We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Possible solution for marriage
Topic Started: Jun 10 2005, 03:33 PM (1,093 Views)
happygilmore
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Innocence
Jun 10 2005, 09:28 PM
happygilmore
Jun 10 2005, 04:26 PM
Innocence
Jun 10 2005, 09:24 PM
Doug, in a way it is enslavement. They are treated in many ways the same as slaves were, the only difference being that they do have "freedom." But one of the aspects of being American is the right to the "pursuit of happiness." That is something you are denying to homosexuals because they are different from you, and your religion forbids it.

happygilmore, that sounded very selfish. Would you like to be kept from marrying the love of your life simply because a group of people thought it was wrong?

No, but marrying someone of the opposite sex isn't wrong. Problem solved.

G

Problem not solved, because half of America doesn't see marrying someone of the same gender wrong, either. It wouldn't help if you tried to look at the people we are debating over as actual humans with feelings and emotions. You said you were not prejudice and loved everybody. Well, it really seems like that is not true. If you weren't prejudiced and loved homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, you wouldn't try and deny them a basic right of human beings.

Why don't you show me a person who is a heterophobe who doesn't want heteros to be married.

G
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Innocence
我 百鬼夜行を逝
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
happygilmore
Jun 10 2005, 04:30 PM
Innocence
Jun 10 2005, 09:28 PM
happygilmore
Jun 10 2005, 04:26 PM
Innocence
Jun 10 2005, 09:24 PM
Doug, in a way it is enslavement. They are treated in many ways the same as slaves were, the only difference being that they do have "freedom." But one of the aspects of being American is the right to the "pursuit of happiness." That is something you are denying to homosexuals because they are different from you, and your religion forbids it.

happygilmore, that sounded very selfish. Would you like to be kept from marrying the love of your life simply because a group of people thought it was wrong?

No, but marrying someone of the opposite sex isn't wrong. Problem solved.

G

Problem not solved, because half of America doesn't see marrying someone of the same gender wrong, either. It wouldn't help if you tried to look at the people we are debating over as actual humans with feelings and emotions. You said you were not prejudice and loved everybody. Well, it really seems like that is not true. If you weren't prejudiced and loved homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, you wouldn't try and deny them a basic right of human beings.

Why don't you show me a person who is a heterophobe who doesn't want heteros to be married.

G

What does that have to do anything? :huh: You kind of just proved my point. Heterosexuals are the ones with the problem, not homosexuals.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clair
Member Avatar
Successful at last.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
If you are co-habiting with someone you are having sex with you are living in sin apparently, not that I am religious mind you. So if thats the case then why not let them marry, one less 'sin' isn't it?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
finch
Member
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
happygilmore
Jun 10 2005, 10:30 PM
Innocence
Jun 10 2005, 09:28 PM
happygilmore
Jun 10 2005, 04:26 PM
Innocence
Jun 10 2005, 09:24 PM
Doug, in a way it is enslavement. They are treated in many ways the same as slaves were, the only difference being that they do have "freedom." But one of the aspects of being American is the right to the "pursuit of happiness." That is something you are denying to homosexuals because they are different from you, and your religion forbids it.

happygilmore, that sounded very selfish. Would you like to be kept from marrying the love of your life simply because a group of people thought it was wrong?

No, but marrying someone of the opposite sex isn't wrong. Problem solved.

G

Problem not solved, because half of America doesn't see marrying someone of the same gender wrong, either. It wouldn't help if you tried to look at the people we are debating over as actual humans with feelings and emotions. You said you were not prejudice and loved everybody. Well, it really seems like that is not true. If you weren't prejudiced and loved homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, you wouldn't try and deny them a basic right of human beings.

Why don't you show me a person who is a heterophobe who doesn't want heteros to be married.

G

You probably won't find any, because after knowing what it feels like to be treated like shit, we wouldn't wish it upon anyone else..
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Glitch
Blasphemer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
happygilmore
Jun 10 2005, 04:30 PM
Why don't you show me a person who is a heterophobe who doesn't want heteros to be married.

G

There are none, because most homosexuals are a lot more open-minded than you are.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
doug05257
Member Avatar
The Burger King
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Innocence
Jun 10 2005, 04:24 PM
Doug, in a way it is enslavement. They are treated in many ways the same as slaves were, the only difference being that they do have "freedom." But one of the aspects of being American is the right to the "pursuit of happiness." That is something you are denying to homosexuals because they are different from you, and your religion forbids it.

You overlook a small, yet crucial detail. The right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is found in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The USA's elected officials are sworn to uphold and defend the morals, ideals, and values of the Constitution, not the Declaration. In no way is anything in the Declaration part of current United States law.

"Slaves" with "freedom". You sound like a bad poem, IMO.

And if you have a problem with someone's religion, that is just as bad as someone having a problem with your lifestyle. In some ways, it is even more personal than just a protest against your "way of life".

Let's see. We've compared gays to slaves, so isn't it about time we bring a Nazi death camp analogy into this? :rolleyes:

Quote:
 
There are none, because most homosexuals are a lot more open-minded than you are

Whoever said being open-minded was good?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jazzy1147
Member Avatar
[- influence]
[ *  *  *  * ]
It's funny how when somebody disagrees with something pertaining to gay rights, they're immediately tagged as a bigot and flamed.

Oh, and by the way; in no way does the treatment of homosexuals compare to slavery. I'm sick of seeing comparisons between the situation facing homosexuals and slavery or the Holocaust. People aren't being rounded up and deported to labor or death camps because of sexual orientation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ross
Inspire
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Glitch
Jun 10 2005, 02:33 PM
The main argument I see nowadays against gay marriage is the fact that it goes against your religion. Well, I've come up with a solution: seperate federal and religious marriage completely.

Basically, couples that are federally married will enjoy all the political and economic benefits currently married couples get from the government. However, the church would not have to recognize this type of marriage.

Religious marriage is purely done by religious institutions. Religiously married couples enjoy all the benefits their faith gives them for being married (not sure if there are that many). However, they do not get any additional government benefits that federally married couples don't get. Religiously married couples are automatically federally married.

Thoughts/questions?

All thought we differ on much, I agree with you on this. While I am all for my beliefs, a way to solve the problem for both is always ideal.

Good thinking.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Scott
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It might actually work, but most of the Congressmen are religious, so they wouldn't pass it. ;) To happygilmore, debates aren't for the biased. I'm not saying your religion is wrong in any way, but if you're not going to be open-minded, what's the point in debating a topic if you're blinded by your own bias?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
doug05257
Member Avatar
The Burger King
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Scott
Jun 10 2005, 09:16 PM
It might actually work, but most of the Congressmen are religious, so they wouldn't pass it. ;) To happygilmore, debates aren't for the biased. I'm not saying your religion is wrong in any way, but if you're not going to be open-minded, what's the point in debating a topic if you're blinded by your own bias?

Being closed-minded, to me, means having a strong opinion and being unwilling to compromise on certain aspects of the debate. This is not necessarily a bad thing; in fact, it is good. Being open-minded is being weak-minded; simply accepting everything you're spoon-fed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Scott
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
doug05257
Jun 10 2005, 09:23 PM
Scott
Jun 10 2005, 09:16 PM
It might actually work, but most of the Congressmen are religious, so they wouldn't pass it. ;) To happygilmore, debates aren't for the biased.  I'm not saying your religion is wrong in any way, but if you're not going to be open-minded, what's the point in debating a topic if you're blinded by your own bias?

Being closed-minded, to me, means having a strong opinion and being unwilling to compromise on certain aspects of the debate. This is not necessarily a bad thing; in fact, it is good. Being open-minded is being weak-minded; simply accepting everything you're spoon-fed.

Eh.. my view of open minded is willing to accept changes, not necessarily accepting anything that's thrown at you. Anyway, that's a different subject for a different time. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Glitch
Blasphemer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
doug05257
Jun 10 2005, 09:23 PM
Being closed-minded, to me, means having a strong opinion and being unwilling to compromise on certain aspects of the debate. This is not necessarily a bad thing; in fact, it is good. Being open-minded is being weak-minded; simply accepting everything you're spoon-fed.

If everyone was close-minded no work would ever get done. It's true that you have to have strong convictions in our world, but that does not mean that you have to close your mind to the possibility that someone else just may be right.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Crimson
Member Avatar
Karate ni sente nashi.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
i think it would work... but not anytime soon... not with Pres. Bush at the helms... seeing as he's strongly religious and would be against the policy of supporting any sort of gay marriage... <.< i really hate Bush... of coarse he cant stop everything...

~ Crimson
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
doug05257
Member Avatar
The Burger King
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Crimson
Jun 10 2005, 11:38 PM
i think it would work... but not anytime soon... not with Pres. Bush at the helms... seeing as he's strongly religious and would be against the policy of supporting any sort of gay marriage... <.< i really hate Bush... of coarse he cant stop everything...

~ Crimson

A LOT of you people blame Bush for a lot of things that he doesn't have control over. Would you people please realize already that Bush cannot make laws?

Bush supports a Civil-Union form of this, Crimson. In which gays would be given all the political rights of married people, but are still technically unwed. Seeing that the word "marriage" is a religious term, this is perfectly reasonable.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Scott
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
doug05257
Jun 11 2005, 07:57 AM
Crimson
Jun 10 2005, 11:38 PM
i think it would work... but not anytime soon... not with Pres. Bush at the helms... seeing as he's strongly religious and would be against the policy of supporting any sort of gay marriage... <.< i really hate Bush... of coarse he cant stop everything...

~ Crimson

A LOT of you people blame Bush for a lot of things that he doesn't have control over. Would you people please realize already that Bush cannot make laws?

Bush supports a Civil-Union form of this, Crimson. In which gays would be given all the political rights of married people, but are still technically unwed. Seeing that the word "marriage" is a religious term, this is perfectly reasonable.

Although Bush cannot make laws, but he can stop laws from forming with one single signature.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Community Chat · Next Topic »
Add Reply