Same-Sex Marriage

[Saru Inc]

They're most likely higher (note I do not actually know, simply guessing.) Because for some reason, the majority of homosexual men and women tend to be more promiscuous than straight people. I imagine so because the majority of them were kept from becoming intimate with the sex of their choice for so long, that once they are out they have so much sexuality to let loose lol.

 

You'd better back up your arguments with actual statistics, my friend. Because that's the kind of stereotype homosexuals have to deal with all the time, and it's entirely untrue. Homosexuals aren't all flamboyant and, as you so put it, 'more promiscuous than straight people.' That's a lie.

 

Homosexuals should be allowed to marry, because nowadays marriage is a legal thing. Not a thing of religion. Let's say your life partner is dying, in pain, but incapable of making any decisions, then who better do decide his fate than you? But what if you're not married to that person, solely because you weren't granted those basic rights? Then your relationship wouldn't be recognized. Unless in his will, you would have nothing after that.

 

As for adoption, I say 'Why not?'. What makes a homosexual couple less suited to raise a child than a heterosexual couple? And don't say 'the lack of a mother/father figure' because that's utter bull: Single parents are allowed to raise their children. I lived with a homosexual couple for a month while I was attending summer school, and they were very kind and loving. They often take care of their niece, who loves them more than anything in the world. Those two chose not to have children of their own, but they would have made excellent parents. Now of course, I'm aware some homosexuals would make bad parents, but for the same reason some heterosexuals wouldn't. Sorry for going off-topic.

 

 

I'm gay, broseph. And since most states don't allow marriage, stats would be pretty hard to find dontcha think?

 

1)Ok, to answer your first part, it is very much true, however I never said it was bad. From my personal experience, I'd have to say the ratio of promiscuous to non promiscuous gay people is without a doubt 2 to 1 at the very least, I've noticed a large difference, as have my friends from other areas. Besides, I said I was guessing.

 

2)Marriage IS a religious thing, because the it came from the Bible. Thats why I say, that as much as I disagree with it, pastors\the church\the state should be allowed to say its only between a man\woman. Because its based on Religious rules, and so its bound to be a bit unfair.

 

3) Studies show children need a feminine, and masculine influences in their life to grow up healthy and well-adjusted. Now as its possible to have maybe a really good friend who comes over often, or a grandma\grandpa, having a same sex couple simply will not do. And have you noticed its hard for single people to adopt as well? Same reason, they need a masculine AND feminine influence.

[Romy]

Homosexuals should be allowed to marry, because nowadays marriage is a legal thing. Not a thing of religion. Let's say your life partner is dying, in pain, but incapable of making any decisions, then who better do decide his fate than you? But what if you're not married to that person, solely because you weren't granted those basic rights? Then your relationship wouldn't be recognized. Unless in his will, you would have nothing after that.

 

I say that's not enough. For the reasons you supplied, domestic partnership or a civil union could be enough. I think same-sex marriage should be supported because-

1. It is a religous ceremony that any religous person should have the right to have.

2. A democratic country SHOULD NOT be forced by a religous institution to do anything.

3. Neither Christians, nor Jews, or Muslims have inveted "marriage". It existed before these 3 religions even existed, and so they shouldn't have the right to decide who gets to marry and who doesn't. Some other religions and cultures have supported same-sex marriage long before the "Sanctity or Marriage" was something every other person had memorized and threw in whenever the same-sex marriage issue had been brought up.

 

 

I'm aware to the fact that certain churches and such wouldn't marry gay couples even if that was legal everywhere. But I guess you can't have it all, it's their right not to marry whom ever they wish, unfortunately.

[Romy]

Marriage IS a religious thing, because the it came from the Bible. Thats why I say, that as much as I disagree with it, pastors\the church\the state should be allowed to say its only between a man\woman. Because its based on Religious rules, and so its bound to be a bit unfair.

 

It did not come from the Bible. Christianity/Judiasm do not have a monopoly over the term 'Marriage'. Neither have invented it, and neither should dictate over it.

 

 

According to Wiki-

"It is believed that same-sex unions were celebrated in Ancient Greece and Rome,[43] some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history."

 

Read my previous post for a better response.

[Saru Inc]

Homosexuals should be allowed to marry, because nowadays marriage is a legal thing. Not a thing of religion. Let's say your life partner is dying, in pain, but incapable of making any decisions, then who better do decide his fate than you? But what if you're not married to that person, solely because you weren't granted those basic rights? Then your relationship wouldn't be recognized. Unless in his will, you would have nothing after that.

 

I say that's not enough. For the reasons you supplied, domestic partnership or a civil union could be enough. I think same-sex marriage should be supported because-

1. It is a religous ceremony that any religous person should have the right to have.

2. A democratic country SHOULD NOT be forced by a religous institution to do anything.

3. Neither Christians, nor Jews, or Muslims have inveted "marriage". It existed before these 3 religions even existed, and so they shouldn't have the right to decide who gets to marry and who doesn't. Some other religions and cultures have supported same-sex marriage long before the "Sanctity or Marriage" was something every other person had memorized and threw in whenever the same-sex marriage issue had been brought up.

 

 

I'm aware to the fact that certain churches and such wouldn't marry gay couples even if that was legal everywhere. But I guess you can't have it all, it's their right not to marry whom ever they wish, unfortunately.

 

But what proof do you have it came before the Christianity? How can you even be sure, according to you when those religions were even founded? I mean Christianity was founded after the death of Jesus I'm assuming. But Judaism, Islam? How do you know those didn't come before the term marriage? Maybe before those religions people simply stayed together without any formal agreement.

[Romy]

Even if that wasn't true, the fact that some cultures/religions openly accept same-sex marriage, automaticly means Christianity shouldn't dictate the term.

[Saru Inc]

Why? I believe gays should be married, but I still believe (this is my stance as a Christian at least) that Christian pastors should be able to decide, however if worst comes to worst, the gov't should be able to intervene. Kind of a contradicting statement, I'm aware of that.

 

 

And no offence, but I don't believe your last statement holds much water, here's why:

 

If a country accepts same-sex marriages, why does that mean Christianity has to? If Buddhism accepts pedophilic marriages (is that the correct term?) does that mean Christianity has to? Not in my opinion.

[Aliath]

Saruman44, do I need to explain why all the arguments you presented are wrong on so many levels?

[Romy]

Why? I believe gays should be married, but I still believe (this is my stance as a Christian at least) that Christian pastors should be able to decide, however if worst comes to worst, the gov't should be able to intervene. Kind of a contradicting statement, I'm aware of that.

 

 

And no offence, but I don't believe your last statement holds much water, here's why:

 

If a country accepts same-sex marriages, why does that mean Christianity has to? If Buddhism accepts pedophilic marriages (is that the correct term?) does that mean Christianity has to? Not in my opinion.

 

But I wasn't discussing Christian marriage, I was discussing legal marriage.

 

I believe that a pastor should have the right to refuse to marry any couple for any reason whatsoever, but I don't think that because he wouldn't, a country shouldn't legally allow that.

 

 

Other than that, I agree with Aliath.

[Alg]

Saruman44, do I need to explain why all the arguments you presented are wrong on so many levels?

Why do you need to ask? Actually explain why they are 'wrong on so many levels' rather than threaten to...

[meol]

2)Marriage IS a religious thing, because the it came from the Bible. Thats why I say, that as much as I disagree with it, pastors\the church\the state should be allowed to say its only between a man\woman. Because its based on Religious rules, and so its bound to be a bit unfair.

Marriage wasn't invented by the Christians, nor by the Jews. Hindus, Zoroastrians and Native Americans have all had marriages.

Now, disregarding that fact, marriages have evolved with time into a social contract that even separates itself from religion (to a certain extent). While it hasn't lost all religious meaning, of course, you can't deny there is a purpose and a reason behind Atheist Marriages, too.

 

Besides, governments should cater for the freedom of all peaceful religions -unless you want to argue in favour of theocracies. If some liberal congregations want to unite homosexuals in marriage, then, at the very least, they shouldn't be stopped by laws and the government itself. And the government shouldn't be subjected to religious morals either.

 

There is a strong case for at least secular/civil homosexual marriage, don't you agree?

[Aliath]

Saruman44, do I need to explain why all the arguments you presented are wrong on so many levels?

Why do you need to ask? Actually explain why they are 'wrong on so many levels' rather than threaten to...

 

Because I'd be wasting a few minutes of my life explaining to someone that marriage didn't come from the Bible, and that nowadays people marry for certain legal benefits such as...

 

* Right to benefits while married:

o employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges

o per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating

o Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances)

o sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits

* Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:

o veteran's disability

o Supplemental Security Income

o disability payments for federal employees

o medicaid

o property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans

o income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates

o wages of an employee working for one's spouse are exempt from federal unemployment tax[3]

* Joint and family-related rights:

o joint filing of bankruptcy permitted

o joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records

o family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison

o next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims

o custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce

o domestic violence intervention

o access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods

* Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs

* Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.

* Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens

* Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime

* Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse

* Court notice of probate proceedings

* Domestic violence protection orders

* Existing homestead lease continuation of rights

* Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption

* Funeral and bereavement leave

* Joint adoption and foster care

* Joint tax filing

* Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society

* Legal status with stepchildren

* Making spousal medical decisions

* Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver

* Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation

* Right of survivorship of custodial trust

* Right to change surname upon marriage

* Right to enter into prenuptial agreement

* Right to inheritance of property

* Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)

* For those divorced or widowed, the right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:

o Social Security pension

o veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing

o survivor benefits for federal employees

o survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers

o additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease

o $100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty

o continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits

o renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse

o continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances

o payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death

o making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts

 

Now, there are couples than do not have that privilege because they're denied those rights.

[Alg]

Saruman44, do I need to explain why all the arguments you presented are wrong on so many levels?

Why do you need to ask? Actually explain why they are 'wrong on so many levels' rather than threaten to...

 

Because I'd be wasting a few minutes of my life explaining to someone that marriage didn't come from the Bible, and that nowadays people marry for certain legal benefits such as...

...

Now, there are couples than do not have that privilege because they're denied those rights.

But you instead used those few minutes to list the legal benefits of marriage.

I'm just wondering why you made such a threat without any desire to back it up. Seriously, saying "you're wrong but I'm not going to explain why" just makes you look like an [wagon].

[Aliath]

Saruman44, do I need to explain why all the arguments you presented are wrong on so many levels?

Why do you need to ask? Actually explain why they are 'wrong on so many levels' rather than threaten to...

 

Because I'd be wasting a few minutes of my life explaining to someone that marriage didn't come from the Bible, and that nowadays people marry for certain legal benefits such as...

...

Now, there are couples than do not have that privilege because they're denied those rights.

But you instead used those few minutes to list the legal benefits of marriage.

I'm just wondering why you made such a threat without any desire to back it up. Seriously, saying "you're wrong but I'm not going to explain why" just makes you look like an [wagon].

 

Because it's glaringly obvious why he's wrong.

[Alg]

And now we're going in circles.

[fakeitormakeit2]

Saruman44, do I need to explain why all the arguments you presented are wrong on so many levels?

Why do you need to ask? Actually explain why they are 'wrong on so many levels' rather than threaten to...

 

Because I'd be wasting a few minutes of my life explaining to someone that marriage didn't come from the Bible, and that nowadays people marry for certain legal benefits such as...

 

[insert legal benefits here]

 

Now, there are couples than do not have that privilege because they're denied those rights.

Ok, so if gov and religion should be separate then the government should only give civil unions unbiasedly with all the legal benefits and then churches can grant marriage, that way churches retain their right to marry and the gays get their benefits.

Edited March 21, 2010 by meol
Removed huge list of benefits.

[Saru Inc]

Saruman44, do I need to explain why all the arguments you presented are wrong on so many levels?

 

 

Way to patronize, man.

 

 

And not rly, since it's merely my opinion, which is subjective and thus, cannot be proved wrong.

 

But yes, prove me wrong. S0n.

[Romy]

Saruman44, do I need to explain why all the arguments you presented are wrong on so many levels?

Why do you need to ask? Actually explain why they are 'wrong on so many levels' rather than threaten to...

 

Because I'd be wasting a few minutes of my life explaining to someone that marriage didn't come from the Bible, and that nowadays people marry for certain legal benefits such as...

 

[insert legal benefits here]

 

Now, there are couples than do not have that privilege because they're denied those rights.

Ok, so if gov and religion should be separate then the government should only give civil unions unbiasedly with all the legal benefits and then churches can grant marriage, that way churches retain their right to marry and the gays get their benefits.

 

Just like I said, and like Meol said, Christians did not come up with the term 'marriage'. They shouldn't dictate it.

Edited March 21, 2010 by meol
Removed huge list of benefits.

[Romy]

Saruman44, do I need to explain why all the arguments you presented are wrong on so many levels?

 

 

Way to patronize, man.

 

 

And not rly, since it's merely my opinion, which is subjective and thus, cannot be proved wrong.

 

But yes, prove me wrong. S0n.

 

What? Ofcourse opinions can be proven wrong...

[Aliath]

Saruman44, do I need to explain why all the arguments you presented are wrong on so many levels?

Why do you need to ask? Actually explain why they are 'wrong on so many levels' rather than threaten to...

 

Because I'd be wasting a few minutes of my life explaining to someone that marriage didn't come from the Bible, and that nowadays people marry for certain legal benefits such as...

 

[insert legal benefits here]

 

Now, there are couples than do not have that privilege because they're denied those rights.

Ok, so if gov and religion should be separate then the government should only give civil unions unbiasedly with all the legal benefits and then churches can grant marriage, that way churches retain their right to marry and the gays get their benefits.

 

No, because not all marriages are religious. Some homosexual couples want to marry not only for the benefits, but because they love their partner.

 

But I do get your point. It's just that not all marriages are Christian.

[Alg]

So let Christians dictate Christian marriages. What's so hard about that?

Saruman44, do I need to explain why all the arguments you presented are wrong on so many levels?

 

 

Way to patronize, man.

 

 

And not rly, since it's merely my opinion, which is subjective and thus, cannot be proved wrong.

 

But yes, prove me wrong. S0n.

 

What? Ofcourse opinions can be proven wrong...

I didn't like the movie Up In the Air. My opinion was that it wasn't that good. That's my opinion. You can't prove to me that I actually did like it. And that's what makes opinions opinions and not facts.

[Saru Inc]

Saruman44, do I need to explain why all the arguments you presented are wrong on so many levels?

Why do you need to ask? Actually explain why they are 'wrong on so many levels' rather than threaten to...

 

Because I'd be wasting a few minutes of my life explaining to someone that marriage didn't come from the Bible, and that nowadays people marry for certain legal benefits such as...

 

[insert legal benefits here]

 

Now, there are couples than do not have that privilege because they're denied those rights.

Ok, so if gov and religion should be separate then the government should only give civil unions unbiasedly with all the legal benefits and then churches can grant marriage, that way churches retain their right to marry and the gays get their benefits.

 

No, because not all marriages are religious. Some homosexual couples want to marry not only for the benefits, but because they love their partner.

 

But I do get your point. It's just that not all marriages are Christian.

 

 

Still haven't proved me wrong. And ALG answered that post quite nicely, I'm fine with Christians dictating Christian marriages. The problem lies in that most people go to pastors to get married, even atheists.

[Aliath]

Why are you taunting me to point out the glaringly obvious? I wasn't daring anyone to make me prove you wrong. Please, read what I said before trying to start a flame-war. It was a rhetorical question, I was leaving it up to you to notice what was wrong with your statement. I'm sure you can do that on your own.

 

I'm not going to post in this topic anymore, because I've said my piece and I have no particular urge to continue bickering with you over something so pointless.

[Romy]

So let Christians dictate Christian marriages. What's so hard about that?

Saruman44, do I need to explain why all the arguments you presented are wrong on so many levels?

 

 

Way to patronize, man.

 

 

And not rly, since it's merely my opinion, which is subjective and thus, cannot be proved wrong.

 

But yes, prove me wrong. S0n.

 

What? Ofcourse opinions can be proven wrong...

I didn't like the movie Up In the Air. My opinion was that it wasn't that good. That's my opinion. You can't prove to me that I actually did like it. And that's what makes opinions opinions and not facts.

 

Yes, but his opinion was based on what he saw as facts, if these 'facts' can be proven wrong, his opinion is also wrong. The reason no one can prove you wrong when you say you liked the movie, is because it's not based on anything other than your personal preferance, and thus you're the only one who could confidently say whether or not *you* liked the movie.

[Alg]

In short that was a comment on how only some opinions can be proven right or wrong :lol:

[Denith]

romy, wiki tries to be unbiased and objective in the presentation of facts. Half of the Bible is set in timeperiods far before the ones you mentioned.

 

Alaith, isn't that the reason why you came here in the first place? I mean, a little rewording to the last part of your last sentence to get rid of the negative connontation and wala!

 

Saruman44, what do you suggest to fix the problem?