Homosexuality, sin, choice or biology?

[+joc]

You can still be conservative and support equality/marriage for gays, Joc. There was never a good reason to prevent gays from having the same rights as heterosexuals or excluding them from marriage.

Ah, but can you be a liberal and NOT support equality/marriage for gays? And...did you notice how you minced the word Equality into that sentence? Are not gays already equal in all other respects? In answer to the original question, I believe deeply that it is a biological choice. One can choose to be bi-sexual...but one cannot choose to be gay. One either is or isn't. And so...intellectually...yes...it is only right for someone who has no choice in the matter to be allowed to marry as anyone else.

But...and...this is not about that. I know it sounds strange but...Gay Marriage has never been about Gays having the right to marry. It has always been about twisting the conservative status quo. I can't prove this, but I would venture that the entire controversy surrounding marriage for gays didn't even begin with gays wanting to be married...probably by fat, balding, fourty year old white lawyers who saw dollars in it....or some such.

[+Liquid Gardens]

The truth is...America is a level playing field.

That may be what they teach on a different 3rd planet in the Milky Way, but on this Third Stone from the Sun (since you're into Cosmic Blues, might as well drop a reference to the king of it) America is much more complicated. Racism and sexism exist, it's tough to take a look at our history and not notice that. Most of us white heterosexual males really have no business stating how fair and 'equal' things are in that respect, we would be talking from a position of nearly complete ignorance, any effects of anti-white, anti-male, or anti-hetero bigotry towards us doesn't even merit a mention in relative comparison to the effects of other bigotry.

The fact that I am white, or male, or heterosexual should have and hasn't had anything to do with what I have or haven't achieved. It is the power of positive thinking that is the determining factor in success...not skin color...not anything else.

The first part of your first sentence is absolutely true, those attributes shouldn't matter at all, but unfortunately if you don't have one, some, or all of those attributes, you're more likely to have impediments put in the way of what you are trying to achieve, and it's almost inevitable given as you correctly noted the amount of time it takes to be successful typically. Positive thinking only goes so far.

[+joc]

That may be what they teach on a different 3rd planet in the Milky Way, but on this Third Stone from the Sun (since you're into Cosmic Blues, might as well drop a reference to the king of it) America is much more complicated. Racism and sexism exist, it's tough to take a look at our history and not notice that. Most of us white heterosexual males really have no business stating how fair and 'equal' things are in that respect, we would be talking from a position of nearly complete ignorance, any effects of anti-white, anti-male, or anti-hetero bigotry towards us doesn't even merit a mention in relative comparison to the effects of other bigotry.

The first part of your first sentence is absolutely true, those attributes shouldn't matter at all, but unfortunately if you don't have one, some, or all of those attributes, you're more likely to have impediments put in the way of what you are trying to achieve, and it's almost inevitable given as you correctly noted the amount of time it takes to be successful typically. Positive thinking only goes so far.

The last part of my sentence is completely and utterly true..it doesn't only go so far...it is the only road that leads all the way to wherever There is!

Let's say for example that, you are born poor, black, in a bad neighborhood. Let's say also that your parents teach you that whitey is to blame and that you can't get ahead because of whitey. You are doomed. But let's say that instead your parents instill in you the thought that you CAN do anything. That the only one holding you back is YOU! You have to work harder than most maybe...you have to break through more obstacles maybe...but if you get it in your head that you want to do a thing...the only real obstacle in your life is your own apostrophe T. Pffff..positive thinking only goes so far. Are you really kidding me? Please...get a clue...read some Napolean Hill for christsake! or any other character in time past or present who gets it. You clearly are missing the most important ingredient in success. It is and always has been CAN vs CAN'T. To say that CAN only goes so far is to predetermine your own destiny my friend.

[+Link of Hyrule]

That arguement doesn't have a leg to stand on do you know why?

Right now marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman and yet the catholic church can say no to a hetrosexual couple. Now if that issue you raise would be an issue, than how does the catholic church have the right now? Surely if the church was going to be sued for not marrying someone than it would have been done already by hetroseuals (you know, the group that have had marriage rights already and have had ample oportunity to do so). Since that has not happened, I don't see why that arguement is to be considered remotely valid. Churches can refuse to marry straight people now freely, so they shouldn't be worried about refusing gay people.

The thing about that arguement being used, though, was shown when same se marriage was debated here. Originally to 'protect' churches from that posibility the law was goin to ban any religious building from holdin a same sex marriage (and any religious person from performing one). That was removed, however, when it was realised that ssome religious groups wanted to. So now any religious group (bar the church of england who is still going to be banned) has a free choice either way. (Oddly that didn't please the people that wanted it banned, despite them citing religious freedom. Seems to them religious freedom is a one way street.)

So no, such a clash is not 'inevitable' because people seem to conveiniently forget that churches are free to say no (with zero repercussion legally) to straight couples. See that whole thing is an example of the kind of scaremonering religious groups are using to try and enforce it's will. They're trying to make themselves victims, which is childish and petty since they already have the right to say no to people. People need to start remembering that so that arguement can't be treated as valid and the people using it can be seen for what they are.

Apart from the example above (which is already legally covered and so is not really a problem) you've not given a single problem that's all that problematic or practical. I am still waiting for a problem to do with same sex marriage that has some real value. Instead most 'problems' are problems caused by people with beliefs that could easily be worked on (and easily disregarded).

After all you can believe a marriage between people that are divorced is not a real marriage, but that belief has zero legal standing.

If two atheists can get married in a church, or if two divorced people can marry new partners in a church, on what basis are marriages denied in churches? Before you answer about the Catholic Church consider the difference between a Natural Marriage or a Sacramental Marriage, not everyone can get a sacramental marriage, but I'm not sure what reasons a person can be denied a marriage. As far as I can tell, there are very few reasons a church can deny a marriage, even the Catholic church. Some reasons are - if you're closely related (eg, cousins), if you don't plan on being exclusive to one another sexually (assuming you tell the priest that you're having an "open" marriage). But aside from that even if you aren't a Catholic, this alone is not sufficient reason for a priest to deny marriage, as long as your partner is Catholic. If both aren't Catholic then maybe they can't marry in a Catholic Church, but that's a matter of membership in the church (I'm not certain protestant churches have the same stringent views on the matter).

But let's say this - two people are baptised as infants into the Catholic faith. This gives them the Right to a sacramental baptism. If these two people grow up to be gays and want to marry each other, and want the Right to have a sacramental marriage, on what basis does the Catholic Church have to say no?

Further Reading

Further reading 2

Edited July 16, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[+Link of Hyrule]

Why do you want churches to retain the right to be able to refuse marrying GLTB people, you said it is a matter of principle what is this principle you are referring too.

For me, I don't see gay as any different then straight.

They should have the right to teach as their morals allow. If a church wishes to marry off a gay couple, they can. But they should also have the Right not to, if it is not part of their beliefs.

Why do you want to force churches to do something that is against their principles?

[shadowhive]

If two atheists can get married in a church, or if two divorced people can marry new partners in a church, on what basis are marriages denied in churches? Before you answer about the Catholic Church consider the difference between a Natural Marriage or a Sacramental Marriage, not everyone can get a sacramental marriage, but I'm not sure what reasons a person can be denied a marriage. As far as I can tell, there are very few reasons a church can deny a marriage, even the Catholic church. Some reasons are - if you're closely related (eg, cousins), if you don't plan on being exclusive to one another sexually (assuming you tell the priest that you're having an "open" marriage). But aside from that even if you aren't a Catholic, this alone is not sufficient reason for a priest to deny marriage, as long as your partner is Catholic. If both aren't Catholic then maybe they can't marry in a Catholic Church, but that's a matter of membership in the church (I'm not certain protestant churches have the same stringent views on the matter).

But let's say this - two people are baptised as infants into the Catholic faith. This gives them the Right to a sacramental baptism. If these two people grow up to be gays and want to marry each other, and want the Right to have a sacramental marriage, on what basis does the Catholic Church have to say no?

Further Reading

Further reading 2

As always, I see this whole thing as being very simple and I see the whole arguement as being bulked by churches as an excuse to be petty children.

First off let's look at what marriage is in a secular state. It's a legal contract. Religious buildings are allowed to have weddings, but a wedding is meaningless without the appropriate paperwork. However, churches (unlike anywhere else) have the ability to say no to a couple. The reasons, ultimately, don't matter that much. They have the right to say no to a straight couple now and it can't be challenged so I don't see why the same thing shouldn't cover gay couples too.

Of course the right of a church to say no extends the other way too. Churches also have the right to say yes. Which is why atheists and divorced couples can marry in churches.

The important thting is not to give the church too much leeway. Like I mentioned the catholic church and church of england were trying to ban same sex marriages in religious buildings. That meant they didn't want the right to say no, but they wanted to take away the rights of other churches to say yes.

With civil partnerships they got a ban on all religious buildings put in. It took over 6 years for the ones that wanted the choice to gain the right they should have from the start.

This is why we have to be very careful with dealing with any religious arguements, because it becomes quite clear that the religious groups against same sex marriage are quite content to run over the religious freedoms of those that aren't. Religious freedom is the common arguement but since it seems they only support one type of freedom and want to force others to go along with it, you have to wonder.

Of course, personally I don't see why a gay couple would want to be a part of one of the faiths that treats them, quite frankly, like **** anyway but that's just me.

They should have the right to teach as their morals allow. If a church wishes to marry off a gay couple, they can. But they should also have the Right not to, if it is not part of their beliefs.

Why do you want to force churches to do something that is against their principles?

No one wants to force churches to do anything. (The reverse sadly, is all too true)

However, I do advocate two things first that churches take responsibility for the part they've played in encouraging homophobia (and take steps to try and stop it) and second that churches are encouraged (not forced) to change their stance. The latter's happening anyway, albeit slowly and we should make sure the reverse doesn't happen.

Edited July 16, 2013 by shadowhive

[Frank Merton]

The state should legally recognize what the churches do, so if two people have gotten married in a church, that should be a legally binding marriage.

However, the law as no business telling churches what it can preach and what it can't, so the law should not care whether this church recognizes a certain kind of marriage as valid and that kind as invalid.

[Space Commander Travis]

Homosexuality is an evolutionary failure simply because it does not perpetuate the species.

or possibly (and this was discussed way back on about page 2) it may be an adaptation of evolution to regulate population, if perpetually increasing population is no longer necessary, or indeed desirable, since it may now be a liability in evolutionary terms due to the strain on resources and so on?

[Space Commander Travis]

??? Huh? Sorry to point out your error, but you're not making it any better with whatever this response is supposed to mean. When did the 'Liberal Wave of Humanity' begin exactly since it's 'never-ending' and it approaches? Is there a Conservative Wave of Humanity somewhere also?

In general, to put it in a language I think you understand, it's not that they're wearing steel that's bright and true, it's that they build a dream for me and you. And if you're in the US you might as well close the door and put out the light, as it's only a matter of time, no matter whether you personally give no quarter or not.

You know that "Liberal" is an all-purpose word of abuse in America now.

[+Link of Hyrule]

As always, I see this whole thing as being very simple and I see the whole arguement as being bulked by churches as an excuse to be petty children.

First off let's look at what marriage is in a secular state. It's a legal contract. Religious buildings are allowed to have weddings, but a wedding is meaningless without the appropriate paperwork. However, churches (unlike anywhere else) have the ability to say no to a couple. The reasons, ultimately, don't matter that much. They have the right to say no to a straight couple now and it can't be challenged so I don't see why the same thing shouldn't cover gay couples too.

Of course the right of a church to say no extends the other way too. Churches also have the right to say yes. Which is why atheists and divorced couples can marry in churches.

The important thting is not to give the church too much leeway. Like I mentioned the catholic church and church of england were trying to ban same sex marriages in religious buildings. That meant they didn't want the right to say no, but they wanted to take away the rights of other churches to say yes.

With civil partnerships they got a ban on all religious buildings put in. It took over 6 years for the ones that wanted the choice to gain the right they should have from the start.

This is why we have to be very careful with dealing with any religious arguements, because it becomes quite clear that the religious groups against same sex marriage are quite content to run over the religious freedoms of those that aren't. Religious freedom is the common arguement but since it seems they only support one type of freedom and want to force others to go along with it, you have to wonder.

You ignored my question. What if two baptised members of the Catholic faith wish to have their marriage in a Catholic church? The requirements of marriage, according to the second of the two links I provided earlier give:

* A Baptised Christian - check, both were baptised as children into the Catholic Faith

* Not too closely related - check, they are not related

* Free to marry - check, neither has ever married before

* Of the opposite sex to your partner - to quote the website: "Marriage, by definition, is a lifelong union between one man and one woman." But the Law has been changed now to include same-sex, but the church won't recognise it. So, denied

* Of good standing within the church - check, they go regularly, confess, give money, are active in social programs and study the Bible in a mid-week study group with several other Christians in the church.

So, shadowhive, how long before a gay person demands the Catholic Church accept the legal definition of marriage, rather than their religious definition? And how long before a gay person attempts to force them by law to change their definition?

Of course, personally I don't see why a gay couple would want to be a part of one of the faiths that treats them, quite frankly, like **** anyway but that's just me.

Some do, that's just life.

No one wants to force churches to do anything. (The reverse sadly, is all too true)

However, I do advocate two things first that churches take responsibility for the part they've played in encouraging homophobia (and take steps to try and stop it) and second that churches are encouraged (not forced) to change their stance. The latter's happening anyway, albeit slowly and we should make sure the reverse doesn't happen.

The way I interpreted Sheri's comment/s, by asking me why I am advocating that a church should have the Right to deny marriage, I felt the implication was that she didn't want churches to have that Right.

And of course, your definition of "encouraging" a church to change their stance on homosexuality is to call anyone who still believes that bigoted, hateful, intolerant, backwards, and homophobic.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[shadowhive]

You ignored my question. What if two baptised members of the Catholic faith wish to have their marriage in a Catholic church? The requirements of marriage, according to the second of the two links I provided earlier give:

* A Baptised Christian - check, both were baptised as children into the Catholic Faith

* Not too closely related - check, they are not related

* Free to marry - check, neither has ever married before

* Of the opposite sex to your partner - to quote the website: "Marriage, by definition, is a lifelong union between one man and one woman." But the Law has been changed now to include same-sex, but the church won't recognise it. So, denied

* Of good standing within the church - check, they go regularly, confess, give money, are active in social programs and study the Bible in a mid-week study group with several other Christians in the church.

So, shadowhive, how long before a gay person demands the Catholic Church accept the legal definition of marriage, rather than their religious definition? And how long before a gay person attempts to force them by law to change their definition?

I didn't 'ignore it', I stated that a church has the right to deny any marriage. That right still applies. Hetrosexual couples who have tried to force the church to change it's stance legally for them have failed. So to go into the details of why the religion denies x couple marriage is pointless.

So let's look at the catholic church now. Well the legal definition of marriage is that a man can marry any woman (as long as they are consenting and not related). Is the catholic church required to follow the legal definition we have now? Nope. It can still deny hetrosexual couples marriage. Using your checklist, a hetrosexual couple can be denied marriage if one isn't baptised, if they've been married before and if they're not in good standing with the church. None of those things reflect the current legal definition of marriage.

So considering the fact that the catholic church is not even following the current legal definition of marriage and attempts to do so legally have failed how exactly is changing the legal definition meant to effect it again?

That, to me, is case closed, at least using a legal avenue.

So what of gay catholic couples? I'm sure they'll want to marry in church and they may try and get it to change it's stance, but the legal route simply won't work. They could try and get it to change it's stance legally, but at the end of the day it wouldn't work. Getting the church to change from within, that's much more likely.

(Like the legal defiition, the church's definition could, of course, change but that's much more long term.)

Some do, that's just life.

Mostly because they've been indoctrinated into it and can't leave despite the mistreatment.

The way I interpreted Sheri's comment/s, by asking me why I am advocating that a church should have the Right to deny marriage, I felt the implication was that she didn't want churches to have that Right.

And of course, your definition of "encouraging" a church to change their stance on homosexuality is to call anyone who still believes that bigoted, hateful, intolerant, backwards, and homophobic.

I feel the question was more aimed at why you were advocating that right so strongly and why the churches rights should trample over everyone elses.

That's not what my definition of encouraging is PA. More that the church should be encouraged to see the damage it's stance is doing and, at the very least, ease up on it. Is that somehow objectionable? I know you object to what the end goal is, that gay people and their relationships are treated as full equals even in churches.

Of course, however, what you say is pretty accurate in terms of what I think of people who believe that way. Why? Because most seem to be some combination of those things. Even you are one of those things PA. You may not be intolerant, hateful or homophobic... but you still cling to a stance that's backwards. But we've done that dance haven't we? You see yourself and the belief as guilt free. I see it as being exactly the opposite. To quote you, we've been over it, so I don't see the need to discuss it further (mostly because you have the bible and are too thick headed to see past it and also because I don't want to go through the usual pointlessness that follows).

Edited July 16, 2013 by shadowhive

[Frank Merton]

As far into the foreseeable future as I can see, Catholics will refuse to marry same-sex parters, and the law will sustain that right. This is just a scare tactic, and a rather sick one at that. The only time Catholics will begin marrying gay couples is if they have a sudden burst of reason and compassion come into their midst, and history offers little hope of that.

[shadowhive]

As far into the foreseeable future as I can see, Catholics will refuse to marry same-sex parters, and the law will sustain that right. This is just a scare tactic, and a rather sick one at that. The only time Catholics will begin marrying gay couples is if they have a sudden burst of reason and compassion come into their midst, and history offers little hope of that.

That's exactly my point. It's pretty twisted that people (even someone like PA) are buying such a scare tactic as something that's in anyway viable. I agree there too. Reason and compassion don't exactly go hand in hand with any religion and catholics have certainly displayed that well in the past.

[+Liquid Gardens]

So, shadowhive, how long before a gay person demands the Catholic Church accept the legal definition of marriage, rather than their religious definition? And how long before a gay person attempts to force them by law to change their definition?

In other words, slippery slope? Do you have any example from the western world where a church was forced by the law to marry people they did not wish to, is this concern really legitimate? When has any church been forced to give up their 'religious definition' of anything? I always thought it was clear that churches can discriminate, they don't have to allow atheists or Muslims or even other Christians from different denominations to attend their services. I think most of them are obviously pretty welcoming, but I'm not aware that they are required to be.

Is Australia different, does a marriage in a church carry some type of legal weight? Here in the US it is strictly ceremonial, from a legal sense it is taken care of with a marriage license.

[+Sherapy]

They should have the right to teach as their morals allow. If a church wishes to marry off a gay couple, they can. But they should also have the Right not to, if it is not part of their beliefs.

Why do you want to force churches to do something that is against their principles?

I am not arguing for forcing a church to do anything, I am just interested in your position.

[+Link of Hyrule]

I didn't 'ignore it'

You chose not to answer. Isn't that the quintessential definition of "ignoring"?

So let's look at the catholic church now. Well the legal definition of marriage is that a man can marry any woman (as long as they are consenting and not related). Is the catholic church required to follow the legal definition we have now? Nope. It can still deny hetrosexual couples marriage.

Under what criteria? I've already posted links, you haven't, so please, help me out here.

Using your checklist, a hetrosexual couple can be denied marriage if one isn't baptised, if they've been married before and if they're not in good standing with the church. None of those things reflect the current legal definition of marriage.

So if all these criteria are met, and they still don't qualify because they are same-sex? You can't tell me that not a single person would try and argue against that, when the legal definition has been changed?

That's not what my definition of encouraging is PA.

It is as I have seen it. You've used similar terms in regards to my beliefs on the matter on more than one occasion. And when I've disagreed, you've called me "two-faced". so with respect, from where I sit that is EXACTLY what your definition is.

[+Link of Hyrule]

I am not arguing for forcing a church to do anything, I am just interested in your position.

I believe every person has a Right to act as their conscience allows, that applies to all people of all walks of life. Sometimes this conscience gets in the way of their work, but as long as it is not the primary role of their job, then they can "opt out" of certain aspects, provided the business provides alternatives. When I read your post, I got the impression you didn't want alternatives, you wanted churches to agree with you. If that was not your intent, then I apologise.

In the gay marriage debate, if same-sex marriage were legalised, I would expect (nay, demand) that religious organisations have the Right to make a conscience decision to deny, if that is what they stood for.

[+Link of Hyrule]

In other words, slippery slope? Do you have any example from the western world where a church was forced by the law to marry people they did not wish to, is this concern really legitimate? When has any church been forced to give up their 'religious definition' of anything? I always thought it was clear that churches can discriminate, they don't have to allow atheists or Muslims or even other Christians from different denominations to attend their services. I think most of them are obviously pretty welcoming, but I'm not aware that they are required to be.

Is Australia different, does a marriage in a church carry some type of legal weight? Here in the US it is strictly ceremonial, from a legal sense it is taken care of with a marriage license.

I already admitted several posts ago that this was a "slippery slope" argument. The question, though, is whether it is valid? A bisexual person can love both sexes. Marriage currently says one man and one woman only. If we appease the gay crowd by making marriage a matter of "two people", then we're still discriminating - how long until a bisexual person wants to marry both a male and a female? After all, God "made them that way", they can easily love both sexes, but marriage discriminates against them, since they can only choose one!

Slippery slope, absolutely. Practically speaking, not so easy to dismiss.

But as I said, the argument is moot, I've already acceded that gay marriage will be part of Australian culture in the very near future. Even if Kevin Rudd isn't installed as Prime Minister, I would bet $1000 that it is codified into Law within the next election window.

[+Liquid Gardens]

I already admitted several posts ago that this was a "slippery slope" argument. The question, though, is whether it is valid? A bisexual person can love both sexes. Marriage currently says one man and one woman only. If we appease the gay crowd by making marriage a matter of "two people", then we're still discriminating - how long until a bisexual person wants to marry both a male and a female? After all, God "made them that way", they can easily love both sexes, but marriage discriminates against them, since they can only choose one!

Good point, and I think the answer to that gets much more involved in that we have to factor in and determine an answer to the question, what is the purpose of having the state recognize the institution of marriage at all, which is a much more involved issue. Your argument above is of course nothing peculiar to bisexuals, it applies to everyone of all sexualities currently, if you like two women as a male hetero, in the exact same way you also have to choose one.

Slippery slope, absolutely. Practically speaking, not so easy to dismiss.

I guess it depends, I find it a little easy to dismiss, we can deal with separate issues as they come up; I haven't heard really anyone, although I'm sure they exist, supporting gay marriage but including polygamy in that. One can logically support marriage being between any two people while simultaneously dealing with polygamy as an entirely separate question. A country can legalize cigarettes and alcohol without having to deal with the separate question, well then what are we going to do when someone wants to legalize heroin?

[shadowhive]

You chose not to answer. Isn't that the quintessential definition of "ignoring"?

Because I had already dealt with the question. And I've dealt with it again.

Under what criteria? I've already posted links, you haven't, so please, help me out here.

Under the critea of, I don't know, the very checklist you are using. Which I stated in my last post. What do you want here PA? I've spelled it out for you and it's not enough.

Let me spell it out simply one last time.

Right now, legal definition of marriage is one one, one woman. As long as they are consenting, over a certain age, not related and no currently married they can marry.

Right now ANY church, not just catholics, can choose not to marry any couple for any reason. Churches right now DO NOT follow the legal definition of marriage, but their own. So if the legal definition changes, it won't effect the churches definition. Each church can then go 'well the legal definition of marriage has changed should we change ours?' and then do so accordinly. But that process has never been changed by anyone legally.

Now what is hard to understand there?

So if all these criteria are met, and they still don't qualify because they are same-sex? You can't tell me that not a single person would try and argue against that, when the legal definition has been changed?

I'm not sayin a single person would not try and argue against it. I can neither see the future nor stop anyone from trying. What I have said is I wouldn't advise it, because getting the church to follow the current leal definition through leal means hasn't worked. That's not saying someone won't try, but it is saying that it would be a waste of time amd wuld not work.

I already admitted several posts ago that this was a "slippery slope" argument. The question, though, is whether it is valid? A bisexual person can love both sexes. Marriage currently says one man and one woman only. If we appease the gay crowd by making marriage a matter of "two people", then we're still discriminating - how long until a bisexual person wants to marry both a male and a female? After all, God "made them that way", they can easily love both sexes, but marriage discriminates against them, since they can only choose one!

Slippery slope, absolutely. Practically speaking, not so easy to dismiss.

But as I said, the argument is moot, I've already acceded that gay marriage will be part of Australian culture in the very near future. Even if Kevin Rudd isn't installed as Prime Minister, I would bet $1000 that it is codified into Law within the next election window.

Like Liquid Gardens says above, that's hardly something that would be proposed by bisexual people. After all anyone, gay straight or bi, could be in love with multiple people at once. So do I think multiple marriages will most likely come along, but attempting to argue it'd be done solely to please bisexual people is absurd.

I didn't expect you to make the slippery slope arguement I considered you mart than that. But I guess I was wrong.

It is as I have seen it. You've used similar terms in regards to my beliefs on the matter on more than one occasion. And when I've disagreed, you've called me "two-faced". so with respect, from where I sit that is EXACTLY what your definition is.

I've moved this to here so I can reply to it last.

The thing is PA, I see this as being something that's relatively simple. The simple thing being is this: that the chruch is wrong in it's stance on human sexuality. It's wrong in it's attitude on it. That stance, that attitude has cost lives. As such, it needs to be change. The religious stance is an enabler in these things and even some religious leaders have started to acknowledge the role their religions have played in fanning the flames.

I think you are two faced because you hold the church's negative stance but try and be nice about it. You see that the problem is there, but don't care enough to go the distance with it. You're two faced because a book that's over 1000 years old matters to you more than current, up to date information. Because you value that book more than living, breathing people. You care more about a book written by people uneducated on the subject, rather than people that are. That's pretty much the textbook definition of backwards and that sums you up pretty well.

But hey. I wanted to avoid this, because hey, we've been over it countless times and it's pointless going over it isn't it? And yet there you go, pushing again. Debating with you on this is pointless. In fact it's not even a debate, because you have a magic book with all the answers and it has homosexuality is bad. You've let that book poison your mind quite effectly and simply don't care about anything outside it.

You've proven yourself to be a hyocrite, with double standards but no, you've never in the bloody wrong because you and other morons have god on their side and you know what? That attitude p***es me off. It makes me angry. Because it's that attitude that lets gay people suffer in all kinds of ways an it's got to go.

Not that you care. If your church detoxified itself even of it's treatment of women) you'd just go somewhere else.

But hey, now I fully expect you'll have a go at me and blah blah bloody blah and make your pathetic excuses as to why your belief is so great and why it doesn't harm anyone and why you're saint pa, but you know what? I do not ******* care. I have absolutely, completely, had it with you and your hypocrisy. Any time you seem to be a good person, you do something to lower my opinion of you, to prove that you're an idiot ruled by your religion.

You'e proven why I'm riht not to trust people that think homosexuality is a sin. They really, truly can't be trusted.

Maybe it's the heat, maybe it's the fact we've been over this ground before, maybe it's both, but I am sick of you and your whole 'good christian' act.

So reply, say whatever you damn well want. But I'm not going to reply to you, because honestly it's a waste of my time.

(And I apologise for the swearing, but I've had it with the hyocrisy and the double standards that religious people like PA display.)

Edited July 16, 2013 by shadowhive

[Beckys_Mom]

This topic has been off course for nearly a month now... I have never seen a topic that was derailed for so long.. This should go down as UM's most derailed topic of all time lol

For a while, when I entered, I thought it was about gay marriage and then later - What or who owns marriage?

Next month, it will be ...Parenting ...Who says gays can't have kids? lol

Edited July 16, 2013 by Beckys_Mom

[Jodie.Lynne]

It all comes to down to comfort.

Some folk are just not comfortable admitting that those who are different are still people, and are made comfortable by keeping up barriers.

And perhaps, just maybe the definition of marriage should be changed to mean "a publicly recognized union of two people who love each other".

Of course, the rabid fear-mongers will claim that is but one small step to total anarchy, but I still maintain that the institution of marriage has been more 'demeaned' by the number of divorces, re-marriages, failed marriages, and celebrity 60-day marriages than a marriage of two same-sex partners could ever do.

Just my two cents worth. And since I think that this discussion is just running in circles, my last contribution to this particular train wreck.

Live well, love well, be happy.

[Mr Walker]

What you say pertains to Australia; they still have a severe "marriage penalty" in the States.

Yes that was my point. Any changes in the USA are likely to benefit the govt in tax/financial terms as much, or more than, individuals. Eg when they bring in gay equality in marriage that financial advantage of marriage might be one of the first things to go in the name of making things more equal. This happened with the institutional recognition of defacto relationships in australia as equal to married relationships.

The only thing mariage does now is make official separation a little more difficult. And so we very commonly see a defacto couple never married, who have half a dozen children by the same number of parents from previous defacto liasons lasting a year or three, while in married/ divorced families at most there may be two sets of parents.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

Well yes, and No - I think its th whole thing. Marriage and rights.

If youre ok given them equal rights, why not just change the wording in current law, that to be honest. would be less time consuming than creating a complete new legal term.

Because, to be brutally honest, you can give cats and dogs equal rights and treatment and respect (as we do in our family) but that does not make them the same creature and it would be dumb to call cats and dogs the same name.

MArriage evolved as a social instituion to construct a relationship between man woman and child. Gay people have no evolutionary need for such a formal institution in the modern age. They only require legal equality and equality of respect and treatement. Changing the name of the relationship in which they live will not accomplish that.

[Mr Walker]

As far into the foreseeable future as I can see, Catholics will refuse to marry same-sex parters, and the law will sustain that right. This is just a scare tactic, and a rather sick one at that. The only time Catholics will begin marrying gay couples is if they have a sudden burst of reason and compassion come into their midst, and history offers little hope of that.

How can anyone be certain of this. If gay marriage is recognised legally, and equality in all things is enshrined in law, then what happens if/when two wealthy gay lawyers (male or female) who are both born and practising catholics, want to get married in a catholic church and challenge the church's right to refuse to marry them? Who can predict what a court or judges will decide, given other laws in a state/nation? In the end a stae has a legal authority to make laws and to overide practices within a church where they break state/national laws. This has already been decided and put into operation in relationship to employment practises within church run institutions and so why not marriages? Edited July 17, 2013 by Mr Walker