Homosexual Marriage

[Kamunt]

Originally Posted by soulofcerberus

Homosexual marriage is definitely counterproductive, but so is abortion, and divorce. Just because something is counterproductive doesn't mean that it is shunned by society.

Right, I mean, does counterproductivity always have to be so bad? Look at it this way: the more same-sex couples there are, the less people there are born to attribute to overpopulation and homelessness even quicker. Plus, these same-sex couples could adopt a baby whose parents don't want/can't take care of, which would actually help America out when you think about it. There's no international maxim which states, "Gay people suck at raising kids!" last time I checked, so I figure, "Why not?" As a matter of fact, one of my younger sister's friends through her softball actually has "two mothers", now that I think about it. True story.

And just because you love somebody doesn't give you the right to complain to everybody else and change the laws of your state. Just because your mindset doesn't agree with a law doesn't mean that it should be changed. If we changed laws based on how people felt, prostitution would be legal as well as drugs and murder and almost everything else.

I doubt that bolded part highly, for some reason, especially the "murder and almost everything else" part. Last time I checked, most people don't like prostitution, drugs, murdering people, rape, robbing banks, drive-bys, etc. In all seriousness, though, actually yes it does give you the right to complain, if you feel strongly about something. Especially since, last time I checked the statistics, almost or around 50% of Americans support Gay Rights. 150,000,000 people seems pretty important to me, yet you're saying that they aren't allowed to complain just because they don't agree with the current laws that govern most of our nation? I'll go back to the Blacks' and Women's Rights Movements again, if necessary.

Originally Posted by Silvuh

Say a Christian majority voted for a proposition to not recognize any kind of homosexual marriage or civil union... That doesn't mean the church isn't separate from the state; it means that the majority vote counted.

But if they voted this way because of their religion, Christianity, then that's where the separation of Church and State concept comes into play, I think. Or I could be wrong and could just be typing to see my own words on the screen. *pokes your avatar and location*

What kind of a president would not veto a law legalizing murder? If someone feels one way, there will always be someone else to oppose, right?

That's very true, however....how in the hell would a law legalizing murder ever even be written, LMAO? It wouldn't even get out of the hands of the sponsor, much less the House or Senate. I know what you're trying to say, though, just using an extreme example, I see.

[devonin]

But if they voted this way because of their religion, Christianity, then that's where the separation of Church and State concept comes into play, I think.

Not quite, I mean, not only can you, you have the constitutional right to allow your religious beliefs influence your opinion on political matters all you want.

The seperation of church and state as a concept means generally that the church and state exist as seperate entities, with seperate agendas and leaders, and followers, and everything.

That element of the constitution was presumably put in there based on history of people like Henry VIII who was both the leader of the church and of the nation simultaneously, and that in such cases, it's -impossible- to say that such a person will defend the rights of all people to practice their religion any way they like.

[slipstrike0159]

Originally Posted by devonin

Not quite, I mean, not only can you, you have the constitutional right to allow your religious beliefs influence your opinion on political matters all you want.

The seperation of church and state as a concept means generally that the church and state exist as seperate entities, with seperate agendas and leaders, and followers, and everything.

That element of the constitution was presumably put in there based on history of people like Henry VIII who was both the leader of the church and of the nation simultaneously, and that in such cases, it's -impossible- to say that such a person will defend the rights of all people to practice their religion any way they like.

I think a more accurate way to describe separation between church and state would be to say that it is not allowed to teach gospel doctrine during government funded schools in which case the government leaders would have to put it on the teachers agenda to teach it. Basically, forcibly feeding people the religious ideas of a political leader is what it covers. Although i could be horribly wrong so feel more than free to set me straight.

[soulofcerberus]

Originally Posted by Kamunt

I doubt that bolded part highly, for some reason, especially the "murder and almost everything else" part. Last time I checked, most people don't like prostitution, drugs, murdering people, rape, robbing banks, drive-bys, etc. In all seriousness, though, actually yes it does give you the right to complain, if you feel strongly about something. Especially since, last time I checked the statistics, almost or around 50% of Americans support Gay Rights. 150,000,000 people seems pretty important to me, yet you're saying that they aren't allowed to complain just because they don't agree with the current laws that govern most of our nation? I'll go back to the Blacks' and Women's Rights Movements again, if necessary.

You're right, but the "murder and almost everything else" was referring to my beliefs that individual people, or minorities (no matter how minor) shouldn't be given the right to change everything.

However in a case like this, democracy is even more important, and when the majority, or even a largely significant part or the country/world speak up, that is when things have to change.

I still think that it is wrong, marriage is between a man and a woman. Plain and simple.

Also don't get on me for not understanding. I'm bi and I still think that it's wrong. Love's great but there are some things that you just don't need paperwork to tell you that it's important to you.

[devonin]

you just don't need paperwork to tell you that it's important to you.

I can tell you from personal experience, they don't give the slightest damn about the paper somehow making their love "legitimate" but two people living together permanantly have certain rights and benefits that ought (the argument goes) to be extended to any set of two people in that arrangement.

Nobody is arguing "The gays want to be married so they can go "Ooh look at me, I'm married"" They're arguing "Why should the gender of the two people make one whit of difference in applying a non-religious, legal status on them"

[Lamoc]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Yes, a completely baseless one.

Oh, forgive me for thinking that this was the Critical Thinking forum and that we were discussing gay marriage, not mindlessly bashing religion. Your post was completely out of place and it seems to me that you're taking every chance to get to spew word vomit all over this perfectly fine thread.

--Guido

I don't have to support my beliefs and what I believe in. To you lets say, killing someone is wrong. To you its just moraly wrong and should never be done. To me Religion is moraly wrong and is pointless in some situations. Yes religion does bring hope for people but it also sets so many limits on society and how we think. The perfect example of homosexuals. Religion always beats down on homosexuals on how its wrong and should never be and how a male and female should always be together and never the same sex. It's "moraly" wrong. "God" didn't create us to be that way. Well screw god and "The word of god". This is a free country. I can mess around with anyone of the same sex I please. Its my choice not some old book that says BIBLE on it.

[soulofcerberus]

The gender of the two people makes a difference because the status of "marriage" is by definition man and woman.

Why don't we change the definition of a word because it doesn't suit us. Hooray!

[Specforces]

Originally Posted by devonin

Well, thanks for taking Critical Thinking so seriously, it's much appreciated.

Son, I'm the original Critical Thinker, don't test me.

[devonin]

Man, a cavalcade of objections today:

Originally Posted by Lamoc

I don't have to support my beliefs and what I believe in.

In CT you do, it's right up there in the rules for the forum.

Originally Posted by soulofcerberus

Why don't we change the definition of a word because it doesn't suit us. Hooray!

If by "because it doesn't suit us" you mean "because it's unconstitutional" you'll have the point a little more clearly.

Originally Posted by specforces

Son, I'm the original Critical Thinker, don't test me.

But if nobody tests you, you never have to think critically.

[hayatewillown]

It should not be allowed, and this is for a fact.

Christianity was the first religeon, and now that we have biased people in our country, we now have mixed religions.

It's the law of god that there is no homosexuality.

[00Razor00]

This topic is stupid, because, The Bible shall not dictate who we marry
and what sex we marry to...

period, paragraph

Even if two men or two women were madly
in love for each other... it still wouldnt be right

but in other words I APRROVE IT!

[hayatewillown]

This topic is stupid, because, The Bible shall not dictate who we marry
and what sex we marry to...
---------------------------------------------


Your right. God does

[00Razor00]

uh thats why you have quote button, ROFL!

[Lamoc]

Right there is this entire topic in a nutshell.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by hayatewillown

Christianity was the first religeon

I can only assume that you mean "in this country". Even then, though, how does that change anything? Just because our founders were Christian doesn't mean that Christianity is somehow favored, especially in policymaking.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[devonin]

Christianity was the first religeon

Um...no...no it wasn't, not by a very very longshot, like...several thousand years no...

Also, the rules of the forum state to not post unless you directly contribute to the discussion at hand. The discussion at hand is the political ramifications of the move to legalise homosexual marriage in the United States...posting "it's a bad idea" contributes nothing to the discussion, we -know- some people consider it a bad idea, just like we -know- some people consider it a good idea, continually saying that over and over doesn't add anything.

[lord_carbo]

Originally Posted by devonin

Well...their God's word is "Go out and save people from damnation" so uh...I think it's kinda both.

The question you need to ask, though, is the intent. I guarantee you most of the time it's to please God by doing it, not to make yourself feel better by doing the right thing because you're saving people from an everlasting life in hell. As my church pastor explains situations like this, it's "scoring a few brownie points with God."

When our church did mission trips, we were "working for God."

Originally Posted by hayatewillown

It should not be allowed, and this is for a fact.

Christianity was the first religeon, and now that we have biased people in our country, we now have mixed religions.

It's the law of god that there is no homosexuality.

My God says homosexuality is allowed. Wutcha gonna do?

[psychopete]

Originally Posted by hayatewillown

It should not be allowed, and this is for a fact.

Christianity was the first religeon, and now that we have biased people in our country, we now have mixed religions.

It's the law of god that there is no homosexuality.

No, it wasn't. Also, you're the one being biased, and bias does not come from mixed religions, it comes from personal preference.

And if you truely believe it to be the law of God, then why are there gay priests and ministers? Look, if God was truely like that, wouldn't he have smited ALL of the sinners by now? Because everyone is a sinner.

[Reikobi]

Originally Posted by Kamunt;1451113
Really, though, even [i

if[/i] there were extremist laws, as you say, to make people loving someone the same sex and/or gender as them a punishable crime (which actually do exist in the U.S.A. in some states, though in a reduced form and applies to M/F couples as well as M/M), non-heterosexuals would still continue to love whomever they want to. Because let's face it: you can't stop love. A world without love would be a very sad world, indeed. Even love "like that". Think a Brokeback Mountain-type dealie, or even "Romeo & Juliet", where the lovers can only meet in secret. Think about how many couples of all kinds of combinations probably already exist, and not just homosexual ones: i.e. the smart, young girl dating the punk, trashy dude who goes to your local community college and still gets all Cs, Ds & Fs.

Oh, sigh...I ramble again.

Heh, I actually considered that as I was writing, but alas, 'twas late at night and I neglected to elaborate. Note that I utilized the word "hope", though, which does not imply that their attempts to thwart the strong bonds of love with legislation would actually be effective. On the contrary, and as you said (but I neglected to clarify, hence I am NOW), I actually believe that any attempt to ban homosexual LOVE (as in affection, rather than sex or marriage) would be largely inefficient. Much like banning marijuana/alcohol. Think Prohibition. XD

I should stop being lazy, and actually completely explain myself. :P

Er, on a side note... and not that you necessarily even believe this yourself, but...

Grades and social label are not always, or even often, good precursors for judging one's intellect. There are a great many "punk, trashy" kids who I've found to have a surprising level of insight. But then, this is COMPLETELY off-topic, so I'll stop here. Just a pet peeve of mine, is all.

[Specforces]

Originally Posted by devonin

But if nobody tests you, you never have to think critically.

I have absolutely nothing to contribute to this thread. Futhermore, I think that all "bible discussion" should be eliminated from the critical thinking forum due to the fact that the bible has many inconsistencies, a plethora of religious parables that can be interpreted many different ways, and cannot be argued about with logic(for the most part) as most will base their evidence on "faith."

I'm very close to locking this thread for inciting religious riots in Ohio.