Gayrriage!

[FlyingTeaPot]

Is this a civil and legal objection to gay marriage, or a religious one?

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.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Why is it "fine" to differentiate one group from another simply due to light historical and societal tradition?

It isn't. Thats the point.

 

[Spirited]

Not all Christian denominations oppose gay marriage, based on different interpretations and translations of those "clobber" passages in the bible:

http://www.gaychurch.org/gay_and_ch...ow_nation_home/7_gac_the_clobber_passages.htm
A brief description of the anti-gay clobber passages in the Christian Scriptures
A brief description of the anti-gay clobber passages in the Hebrew Scriptures

Not trying to change anyone's mind, just bringing some things to light that aren't always known.

Of course, as a follower of Sanatana Dharma, it only matters to me for legal equality for people. Hinduism has nothing theologically to say about homosexuality or same sex marriage. No pujari (Hindu priest) will perform a same sex marriage not because Hinduism is opposed to homosexuality, but rather because it is pro-procreation, which necessitates a heterosexual union.

Anti-gay sentiments and laws in India (laws since repealed) were introduced by Europeans during their colonizations and rule of India.

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]

The "613 Laws" by Moses actually do expressly and explicitly prohibit homosexual relations, just pointing that out.

then where is the hoopla over people eating pork and shrimp?
a very poor argument.

I would also dispute your statement about homosexual couples not having any kind of affect on their children.

what kind of effect are you talking about other than providing a loving home?

I do, however, feel that there is a distinct difference between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples.

yes and...?

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?

yes, especially if people who think like you are still around?

You have to realize that I don't have a singularly biased perspective towards gays who want kids.

you just listed a few

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.

wait didn't you say...?

I don't have a singularly biased perspective towards gays who want kids.

wow just wow.

 

[idea]

Some people adamantly state that marriage is between one man and one woman. Well, okay. If people don't want to lend the word 'marriage' to apply to other forms of union, then lets have the new word 'gayrriage' to cover all the rest of the unions between consenting adults. And lets give consenting adults in a gayrriage the same rights as heterosexual couples in a marriage. Deal?

Sounds good to me!

 

[waitasec]

Sounds good to me!

you seem to agree with double standards...:drool:

 

[Spirited]

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

 

[blackout]

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.

 

[Ilisrum]

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]

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.

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).

 

[Ilisrum]

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]

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?

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]

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.

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]

then where is the hoopla over people eating pork and shrimp?
a very poor argument.

Not a fair comparison.

sure it is it's in the 613

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.

no duh...
so why do you judge homosexual couples to be incapable of adopting?

I described this already. To presume that two men (or women) are a sufficient substitute for a male/female relationship is not reasonable.

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.

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.

i never brought that up...talk about ad hominems

So your flagrantly biased perspective of my stance is acceptable because it's yours?

no because your bigotry is supported by a double standard...
that is obvious...

 

[Jainarayan]

And there are various pundits out there who can and do perform same-sex marriages apparently nowadays.

Hindu pundits? Well, I'll be... ! What will they think of next!?

 

[Jainarayan]

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.

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.

 

[Jainarayan]

The "613 Laws" by Moses actually do expressly and explicitly prohibit homosexual relations, just pointing that out.

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.

If two gay men raise a single straight boy, do you not think he might struggle when he searches for a spouse?

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.

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.

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]

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.

 

[Jainarayan]

then where is the hoopla over people eating pork and shrimp?
a very poor argument.

Not a fair comparison.

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).

 

[Jainarayan]

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.

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