Jump to content
Due to the significant updates that have taken place, you now need to login with your display name or e-mail address, NOT your login name. ×
Due to posts that are 5+ years old being rebuilt, some of the older BBCodes may not have converted properly but still be in the post. Most posts are unaffected but some using what was our custom BBCode (like [spoiler]) will be a bit broken. ×
johntm

Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?

Recommended Posts

You realize that a marriage is only legal with a marriage liscense? The church ceremony is just that, a ceremony. Its pretty clear you dont actually care about anyones rights, since you are saying religion should be controlled and have its beliefs chosen. If you want to say that a religious institution doesnt have the right to its own beliefs then I say you arent allowed to speak your mind without being incarcerated, that the government should have complete control of everyones thoughts, and everyone should be required to become the same religion. Thats what your encouraging, saying that freedom of religion means nothing as the government should be controlling the churches. Sounds like you are encouraging communism which is exactly what America is not.

 

Yes, that's right. I protest against the Church's blatant homophobia, and this is the same as encouraging a Communist state. :roll:

 

 

 

The argument is this: if the only place a couple in either of our two countries can get married is a religious institution, but this institution denies the right for gays to be married, and yet gays are supposed to have equal rights, then the Church should either allow gay marriages or, as I actually said, lose that exclusivity, and we'll have state marriages as well. I don't mean civil partnerships, I mean actual marriages.

 

 

 

I don't see how the latter option is forcing the Church to accept a certain viewpoint.

 

 

 

and where do you get off saying you are "putting up with a church that doesnt pay tax" does the church come use its tax exempt money to protest at your house or something because thats the only way i think they could be bothering you.

 

Only when you live in a country where the majority of people aren't even Anglican, yet it's our established church and we still have Spiritual Lords in our second chamber, will you understand the deeper frustrations between the state and religion in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When it comes to sociality, it's wrong. When it comes to morality, it's fine. I think that's the easiest way to describe it.

 

 

 

Do you mean socially and morally? or am i just think what you said arent words?

 

and explain how it is socially wrong?

 

 

 

The average person who sees a gay couple holding hands will think differently of them more often than not. Reason being? It's different. They are the minority, therefore they're going to be treated as such (not saying whether it's right to treat them differently - just saying that's how things are in our world). That is what I meant by it being socially "wrong". Where do you think the term, "That's gay," came from?

 

 

 

Now, for my second point: There is nothing wrong with a gay relationship, because it causes no harm whatsoever. If anything, it helps keep the population down. No one is being harmed, so I declare it as morally acceptable.

 

 

 

By the way, "When it comes to morally..." just sounds grammatically wrong to me. I could be the one who's wrong though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You realize that a marriage is only legal with a marriage liscense? The church ceremony is just that, a ceremony. Its pretty clear you dont actually care about anyones rights, since you are saying religion should be controlled and have its beliefs chosen. If you want to say that a religious institution doesnt have the right to its own beliefs then I say you arent allowed to speak your mind without being incarcerated, that the government should have complete control of everyones thoughts, and everyone should be required to become the same religion. Thats what your encouraging, saying that freedom of religion means nothing as the government should be controlling the churches. Sounds like you are encouraging communism which is exactly what America is not.

 

Yes, that's right. I protest against the Church's blatant homophobia, and this is the same as encouraging a Communist state. :roll:

 

 

 

The argument is this: if the only place a couple in either of our two countries can get married is a religious institution, but this institution denies the right for gays to be married, and yet gays are supposed to have equal rights, then the Church should

 

either allow gay marriages or, as I actually said, lose that exclusivity, and we'll have state marriages as well. I don't mean civil partnerships, I mean actual marriages.

 

 

 

I don't see how the latter option is forcing the Church to accept a certain viewpoint.

 

 

 

Well gays do have their own church. I'm not sure if they perform marriages but they do commitment ceremonies. We do have state marriages. Thats what people are talking about. I've never heard anyone even suggest what you have. I don't think we should though, you can't really legislate love. The whole point of civil marriages is to give tax breaks to married couples to make it easier for them to have kids and pass their wealth on to the next generation. Two gay men don't really need a tax break but if it's that important to them I say go for it. I'm always for lower taxes.

 

 

 

 

and where do you get off saying you are "putting up with a church that doesnt pay tax" does the church come use its tax exempt money to protest at your house or something because thats the only way i think they could be bothering you.

 

Only when you live in a country where the majority of people aren't even Anglican, yet it's our established church and we still have Spiritual Lords in our second chamber, will you understand the deeper frustrations between the state and religion in the UK.

 

 

 

Sucks to live in the UK then.

 

 

 

So you have a problem with religious people in your parliament yet you want to pass laws to force the Church to go directly against the teaching it's had for thousands of years?


My carbon footprint is bigger than yours...and you know what they say about big feet.

 

These are the times that try mens souls...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The argument is this: if the only place a couple in either of our two countries can get married is a religious institution, but this institution denies the right for gays to be married, and yet gays are supposed to have equal rights, then the Church should

 

either allow gay marriages or, as I actually said, lose that exclusivity, and we'll have state marriages as well. I don't mean civil partnerships, I mean actual marriages.

 

 

 

Gays do have equal rights. Any gay man can marry any woman and any straight man cannot marry any other straight man. It's not an argument of gay rights (or shouldn't be), it's an argument regarding the definition of marriage.

 

 

 

So I guess the question is - do you think it immoral for the churches definition of a religiously based marriage = man and woman only? Even when the religion the marriage is based on states it as such?


summerpngwy6.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gays do have equal rights. Any gay man can marry any woman and any straight man cannot marry any other straight man. It's not an argument of gay rights (or shouldn't be), it's an argument regarding the definition of marriage.

 

 

 

You can't be serious. You completely left out the part where gay guys don't want to marry women.

 

 

 

It's like saying bringing Steelers fans to a non-Steeler game is as fair as bringing Patriots fans to a Patriot game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gays do have equal rights. Any gay man can marry any woman and any straight man cannot marry any other straight man. It's not an argument of gay rights (or shouldn't be), it's an argument regarding the definition of marriage.

 

 

 

You can't be serious. You completely left out the part where gay guys don't want to marry women.

 

 

 

It's like saying bringing Steelers fans to a non-Steeler game is as fair as bringing Patriots fans to a Patriot game.

 

 

 

Technically he's right - A gay person can do anything a straight person can, unless you boil the distinction down to marrying the person they love. It's right in a very strict sense, but not a particularly strong point.


La lune ne garde aucune rancune.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
unless you boil the distinction down to marrying the person they love.

 

 

 

Which is what it should be boiled down to when talking about equality. I mean seriously. When it comes to technicalities, it would be "equal" to make every channel on television just like the BET channel since everyone is still entitled to watching it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
unless you boil the distinction down to marrying the person they love.

 

 

 

Which is what it should be boiled down to when talking about equality. I mean seriously. When it comes to technicalities, it would be "equal" to make every channel on television just like the BET channel since everyone is still entitled to watching it.

 

 

 

Of course, but you can't deny the logic in the post. I said he was right on a technical level.

 

 

 

Your analogies are awful, by the way.


La lune ne garde aucune rancune.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't deny the logic in them. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nor the lack of eloquence.


La lune ne garde aucune rancune.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you steering us in circles for any particular reason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The argument is this: if the only place a couple in either of our two countries can get married is a religious institution, but this institution denies the right for gays to be married, and yet gays are supposed to have equal rights, then the Church should

 

either allow gay marriages or, as I actually said, lose that exclusivity, and we'll have state marriages as well. I don't mean civil partnerships, I mean actual marriages.

 

 

 

Gays do have equal rights. Any gay man can marry any woman and any straight man cannot marry any other straight man. It's not an argument of gay rights (or shouldn't be), it's an argument regarding the definition of marriage.

 

 

 

So I guess the question is - do you think it immoral for the churches definition of a religiously based marriage = man and woman only? Even when the religion the marriage is based on states it as such?

 

 

 

Seems to me that the definition has never been the same :roll:

 

 

 

story.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a flashback to early teenage belligerence I suppose. Nice to get it out every once in a while.


La lune ne garde aucune rancune.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The argument is this: if the only place a couple in either of our two countries can get married is a religious institution, but this institution denies the right for gays to be married, and yet gays are supposed to have equal rights, then the Church should

 

either allow gay marriages or, as I actually said, lose that exclusivity, and we'll have state marriages as well. I don't mean civil partnerships, I mean actual marriages.

 

 

 

Gays do have equal rights. Any gay man can marry any woman and any straight man cannot marry any other straight man. It's not an argument of gay rights (or shouldn't be), it's an argument regarding the definition of marriage.

 

 

 

So I guess the question is - do you think it immoral for the churches definition of a religiously based marriage = man and woman only? Even when the religion the marriage is based on states it as such?

 

 

 

You of all people should know what people mean when they say "equal rights" in respect to homosexuals. It's the idea that homosexuals should be able to marry who they want (other homosexuals) just as heterosexuals get to marry who they want (other heterosexuals). In this sense, they don't have equal rights.

 

 

 

As for the definition of marriage, I think it's become secularised these days to the point that it's not an exclusively religious term any more. In this sense, I think homosexuals should have the right to marry if they want to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Seems to me that the definition has never been the same :roll:

 

 

 

story.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

There is one common denominator throughout the whole cartoon.


My carbon footprint is bigger than yours...and you know what they say about big feet.

 

These are the times that try mens souls...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The argument is this: if the only place a couple in either of our two countries can get married is a religious institution, but this institution denies the right for gays to be married, and yet gays are supposed to have equal rights, then the Church should

 

either allow gay marriages or, as I actually said, lose that exclusivity, and we'll have state marriages as well. I don't mean civil partnerships, I mean actual marriages.

 

 

 

Gays do have equal rights. Any gay man can marry any woman and any straight man cannot marry any other straight man. It's not an argument of gay rights (or shouldn't be), it's an argument regarding the definition of marriage.

 

No, the legal definition of marriage is quite clear.

 

 

 

And that is the worst argument I've ever seen on here. Likewise, blacks could also have had a skin graft instead of protesting against the de jure inequality that existed in pre-1960s America. I suppose you could argue they did technically actually have equality too. After all, thanks to surgery, I suppose it is now a choice whether to be white or black, or even halfcast if the choice fancies you.

 

 

 

It is absolutely about gay rights. The fact that you allow heterosexuals to get married, but not homosexuals is quite clearly a discrimination you feel is justified. Stop denying it isn't discrimination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which is what it should be boiled down to when talking about equality.

 

 

 

Rights aren't about doing whatever you want to do. Even though a homosexual man doesn't want to marry a woman, he can. It might not be fair but we have the same rights. What you're saying is unfair is the definition of marriage, not our rights. Equality != rights.

 

 

 

No, the legal definition of marriage is quite clear.

 

 

 

But the discussion was steering towards religious marriage, not legal marriage.

 

 

 

 

 

The fact that you allow heterosexuals to get married, but not homosexuals is quite clearly a discrimination you feel is justified. Stop denying it isn't discrimination.

 

 

 

We allow homosexuals to get married, as long as it's a marriage that fits the religious definition. Wait... am I repeating myself?

 

 

 

 

 

And that is the worst argument I've ever seen on here. Likewise, blacks could also have had a skin graft instead of protesting against the de jure inequality that existed in pre-1960s America. I suppose you could argue they did technically actually have equality too. After all, thanks to surgery, I suppose it is now a choice whether to be white or black, or even halfcast if the choice fancies you.

 

 

 

Getting a skin graft to avoid physical beatings is different than getting a legal marriage as opposed to a religious marriage to get a marriage certificate.


summerpngwy6.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You really are ill-informed on the meaning of 'discrimination' if you believe physical beatings were the only obstacle black people faced in 1950s America.

 

 

 

How is that relevant to the discussion at hand? Sure, I could have produced a lengthy comma delimited list but what difference would that have made?

 

 

 

The point is that blacks were persecuted for just being something. Homosexuals arent persecuted for being something (at least by the churches around my area). Its a totally different issue. The only issue in homosexual marriage is that a man cannot marry another man, and a woman cannot marry another woman, regardless of sexual preference. Its not a homosexual issue, its a definition of marriage issue, and I dont know why most people dont see it. Lateralus sees it, and says its a weak point which is true, because then we get into well whats an ethical definition of marriage? which is basically the same debate, but at least weve got correct semantics and a correct question to answer.


summerpngwy6.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he's saying blacks were denied the ability to drink at white fountains, sit in the front of buses, etc. much like homosexuals are denied the ability to have same-sex marriage. Black discrimination didn't stop at the beatings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he's saying blacks were denied the ability to drink at white fountains, sit in the front of buses, etc. much like homosexuals are denied the ability to have same-sex marriage. Black discrimination didn't stop at the beatings.

 

 

 

The point is that blacks were persecuted for just being something. Homosexuals arent persecuted for being something (at least by the churches around my area). Its a totally different issue. The only issue in homosexual marriage is that a man cannot marry another man, and a woman cannot marry another woman, regardless of sexual preference. Its not a homosexual issue, its a definition of marriage issue, and I dont know why most people dont see it. Lateralus sees it, and says its a weak point which is true, because then we get into well whats an ethical definition of marriage? which is basically the same debate, but at least weve got correct semantics and a correct question to answer.

summerpngwy6.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe people still post in this, I made this thread a long time ago and I don't even come to these forums that much anymore.


tifsbti6oi.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Magekillr said, that definition has been frantically changed throughout time though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are in a situation where the majority of people (in my country at least) have no issues regarding the legal marriage of two homosexuals, but the Church doesn't approve of homosexual marriages, then there's two democratic solutions:

 

 

 

A) Have secular marriages provided by the state in addition to religious marriages provided by the Church; or

 

B) The Church accepts homosexual marriages.

 

 

 

No chance of option B) happening anytime soon. What about option A)?

 

 

 

The state has no power to force religious institutions into conducting homosexual marriage ceremonies. However, a marriage does not have to be religiously recognised in order to be a marriage.

 

 

 

Quite simply, if we accept civil partnerships, why not go all the way and call them weddings, if not a religious wedding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The fact that you allow heterosexuals to get married, but not homosexuals is quite clearly a discrimination you feel is justified. Stop denying it isn't discrimination.

 

 

 

We allow homosexuals to get married, as long as it's a marriage that fits the religious definition. Wait... am I repeating myself?

 

 

 

 

I seriously doubt any Church in its right mind would knowingly allow a gay man to marry a woman. Unless of course what you are saying is that the only rule of marriage is that partners have to be of the opposite sex. Which is obviously untrue.


Signature3.gif

With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.