can get married for the price of a license and a couple of signatures at City Hall.

The real issue here revolves around societal acceptance of homosexuality. People cling stubbornly to their notions of marriage exclusivity perhaps because allowing homosexuals to marry brings them closer to equality with heterosexuals in social hierarchy---at least in the minds of those who oppose homosexuals (and saw them as lower in status to begin with), and closeminded people cannot stand that notion.

 

If anyone wishes to deny queers marriage, they need look no further than some of the people who already discriminate, in the most fundamental fashions, against queers.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/20/us-britain-muslims-gays-idUSTRE80J1EP20120120

Three British Muslim men were found guilty on Friday of stirring up hatred by distributing leaflets calling for the death of homosexuals in what prosecutors said was a landmark case.

The men, from Derby, had posted and handed out pamphlets near their local mosque with the title "Death Penalty?" featuring a mannequin hanging from a noose and saying gay people would to go to hell.

The leaflets were part of a protest by a group of Muslim men against a forthcoming Gay Pride parade in the city.

Ihjaz Ali, Kabir Ahmed and Razwan Javed became the first people in Britain to be found guilty under a law introduced in 2010 making it an offence to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Leave queers alone. Personally, I think they are a largely repugnant lot, or at least their self-styled "representatives" are, with their demands and their threats, but a quick look at people who really hate queers means its always best to err on the side of caution and let them be.

 

Nah...the real issue here is the definition of "marriage" which is the union between a man and a woman. Everything else is diversion

 

isn't that why it is called gay marriage?

the argument is semantics...as long as they get the same rights i dont see why it matters what it is called.

 

Except the halal issue would have some actual consequence in that it'd restrict one group of people's (silly) choice. What consequences do you think gays calling their unions 'marriage' vs 'super bum-cock conflation parties' or whatever, has?

 

If you're that hung up over your own narrow perception and preconception of the definition of a word that has already seen its definition broadened in a number of ways, you're not debating---instead you're a little child with his bottom lip stuck out.

Like I said, what do you care? You divorced, which is in violation of the church, so you can't really participate in marriage anyways. Traditional marriage is "til death do us part".

 

He's arguing that gay people shouldn't be allowed to use the word 'marriage' to describe their intimate association.

 

Whether or not my marriage failed, is inconsequential. I'm sure you've broken the speed limit before...does this mean you shouldn't drive?

Silly Billy

 

word.

 

Churches/pastors should have the right to refuse them too. (may still be the case...but saying that should never change)

 

Breaking the speed limit once doesn't equal a lifetime ban. In essence, it's not part of a lifetime consequence. In the church, divorce precludes the possibility of a traditional marriage in the eyes of the church. This means you are not engaged in a traditional marriage, but you still consider it marriage even if it violates the laws of the church.

Homosexuality violates the teachings of many churches, but it doesn't violate the law, so your comparison breaks down in the face of evidence. Once again, I'm right.

 

The law doesn't stipulate that if you break the speed limit then you can't drive.

 

Correct, BMB. If the law said lifetime ban for speeding, you'd see a lot less speeding. The law varies from a point or two off your license to a temporary ban or a longer ban.

With sly's traditional religion, some subcategory of Christianity, a traditional marriage is "til death do you part, not divorce", so sly's chance at marriage as recognized by the church, is gone. The eyes of the church do not recognize his union as marriage.

To me, that's unreasonable. He should still have a marriage even if it is his second one (But the 'blessed by the church' part is up to his church's discretion). That's because I'm in favour of the institution of marriage evolving to encompass those it did not cover previously. The difference is that sly only wants it to include second-timers like himself whereas I am in favour of a greater encompassment.

And Canada, the country where sly and I live, agrees with me. Gay marriage is legal here. In fact, politicians are currently working to strengthen that legal recognition right now.

Sly's becoming an anachronism in Canadian society. It's kind of funny really. He was treated badly when he lived in Britain as a youth and even posted on here about it. He was treated poorly due to the prejudices of certain segments of British society.

Now he's one of those certain segments in Canadian society which gay people have to strive against in order to be treated equally. He's too stuck in his ways to admit that the institution of marriage, like other social institutions, is fluid in its nature, and so his type of thinking is slowly being left by the wayside.

Sly's a bright fellow, but he's blind on certain aspects of social inequality.

 

I wish someone could show me that homosexual marriage is more detrimental to the concept of marriage than a 50% divorce rate among heterosexuals...or that it's detrimental from a non-religious standpoint.

 

I have a hard time giving a fuck about this either way

Philosophically, I think any two adults should be able to get married if they choose. I don;t think you force private institutions to perform the ceremonies or anything, but a justice of the peace? go for it. WHO GIVES A FUCK

At the same time, this is an issue that actually affects at best 5-10% of the population and its essentially a technicality, a title.

The world is being run by a cabal of greedy cocksuckers hellbent on hording 99% of the world's resources and money to themselves, a return to medieval social orders would seem to be the unchecked, ultimate result of all of this. This is one of a dozen or so gigantic fish that need frying. Whether or not somebody gets federal recognition for some antiquated, pointless exercise like marriage is small potatoes by comparison. It is not high on the list of things that trouble me. Time and resources being wasted in order to make laws against it is infuriating to me. Again, eye on the ball.

 

the law doesnt stipulate that if you divorce you cant marry again either

 

very good and reasonable response actually. nevertheless it's an important issue to homosexuals who claim that robbing them of the word is discrimination. it isn't discrimination any more than robbing pork lovers of kosher pork would be.

 

I would make the argument that the above only holds up at all if you are talking about church-sanctioned marriages

In my opinion, it fails to cut the mustard when applied to marriages taking place outside of the church

 

I am a religious person who thinks homosexuality is immoral

I am also a rational person who recognizes that in a pluralist society, I cannot (and do not wish to) enforce my beliefs on others. Homosexuality is legal and tolerated in this country, objecting to gay marriage at this point is just absurd and pointless. If anything, conservative types should be all for gays getting married in the traditional sense, as it would likely mean less casual gay sex taking place

 

you make no sense.

 

what about what I said made no sense?

 

This!

 

I think this question should be decided legally. Church shouldn't be allowed to break nay more laws than any other business or club does. Thus, when a church is an employee, it can't break the laws of equality (whatever is the term in English). They can have their own rules, so if they don't want homosexuals or women there, it is up to them. What they do not own however is the word 'marriage', so if homosexual couples get the same rights and they want to call their union a marriage, then let them.

 

I have absolutely no interest in whether or not two blokes want to get married. Good luck to them. Having said that, I don't know if they should be allowed to do so in a religious place. If a religion really is anti-gay, that is their right I suppose and forcing them to accept otherwise would be wrong IMO.

MTF

 

You are a wise man Doggy

MTF

 

Happy Birthday, sly.

 

YOU SEXIST BASTARD!!!:laugh11:

 

Have you seen the majority of dykes? They are blokes...

MTF

 

You don't know what you are talking about.



There are no men in this photo. Just bikes.:tick: