Not going to debate this too much as I don't have strong feelings on it one way or another...
If the church allows the religious ceremony to those not of faith (which I am sure they disapprove of) then they should allow the ceremony to gays. This fact makes it hypocritical and exclusionary. If they revoked the ceremony for people not of faith then there shouldn't be an issue but I am fairly certain it would persist.
Economics say this won't happen. Churches have far less to lose by excluding gays than non-believers.
If the church allows the religious ceremony to those not of faith (which I am sure they disapprove of) then they should allow the ceremony to gays. This fact makes it hypocritical and exclusionary. If they revoked the ceremony for people not of faith then there shouldn't be an issue but I am fairly certain it would persist.
You know what? That's maybe the best point I've ever heard against gay marriage.
Basically - the more people they discriminate against, the more justified their stance against homosexual marriage. They may be bigots, but at least they aren't hypocrites!
I don't agree with it - I think Churches should be accepting of everyone if they really have a valuable message - but you're 100% right. If they discriminate against non-believers, it would be hypocritical to NOT discriminate against gays.
Quote:
Economics say this won't happen. Churches have far less to lose by excluding gays than non-believers.
A big reason I'm unhappy with a lot of churches and religions. It's not about helping people. It's about the bottom line.
__________________
"Isles give up 3 picks for 5.5 mil of cap space.
Oilers give up a pick and a player to take on 5.5 mil."
-Bax
I find it funny that a lot of the people who said they voted no like to preface their explanation by saying "I don't have a problem with gay people". Well, obviously you do if you don't think they have the right to be married.
I honestly have yet to see one valid argument against gay marriage that isn't an intolerant view. That leads me to believe people who are against gay marriage are intolerant to gay people in general. You can spin and spin all you want, but that's how I see it.
The Following User Says Thank You to The Yen Man For This Useful Post:
I find it funny that a lot of the people who said they voted no like to preface their explanation by saying "I don't have a problem with gay people". Well, obviously you do if you don't think they have the right to be married.
I honestly have yet to see one valid argument against gay marriage that isn't an intolerant view.That leads me to believe people who are against gay marriage are intolerant to gay people in general. You can spin and spin all you want, but that's how I see it.
I'll take a stab at this one.
Lesbians = awesome
2 gay guys going at it = wierd
That's all I've got. It's not really an argument, just my opinion.
The Following User Says Thank You to Frank MetaMusil For This Useful Post:
If divorce and remarriage is legal, gay marriage should be too.
Cause I bet those people who think gay marriage with ruin the institution of marriage just choose to ignore that divorce and remarriage does more to damage 'marriage' than same sex couples getting married ever will.
If marriage is viewed as a religious ceremony and homosexuality is not accepted in the religious views, how can one with (strong) faith accept gay marriage? I don't think it has ever been accepted by religion that people pick and choose what parts to believe and which to disregard on an individual or case-by-case basis.
A 'tolerant' person with faith must then choose between questioning their religious foundation or perhaps requesting that a different word be used.
Viewed as a religious ceremony by who though? If a funeral is viewed as a religious ceremony by a religion, should they be able to limit non-religious people from having a funeral? Or any other activity or ceremony people do?
Marriage has an important place in some religions, but it's not exclusively a religious ceremony.
As for how can one of strong faith accept gay marriage, that's pretty simple. Not every religion or everyone of strong faith puts their scriptural writings on the same level.. some people go with sola scriptura while others accept other sources of divine inspiration and communication. Some people believe their scriptures to be complete and inerrant while others accept that scripture is a product of its time and culture written by humans and is inspired by god in the way that a woman can inspire a song. They accept that scripture has been altered over time for various reasons. In the case of the Bible the original copies of the writings don't even exist.
So it's not really a matter of picking and choosing what parts to believe (though the inerrantists will of course accuse the more liberal believers of exactly that), it's a different view of god and religion and such.
There are churches that accept homosexuals and same sex marriage and will perform them.
Maybe someone who is religious and accepts same sex marriage can explain how they resolve the seeming conflict.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
When it comes to Homosexuality, abso-fataing-lutely. Unlike other controversial topics, Homosexuality has the ability to truly test the mettle of anyone. It's easy to sit on the fence and have an opinion, but a person's true character is brought out into the light once it is discovered that someone close to them is gay, whether family or friend. Despite the appearance of being accepted in today's society it still has the potential to destroy familial and friendship bonds. Why anyone would put themselves through that risk for the sake of choice is sheer stupidity. They put themselves through that risk because they have NO other choice, and they can't hide it forever. Better to be out with it and be true to oneself rather than live a lie.
You are actually serious?
You obviously don't have the testicular fortitude to do something outside of socially acceptable standards and are too busy fitting in to actually choose to live your life. Have you ever made an upopular decision before in your life or do you cave like a house of cards when you are approached with something controversial?
If someone like friends or family abandon you for making choices they don't agree with, that's their problem. Why would you want to keep around false friends and family? Just so that you can have a peaceful "normal" life? That's BS! Total BS.
As for having no other choice, you make it sound like you can either live a lie, be gay and be chastised for it, or die. Should gays just kill themselves since they obviously cannot stand a chance of living the same fullfilled life a straight person does? Is that what you would suggest to someone struggling whether to live a lie or come out?
You know what else has the potential to destroy family roots and friendships? Having a heterosexual relationship with a partner you have choosen that is DESPISED by your family and friends. You can have the same results with presenting a heterosexual relationship to your family and friends as a homosexual one.
Quote:
This sentence is incomplete. Life is all about choices once you're aware of the life that you're dealt. If life were all about choices, I assure you I would never have chosen to live a life where I have to work to survive. I would have chosen to be born into wealth so vast that I would never have to work a day in my life.
I never chose to be born a white Canadian heterosexual male to a pair of loving, middle class parents with German and Russian roots, but thank the fates that I was. Though my life isn't a walk down Easy Street from cradle to grave, it could have been a lot worse.
I guess that's where we differ. No, I wouldn't choose the cakewalk through life because I'd end up some prentenious prick who is so out of touch with reality it isn't funny. I also would not live a fullfilled life as I have since I would have no concept of earning what I get. So no, I would not choose to be born into wealth after knowing what I've been dealt in life.
You didn't choose to be white or male those were your genetics, but you have chosen to be Canadian and heterosexual. At any point, you could leave the country and take up citizenship elsewhere. You have chosen not to. Just like you could chose to be homosexual or bisexual. But you have chosen not to. You could wake up tomorrow and choose to be an alcholic, junkie, rapist, serial killer or naked cowboy playing in the streets of downtown. But you will wake up and choose not to be.
Quote:
In this, you are correct to a point. For example, I don't give a toss what complete strangers think of me in public, because in my environment, the odds of me running into any complete stranger at any given time a second time before I die is so low, their opinion of me is inconsequential. On the other hand, I care about the opinions of those close to me because of our mutual bonds, and for them I am on my best behaviour. I engage in activities I never would normally engage in for their sake.
So I was right about caving like a house of cards. The fact you feel that you have to be someone else around those with a mutual bond for their sake is saddening because if you have a bond with someone, they would be willing to accept you for who you are, not who you pretend to be in their presence.
Quote:
Now having said this, if I was to walk around Chinook mall with a T-shirt that displayed "Achievement unlocked: Left the house," I will get a number of different reactions: Most people wouldn't give a toss, while a small handful of people would either get a chuckle, scream aloud and ask where they can get a shirt like that, or call me an "Xbox (vulgar homosexual slang)." If I were to where a rainbow lapel on my shirt and cross paths with a bigot, any number of things could happen. If homosexuality were a choice, I would never adopt such a lifestyle for that reason alone. If Homosexuality is a hard-wired genetic trait -- which I believe it to be -- I accept this as a fact of life and it becomes something that I have to learn to deal with.
Again, this comes back to my question of "If something is hard to do in life, should you just not do it because its going to be socially unpopular?"
So because you could take flack from a bigot for being a homosexual, much like you could take flack for being a Flames Fan, Twilight Fan, Country Music fan, 4 foot mohawked and modded skateboarding kid you shouldn't do it because someone might not like it?
You reasonings for it not being a choice are no different then the outcomes people get for making other choices in their lives. No difference at all.
Basically - the more people they discriminate against, the more justified their stance against homosexual marriage. They may be bigots, but at least they aren't hypocrites!
Not the point at all. Churches have always been trying to expand their influence (and power) which would mean taking in non-believers on a regular basis - excluding non-believers would be certainly lead to the demise of the church.
It would not be discriminatory at all if the church offered everybody membership and then services. Only if they refused membership to some groups and as a direct result the services would it be discriminatory. Since not offering membership is untenable it would lead to the hypocrisy.
This of course excludes the idea that the church could exclude on the basis of non-forgivable sin (getting into a very very unknown area for me here) such as being gay (?). This would also be somewhat hypocritical as I don't see any churches doing background checks while granting forgiveness for pretty much everything else.
Also, I guess I just don't agree with the notion that everything should be offered to everybody. Private clubs, organizations, etc should be able to set membership guidelines and restrict membership (within reason of course - no need for an absurd example here).
What's wrong with two three four or five dudes get hot sweaty and slobbery all night long? I think most straight guys are just jealous of an average gay guy's sex life.
Besides accidents happen. I could see this happening to CaptainCrunch if it hasn't already:
I am trying to look at it from a micro- perspective. The macro is a different kettle of fish indeed.
As stated, I was just trying to put myself in a 'faith' position while maintaining 'tolerance' while not going against the church. It was my best guess of how that conflict could be rationalized.
If someone like friends or family abandon you for making choices they don't agree with, that's their problem. Why would you want to keep around false friends and family? Just so that you can have a peaceful "normal" life? That's BS! Total BS.
Not everyone has such weak ties to their family and friends.
Humans are social animals, we need family, we need friends. If you are overexercised by society as a whole, you either suffer in psychological agony or you are a sociopath.
We're fortunate now that if someone is gay and does get rejected by their family and friends that there are many people elsewhere in society that they can connect with and be able to fit in socially.. but that's not always been the case, if efforts to enforce equality hadn't been made it could still be a case where the only option for a homosexual was hide it, live it and be rejected by society (often violently), or kill themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drury18
As for having no other choice, you make it sound like you can either live a lie, be gay and be chastised for it, or die.
That's exactly what it was like, and can still feel like for some. Abandoning all your friends and family might seem like an easy and cavalier thing for you, but it's not for everyone.
You really should explore some of the experiences of people who have lived through being homosexual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drury18
You know what else has the potential to destroy family roots and friendships? Having a heterosexual relationship with a partner you have choosen that is DESPISED by your family and friends. You can have the same results with presenting a heterosexual relationship to your family and friends as a homosexual one.
Sure, except that society as a whole would still accept your marriage.. you can find new friends, find surrogate family.
Some people are advocating that homosexuals can't even be allowed to get married, and finding new friends and surrogate family used to be almost impossible.. even now it's still difficult because you still have to deal with a non-trivial portion of society that believes you are disease ridden pedophiles luring children into the homosexual lifestyle... and that's if you are fortunate enough to live in a country that isn't trying to outright kill you for being gay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drury18
You didn't choose to be white or male those were your genetics, but you have chosen to be Canadian and heterosexual.
Lol whut? I didn't choose to be born in Canada and I didn't chose to be attracted to women. At what age did you choose to be attracted to females?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drury18
Just like you could chose to be homosexual or bisexual. But you have chosen not to.
You could choose to be a homosexual? REALLY? You're just as attracted to the same sex as you are to the opposite sex?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drury18
You could wake up tomorrow and choose to be an alcholic, junkie, rapist, serial killer or naked cowboy playing in the streets of downtown. But you will wake up and choose not to be.
Out of all those things I think the only thing you could actually choose to be overnight is the naked cowboy.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
I am trying to look at it from a micro- perspective. The macro is a different kettle of fish indeed.
As stated, I was just trying to put myself in a 'faith' position while maintaining 'tolerance' while not going against the church. It was my best guess of how that conflict could be rationalized.
Yup I got what you meant, just trying to add in where a liberal Christian might be approaching things from and how they end up without a conflict to resolve.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Interesting debate. I've always thought it was a choice, but after reading some of these posts I'm starting to wonder.
Scans see 'gay brain differences'
Quote:
Scientists have noticed for some time that homosexual people of both sexes have differences in certain cognitive abilities, suggesting there may be subtle differences in their brain structure.
This is the first time, however, that scientists have used brain scanners to try to look for the source of those differences.
A man's sexual orientation may be determined by conditions in the womb, according to a study.
Quote:
But a Canadian study has shown that the effect is most likely due to biological rather than social factors.
The research is published in the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Professor Anthony Bogaert from Brock University in Ontario, Canada, studied 944 heterosexual and homosexual men with either "biological" brothers, in this case those who share the same mother, or "non-biological" brothers, that is, adopted, step or half siblings.
Multiple genes - and not just the sex chromosomes - are important in sexual orientation, say US scientists.
Quote:
A University of Illinois team, which has screened the entire human genome, say there is no one 'gay' gene. Writing in the journal Human Genetics, they said environmental factors are also likely to be involved.
The findings add to the debate over whether sexual orientation is a matter of choice. Campaigners say equality is the more important issue. Non-sex genes
Much of the past genetic research into male homosexuality had focused solely on the X chromosome, passed down to boys by their mother, according to lead researcher Dr Brian Mustanski.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4215427.stm
Just some samples, theres a plethora of work done on this subject and even though we have a lot to learn as of today; we are definitely becoming more confident in saying that genes play a role, as does embryo stage development and possibly something in the environment, possibly triggers in early childhood.
Humans are social animals, we need family, we need friends. If you are overexercised by society as a whole, you either suffer in psychological agony or you are a sociopath.
We're fortunate now that if someone is gay and does get rejected by their family and friends that there are many people elsewhere in society that they can connect with and be able to fit in socially.. but that's not always been the case, if efforts to enforce equality hadn't been made it could still be a case where the only option for a homosexual was hide it, live it and be rejected by society (often violently), or kill themselves.
Okay, so I guess being gay means you won't have any friends or family then. Alright then. Because you can't survive on one good family member or one good friend? You don't need a LARGE group of people to accept you and support you. You just need one.
Quote:
That's exactly what it was like, and can still feel like for some. Abandoning all your friends and family might seem like an easy and cavalier thing for you, but it's not for everyone.
No, some people don't have the balls to do what they need to in order to live their life. I accept this. I don't understand it, but I accept it. And feel sorry for them.
Quote:
You really should explore some of the experiences of people who have lived through being homosexual.
I'm not even sure where to begin on this one.
Experience it moreso then actually living this lifestyle or from the side of those who *think* they know what its about to be one? Clarify that one for me!
Quote:
Sure, except that society as a whole would still accept your marriage.. you can find new friends, find surrogate family.
Some people are advocating that homosexuals can't even be allowed to get married, and finding new friends and surrogate family used to be almost impossible.. even now it's still difficult because you still have to deal with a non-trivial portion of society that believes you are disease ridden pedophiles luring children into the homosexual lifestyle... and that's if you are fortunate enough to live in a country that isn't trying to outright kill you for being gay.
Okay, so to back up here. It's human to be a social animal and need family and friends, but only acceptable if your straight. If you're straight and lose your family and friends because of a heterosexual relationship that isn't accepted that's okay. You'll find a surrogate family and friends and your life will be just as fine. You don't really need that real family.
But if you're gay and lose your family and friends because of your gay choices, well that's much worse.
I'd like to know when that "non-trivial" portion of society is going to start protesting against the copious amounts of straight people that are disease ridden from sleeping with numerous sex partners they don't know the first names of and commit much worse atrocities on society. I have gay friends, and their partner count is much lower then all of my straight friends. Not all homosexuals sleep with everything that moves.
Quote:
Lol whut? I didn't choose to be born in Canada and I didn't chose to be attracted to women. At what age did you choose to be attracted to females?
When I was 17. Before that it was actually only to men because that's all I felt attraction too. Probably should point out at this time I am a girl.
Quote:
You could choose to be a homosexual? REALLY? You're just as attracted to the same sex as you are to the opposite sex?
I have chosen to be bisexual because yes, while I was born and raised that the only relationships acceptable were those between men and women, I chose to disregard all of that when I was younger and explore relationships with women because I can't understand the hang up about why it matters whether its someone of the opposite sex or same sex when it comes to love. If you love someone, be with them.
And yes, I am attracted to both sexes equally. Although I'm sure someone here will make the comment I only do it for attention and everything else that goes along in the stigma of being bi.
The Following User Says Thank You to Drury18 For This Useful Post:
Okay, so I guess being gay means you won't have any friends or family then. Alright then. Because you can't survive on one good family member or one good friend? You don't need a LARGE group of people to accept you and support you. You just need one.
No, some people don't have the balls to do what they need to in order to live their life. I accept this. I don't understand it, but I accept it. And feel sorry for them.
I'm not even sure where to begin on this one.
Experience it moreso then actually living this lifestyle or from the side of those who *think* they know what its about to be one? Clarify that one for me!
Okay, so to back up here. It's human to be a social animal and need family and friends, but only acceptable if your straight. If you're straight and lose your family and friends because of a heterosexual relationship that isn't accepted that's okay. You'll find a surrogate family and friends and your life will be just as fine. You don't really need that real family.
But if you're gay and lose your family and friends because of your gay choices, well that's much worse.
I'd like to know when that "non-trivial" portion of society is going to start protesting against the copious amounts of straight people that are disease ridden from sleeping with numerous sex partners they don't know the first names of and commit much worse atrocities on society. I have gay friends, and their partner count is much lower then all of my straight friends. Not all homosexuals sleep with everything that moves.
When I was 17. Before that it was actually only to men because that's all I felt attraction too. Probably should point out at this time I am a girl.
I have chosen to be bisexual because yes, while I was born and raised that the only relationships acceptable were those between men and women, I chose to disregard all of that when I was younger and explore relationships with women because I can't understand the hang up about why it matters whether its someone of the opposite sex or same sex when it comes to love. If you love someone, be with them.
And yes, I am attracted to both sexes equally. Although I'm sure someone here will make the comment I only do it for attention and everything else that goes along in the stigma of being bi.
You cannot choose who you are attracted to, you can choose who you have sex with. Being homosexual means that you are attracted to the same gender more frequently than the opposite gender, no matter who you choose to have sex with. So it is not a choice. A man who is attracted to men but marries a woman, is not a heterosexual. He is a homosexual. Sexuality is about attraction, not about actions.
__________________
As you can see, I'm completely ridiculous.
Last edited by Weiser Wonder; 06-29-2010 at 01:57 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Weiser Wonder For This Useful Post:
You cannot chose who you are attracted to, you can chose who you have sex with.
Even in the non-homosexual way, your comment is absurd.
You can choose who you are attracted to. Millions of women would drop everything for a second with George Clooney or Sidney Crosby. I'd rather poke my eyes out with a hot stick while walking on rusty nails. Same thing with Megan Fox.
We all make decisions day to day who we are attracted to. You can see someone behind the counter at your coffee shop and feel attraction to them but turn around and see someone at a table and be hideously replused.
Even in the non-homosexual way, your comment is absurd.
You can choose who you are attracted to. Millions of women would drop everything for a second with George Clooney or Sidney Crosby. I'd rather poke my eyes out with a hot stick while walking on rusty nails. Same thing with Megan Fox.
We all make decisions day to day who we are attracted to. You can see someone behind the counter at your coffee shop and feel attraction to them but turn around and see someone at a table and be hideously replused.
Your comment is absurd. People absolutely CANNOT choose who they are attracted to you. You have a fundamental lack of understanding about sexuality. Decision implies they have control over their attraction, which is a statement so far removed from reality I'm having trouble believing you are serious.
__________________
As you can see, I'm completely ridiculous.
The Following User Says Thank You to Weiser Wonder For This Useful Post:
And yes, I am attracted to both sexes equally. Although I'm sure someone here will make the comment I only do it for attention and everything else that goes along in the stigma of being bi.
Curious, how long have you been equally attracted to both sexes?
Even in the non-homosexual way, your comment is absurd.
You can choose who you are attracted to. Millions of women would drop everything for a second with George Clooney or Sidney Crosby. I'd rather poke my eyes out with a hot stick while walking on rusty nails. Same thing with Megan Fox.
We all make decisions day to day who we are attracted to. You can see someone behind the counter at your coffee shop and feel attraction to them but turn around and see someone at a table and be hideously replused.
I think you're missing the point. You can't choose who you are attracted to, you can choose among those you feel attraction to. Your own example is a perfect point. You feel attraction for the person behind the counter and repulsion for the person at the table, those feelings aren't voluntary. You can, of course, choose to approach the one you are attracted to, in order to try and start up a relationship, but you can't suddenly make yourself attracted to the one that 'repulses' you or at least does not attract you.
__________________
onetwo and threefour... Together no more. The end of an era. Let's rebuild...
