.... I found this article as very interesting reading.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Happiness, it seems, is an affront; they simply cannot fathom the idea of two people wishing to live together as a family, and to be accepted the way the Almighty created them."
The phrase non sequitur comes to mind. Nobody said "you can't be happy because we hate happy people". They said "you can't be happy because we hate homosexuals". Or, in the case of the authors' families, "you can't be happy because we hate your partner's religion". It's just bigotry. Oppose it on that point. Don't try to theorize some sort of conspiracy of depressives.
"A Muslim monthly magazine asked its readers in an editorial, 'Would you rather have church or state in your bedroom?'"
Response 1: Aren't they the same thing in most Muslim countries?
Response 2: I'd rather have a woman in my bedroom, but maybe that's just me.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:If you believe your religion doesn't permit gay marriage, then simply don't marry a person of your own sex. End of story. Why would you wish to impose this standard on people who believe that religion, in their interpretation, does not exclude same-sex marriages?
Because Religion still holds sway over the legislative process the world over.
Even in Canada, I still can't kill whover I want. I say "Hey man, that's your religious belief, not mine" but they just don't listen. Tolerant of other's lifestyles my ass!
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
My bedroom is too small for a church or a state, and thinking about it, some women too, but the women would be more welcome......
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I don't see why people are so uptight about gay marriages. It's not like THEY'RE getting married to a member of the same sex. So why should they be so upitty? (I don't know how to spell that word, if it even is a word)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Da_bang80: I don't see why people are so uptight about gay marriages. It's not like THEY'RE getting married to a member of the same sex.
Mabye they're jsut keeping their options open. Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Because, Dabang, while all people of all colors, class, race, and preference are creations of God, and all of them, without any discrimination whatsoever are equally entitled to say "our Father who art in heaven...", and all of them share the same human nature, homosexuals are in an exclusion clause.
Posted by Tora Regina (Member # 53) on :
Another forum I was at touched on this topic and I liked what this guy said:
quote:If we're going to declare marriages to be about love, then make it so. Don't say they're about love, deny that love can occur between people of the same gender, and then deny them the right to marriage. Don't declare that marriages are about love, allow homosexual marriages, simply to turn it back and say, "Welcome to the world of marriage, you lovey-dovey queers: pay our tax." Marriage is a financial and legal institution, and love is simply one of our wacky ideologies that muddled it up.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Marriage is a financial and legal institution, and love is simply one of our wacky ideologies that muddled it up.
And thus, while cute...the whole line of argument is irrelevant. The primary opposition to gay marriages is religious, therefore while that argument may be of influence towards businessmen, lawyers, and the romantic, it has no bearing on the line of reasoning that marriage is a union between a man and a woman as declared by God and sanctified by the church.
Cartman: Of course the Church also discriminates against oh, murderers, sinners, adulterers, the gluttinous.......and Muslims, Jews, Bhuddists, etc. The key here is choice, all of the above lifestyles are choices and as far as the Church still believes (and it still hasn't been proved either way scientifically as far as I know) that being gay is a choice. Race, class, colour, etc. are all out of our control and thus non-comparable.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Cartman: Of course the Church also discriminates against oh, murderers, sinners, adulterers, the gluttinous
The gluttinous? Almost EVERY bishop is a cow. Find me a bishop that works out. Go ahead, try. Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
Dude, are you autistic?
Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
Haven't you heard the old saying "The only traditions of the British Navy are Rum Sodomy and the Lash". They used to attribute the saying to Winston Churchill. His secretary said he didn't come up with the line but he wished that he had.
The point being here is not all Religions are dead set against homosexuals. Just as not all Brits are homosexuals. This particular Bishop is a homosexual its, mentioned in the search area of that web site. Also he's not a fat Cow and apparently works hard at his job.
The main people objecting to same sex marriges in the US are the insurance companies. At least the ones who can affect the law making process. Most people here don't give a rats ass what gays do. least of all whether or not they get married.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Autism it is.
Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
Apparently the fact that the main objections to Gay Marriges comes from the companies that insure workers hasn't come to your attention.
When you work for a company in this country your employer has to give certain benefits to your family. Health insurance dental care and some other stuff. Same sex Marrige partners would be eligible for the same thing. You do the math.
Besides look at all the recent scandals in the Catholic Church. Who are they kidding.
Remember separation of church and state. That they can do. separation of politicians and big business is another story altogether.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
MM: That bishop is also Episcopalian. I believe the question referred to Roman Catholic bishops, as evidenced by the use of the phrase "the Church".
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Tora Regina quoted: "If we're going to declare marriages to be about love, then make it so."
You know, I haven't thought about it in a long time but I'm pretty sure that it's a rather modern development, looking at history. I'm not sure the God of the Bible would define marriage as "a union that should be made when two people love eachother". I get the impression that it's a bit understated, anyway.
I mean, what with all the marrying for political, diplomatic and power-gaining motives (getting land or riches from the girl's parents in exchange for becoming a member of your house), I think the modern, generally accepted notion of marriage as a sweet, romantic entity got widespread rather late. Say, 1500's and forward. What do you people think?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I think there are two competing tendencies when it comes to our consideration of the past. We either romanticize it, overlooking the often harsh and brutal conditions that make up the statistically typical human experience, or we veer in the opposite direction and see it as this totally alien place.
Anyway, it seems to me that our understanding of what makes a happy life (including a happy marriage) are, in fact, pretty modern. But at the same time, we wouldn't love at all if it didn't have a deep evolutionary history.
And the Bible does, at least, contain an ode to getting it on.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
In a sociology class I took (to finish off my gen. ed. credits), the teacher said the idea of families caring about each other (rather than being an economic entity) only dates back to something like the late 1700s.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Lee will remember that.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: In a sociology class I took (to finish off my gen. ed. credits), the teacher said the idea of families caring about each other (rather than being an economic entity) only dates back to something like the late 1700s.
You had an idiot for a sociolgy teacher. Where did he come up with that crap? Even literature from aincent times shows families caring about each other. Aincent mythology is rife with familial caring. Bible stuff too. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I think it had more to do with what was viewed as the main purpose of a family. In olden tymes (or, as Liam would have it, when Lee was coming of age), people married and had hordes of children because they needed free labor and stuff like that. Only later did the idea arise that one should hold off on marriage in order to find love, and all that romantic stuff.
I don't know. I was only trying to get by in the class enough so I wouldn't pull my GPA down. I only took it because I had to. It was in the morning! Come on!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I'm not blaming you! People really do view the past as either horrible, oppressive and uncaring or rosy and wonderful charming.
Any people that could fall in love in a world without deoderant, toilet paper or sex eduaction are pretty hardy without having to marry for money. Mabye he just had a unloving childhood where his parents married for financial gain and used him as slave labor.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Now look here! I'd give all you young guttersnipes a dashed good horse-whipping, only my hip's getting bad now the weather's changing.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Lee, you don't want to stone them a little instead???
The skulls of these people are laced with such a fucking heavy element it should be added to the periodic table.
[ October 09, 2003, 03:47 AM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
The one about "condoms promoting promiscuity" always leaves me ROTFL. Or causes a psychosomatically induced epileptic attack that amounts to the same. Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Cartman, your post looks like that after being edited? That entry gets a loll from Nim, and rightly so.
If only all the promiscuous catholic priests in the Vatican were to contract AIDS, maybe that would be an eyeopener for them...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: The skulls of these people are laced with such a fucking heavy element it should be added to the periodic table.
This ties in nicely with the thread about Dark Matter being discovered as real...
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)