FlyingTeaPot
Irrational Rationalist. Educated Fool.
Thats the problem. They claim it is a civil and legal one, when in reality it is a religious objection. At least, thats what I suspect.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Gayrriage!
- Thread starter FlyingTeaPot
- Start date
FlyingTeaPot
Irrational Rationalist. Educated Fool.
It isn't. Thats the point.
Spirited
Bring about world peace
The "613 Laws" by Moses actually do expressly and explicitly prohibit homosexual relations, just pointing that out. I would also dispute your statement about homosexual couples not having any kind of affect on their children. I also don't think comparing that to single parents is fair. I would not argue that a single gay parent would be any more or less effective than a single straight parents, which is the proper counter-argument. I do, however, feel that there is a distinct difference between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples. Observing the ways a mother and father display conjugal affection has an impact on children. If two gay men raise a single straight boy, do you not think he might struggle when he searches for a spouse? You have to realize that I don't have a singularly biased perspective towards gays who want kids. My faith is 100% family oriented, we don't think children should be raised by single parents or orphaned either. However, the mere presence of orphans does not mean that we should start looking for single parents and alternative couples who want children, unless we have clear, long-term data to support that.
waitasec
Veteran Member
then where is the hoopla over people eating pork and shrimp?
a very poor argument.
what kind of effect are you talking about other than providing a loving home?
yes and...?
yes, especially if people who think like you are still around?
you just listed a few
wait didn't you say...?
wow just wow.
idea
Question Everything
Sounds good to me!
waitasec
Veteran Member
you seem to agree with double standards...:drool:
Spirited
Bring about world peace
then where is the hoopla over people eating pork and shrimp?
a very poor argument.
Not a fair comparison. There are also commandments against masturbating, does that mean it should be made illegal? Would making masturbation illegal do anything? Does anyone actually uphold this standard 100% throughout their life? The answer to all of these things is a resounding no. However, neither eating pork nor spanking pork are comparable to homosexual couples adopting children.
what kind of effect are you talking about other than providing a loving home?
I described this already. To presume that two men (or women) are a sufficient substitute for a male/female relationship is not reasonable. Now, does that mean that gays should have less rights than a single person who simply desires to adopt a child? Absolutely not. Neither party should be allowed to adopt. Custody is, of course, a different thing. Since divorce is also very frowned upon in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, saying that single parenting is just worse than homosexual parents for a child is an unfair claim. Neither of these two scenarios are endorsed by any major world religions that I am aware of.
yes and...?
I clearly expand this thought in the next sentence.
yes, especially if people who think like you are still around?
Ad hominem and begs the question, congratulations, two logical fallacies in a single sentence!
you just listed a few
So your flagrantly biased perspective of my stance is acceptable because it's yours?
wait didn't you say...?
No, I didn't just say anything, I typed it. I did this so that you could conveniently read it over again, rather than make an fool of yourself in an attempt to support a poorly constructed, hypocritical, ego-maniacal, ironically ignorant post.
wow just wow
I know.
[youtube]xKG07305CBs[/youtube]
Good Day Sir! - YouTube
a very poor argument.
Not a fair comparison. There are also commandments against masturbating, does that mean it should be made illegal? Would making masturbation illegal do anything? Does anyone actually uphold this standard 100% throughout their life? The answer to all of these things is a resounding no. However, neither eating pork nor spanking pork are comparable to homosexual couples adopting children.
what kind of effect are you talking about other than providing a loving home?
I described this already. To presume that two men (or women) are a sufficient substitute for a male/female relationship is not reasonable. Now, does that mean that gays should have less rights than a single person who simply desires to adopt a child? Absolutely not. Neither party should be allowed to adopt. Custody is, of course, a different thing. Since divorce is also very frowned upon in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, saying that single parenting is just worse than homosexual parents for a child is an unfair claim. Neither of these two scenarios are endorsed by any major world religions that I am aware of.
yes and...?
I clearly expand this thought in the next sentence.
yes, especially if people who think like you are still around?
Ad hominem and begs the question, congratulations, two logical fallacies in a single sentence!
you just listed a few
So your flagrantly biased perspective of my stance is acceptable because it's yours?
wait didn't you say...?
No, I didn't just say anything, I typed it. I did this so that you could conveniently read it over again, rather than make an fool of yourself in an attempt to support a poorly constructed, hypocritical, ego-maniacal, ironically ignorant post.
wow just wow
I know.
[youtube]xKG07305CBs[/youtube]
Good Day Sir! - YouTube
Last edited:
blackout
Violet.
When people don't want you to have what they have,
and they can't stop you in reality
they will sometimes try to keep you from having their word/label
for the thing they don't want you to have (instead).
To many people, their labels and the actual things they label(signify)
may as well be inseprable.
Humanity lives under a cast of spells. (spellings)
The initial act of reCasting the very same thing
under another spelling
to give the appearance that there are actually two seperate things,
is a Lesser Black Magic (LBM) trick/tactic.
Redefine peoples' minds, and you Redefine their Realities.
This is Greater Black Magic.
and they can't stop you in reality
they will sometimes try to keep you from having their word/label
for the thing they don't want you to have (instead).
To many people, their labels and the actual things they label(signify)
may as well be inseprable.
Humanity lives under a cast of spells. (spellings)
The initial act of reCasting the very same thing
under another spelling
to give the appearance that there are actually two seperate things,
is a Lesser Black Magic (LBM) trick/tactic.
Redefine peoples' minds, and you Redefine their Realities.
This is Greater Black Magic.
Last edited:
Marriage itself is a pointless institution. If gay people want to fight for an institution that is meaningless to them and everybody else, more power to them. I see no point crying about something that should have been done away with 500 years ago. It's a fact that unmarried couples can be just as happy (if not more so) than married couples.
Spirited
Bring about world peace
A fact with no statistical evidence and only a few skewed personal testimonies to back it up. Link something that at least looks reliable to substantiate that claim (Something that wasn't studied in California or France).
I'm only speaking from personal experience, honestly. I know couples who have been together for 40+ years and have never been married. The bartender where I work has been with her boyfriend consistently for 46 years and they have children and grandchildren together. Sorry if I hit a nerve, but you don't need a scientific study for everything that happens in the human world.
Not trying to start a fight; just sating what I've witnessed from experience. If it's true for hetero couples, why not for gay couples also?
Spirited
Bring about world peace
Oh, that's just playing with labels. I rescind my statement, I thought you were referring to non-monogamous relationships/ encouraging people to just have a revolving door of partners. The whole "taste testing" philosophy is pretty disgusting to me.
blackout
Violet.
The thing is though, the legal marriage thing
comes with legal 'extras'.
While not all of us want those legal extras,
there should be equality of rights/opportunity for gay couples
and straight couples alike.
These are issues of legal and civil rights.
Legal marriage is a NON RELIGIOUS issue.
Legal marriage has to do with legalities of state,
legal contracts between individuals.
Whatever else people make of it beyond that
is what they make of it in their own minds.
waitasec
Veteran Member
sure it is it's in the 613
no duh...
so why do you judge homosexual couples to be incapable of adopting?
there was a time when women couldn't vote...so?
your conservative views are only a stick in the wheel of progress for tolerance in the face of hate...you are about hate.
i never brought that up...talk about ad hominems
no because your bigotry is supported by a double standard...
that is obvious...
Hindu pundits? Well, I'll be... ! What will they think of next!?
Actually I think they conflate the two. People don't realize that no marriage is valid without a civil license. They have no answer when asked about the validity of a marriage done at a municipal court by the judge. Are atheists married? They have no answer.
They don't realize that they could have the entire College of Cardinals perform a wedding, but without a civil license, there is no marriage. Clergy are only authorized by the state to sign and validate the license as a nod to tradition. But it is totally unnecessary. The couple could have already had a valid wedding, with the license signed by the judge at the court, and only go to church as a tradition.
Marriage is not a religious institution. It's not the church that will award Social Security survivor benefits, or adjudicate inheritance. It is the state upholding a civil contract. They don't get it though.
There are umpteen translations of those supposed laws of Moses, most of which are taken out of the context of the time and place they were written, and badly mangled. Some of them even contradict each other. The main thrust is that no religious document or scripture has any bearing on, or place in US civil law. As a Hindu, Moses' laws are not binding on me.
The US was not founded on Christian principles, as people often bring up. It was founded on principles of the Enlightenment and the Rights of Man. Framers of the Constitution had religious affiliations, yes. But they explicitly founded the US without any religious affiliation.
The frieze on the Supreme Court building has a scultpure of Moses, yes. But also of Solon and other ancient law-givers. Nor is the Ten Commandments to be found anywhere in the SCOTUS building, as people purport.
No, why would he? He'll meet a girl he likes, and who likes him. Follow the yellow brick road. If he is straight he is straight. There is no confusion or self-questioning. That he has two fathers who raised him is immaterial.
We have plenty of data about the pitfalls of the foster care system and the problems faced by children being shuttled and schlepped between families, or living in shelters because they won't be adopted out to "unacceptable" parents.
Gaura Priya
IRL
At my temple, there is a nice devotee girl who married... well, an agnostic/atheist boy. This boy was apparently raised by two fathers, and he is still pretty straight, lol. And manly...
So I myself can see that as a boy raised by two fathers, he turned out to be a pretty good man. No smoking, no drugs, no alcohol... not even a meat-eater anymore.
So I myself can see that as a boy raised by two fathers, he turned out to be a pretty good man. No smoking, no drugs, no alcohol... not even a meat-eater anymore.
Absolutely fair comparison. The commandments are not listed in order of severity, 1 being the worst and 613 being "meh, whatever". If it's an abomination for two men to have sex, then it's an abomination to eat a cheeseburger (a bacon cheeseburger should elicit an immediate thunderbolt), get a haircut, wear a cotton/linen shirt, or eat linguine with clam sauce.
No commandment is less an abomination than the other. And I do believe Jesus said that Heaven and Earth shall pass away before one bit of the Law is changed. He said he came to fulfill the Law, not destroy it (I used to be Christian).
That marriage license carries over 1,100 benefits, rights and duties. Not the least of which control inheritance, child custody, immigration, Social Security benefits, joint insurance policies, home purchasing and title, not having to testify against a spouse in a court of law (civil or criminal).
Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And for those who dismiss Wikipedia out-of-hand (references from the US GAO): Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited: