The Decline of Religion

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Fine ...but my point WAS: please answer

If you vote to ban gay marriage you are forcing limits upon people who do not owe you anything. You are therefore violating thier free will, taking away thier civil rights, promoting "seperate but equal" and thereby contradicting yourself.

I beleive many Christians confuse Love with Control.

You may be right about some christians. Love and control are different. My views on homosexuality don't have anything to do with either though, for me it's about right and wrong.

I'm failing to see the contradiction. Or the denial of civil rights. I've maintained that they can get married if they want to. The marriage just has to be between a man and woman. no separate, just equal. The law has a lot of restrictions. you can't steal, can't kill, can't drive while drunk, must where seatbelt while driving, etc. Do those laws violate free will or take away any civil rights? Do anti-theft laws deny cleptomaniacs their civil rights? I don't think so, it's just what's necessary to have an orderly society. I'm saying that by my definition it's impossible for a man to marry another man, or a woman another woman. They can love each other, sure, have benefits that are usually considered part of a marriage, but that doesn't make it a marriage.

Originally posted by Alliance
Yes it does, expalin Vatican II, or the rise of internet preaching/televangalism/Christian rock concerts for 12 year olds.

If religion didn't conform, it would die all the more rapidly.

I don't count catholics or new age religion. I'm not one of them.

Funny thing is that the religions that don't conform are the ones that are growing the most rapidly.

Originally posted by docb77
I'm failing to see the contradiction. Or the denial of civil rights. I've maintained that they can get married if they want to. The marriage just has to be between a man and woman. no separate, just equal. The law has a lot of restrictions. you can't steal, can't kill, can't drive while drunk, must where seatbelt while driving, etc. Do those laws violate free will or take away any civil rights? Do anti-theft laws deny cleptomaniacs their civil rights? I don't think so, it's just what's necessary to have an orderly society. I'm saying that by my definition it's impossible for a man to marry another man, or a woman another woman. They can love each other, sure, have benefits that are usually considered part of a marriage, but that doesn't make it a marriage.

All the laws you mentioned govern behavior of everyone and everyone is held to the same distinctions. The US has many laws BANNING discrimination or SEGREGATION (principles which you seem to uphold).

Maybe your opinion is different, but my opinion is that of the US constitution. If you don't like the US constitution, revoke your citizenship.

Originally posted by Alliance
All the laws you mentioned govern behavior of everyone and everyone is held to the same distinctions. The US has many laws BANNING discrimination or SEGREGATION (principles which you seem to uphold).

Maybe your opinion is different, but my opinion is that of the US constitution. If you don't like the US constitution, revoke your citizenship.

Ok, spell it out for me.

If a gay man can court and marry a woman, and a straight man can court and marry a woman, and they are both prohibited from "marrying" a man, wheres the discrimination or segregation?

I love the country, and the constitution, that's why I don't want to see it go down the drain. You don't see me attacking your views of the country or saying that you want to destroy it do you? Give me a little respect here.

the descrimination lie in the fact that one couple is not treated as antoher couple. They are treated differently. You describe almost word for word the "seperate but equal" policy. You essentially said <<oh, they can have the same rights, just you cant call it marriage>>

I never said you wanted to destroy the country, but you don't stand up for American ideals. But what part of "all men are created equal" do you not get? Its US law that segrgation is wrong, that discrimination is not legal. The law is NOT ambiguous.

docv77

how can you not get this yet? By only allowing a gay man to marry a woman you are creating a bullshit marriage...this marriage means nothing, because a gay man is not capable of having sexual or romantic feelings for a woman.

You would rather have a "straight" marriage that lacks love then a marriage of two men or two women that has love ?

How blind are you ?

Originally posted by Alliance
the descrimination lie in the fact that one couple is not treated as antoher couple. They are treated differently. You describe almost word for word the "seperate but equal" policy. You essentially said <<oh, they can have the same rights, just you cant call it marriage>>

I never said you wanted to destroy the country, but you don't stand up for American ideals. But what part of "all men are created equal" do you not get? Its US law that segrgation is wrong, that discrimination is not legal. The law is NOT ambiguous.

I stand up for american ideals all the time. Self determination, right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness, etc. I just don't buy your argument. All men are created equal - true. What you're saying is that all couples are created equal, that I don't buy.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
docv77

how can you not get this yet? By only allowing a gay man to marry a woman you are creating a bullshit marriage...this marriage means nothing, because a gay man is not capable of having sexual or romantic feelings for a woman.

You would rather have a "straight" marriage that lacks love then a marriage of two men or two women that has love ?

How blind are you ?

I would rather have a straight marriage (the only kind that I see as being a marriage) based on love and trust.

I'm not forcing anyone to get married, but if they want to that's the only option open. I don't accept that gays can't change. Anyone can change, It can be dam hard, but it's possible.

Gays dont have 2 change just because you say so.

Either way you are violating free will by limitting gay's rights.

Thats the bottom line.

I never said they had to, just that they could.

I'm not violating anyone's civil rights by saying I'd vote to define marriage as a 2 gender institution.

Bottom line is we disagree.

I do like your little thanos vs darkseid thing though.

Thanks

Then lets agree to disagree.....things that neither of us like happen in this world. Arguing over meaninless things liek someone's marriage is pointless compared to war, poverty, etc.

Those are the issues we should be fighting.

Either way, its obvious...neither of us will budge.

I'm Alain. whats ur name ?

Originally posted by docb77
All men are created equal - true. What you're saying is that all couples are created equal, that I don't buy.

The point is that you are limiting two people from entering into a two person institution that gives them mutual rights superior to other relationships. This isn't about the right to marry a woman, its about the right to marry the person of your choice. You are excluding a group of people from fully participating in the institutions govenrment offers. Thats discrimination.

Originally posted by docb77
I'm not forcing anyone to get married, but if they want to that's the only option open. I don't accept that gays can't change. Anyone can change, It can be dam hard, but it's possible.

Some of us are in their shoes. Some of us were born in them, some of us can put ourselves in them. Try it. Its eye opening. How would you like it if you were denied marriage because you wanted to marry a woman that you loved? Your love is not recognized, appreciated, or understood.

People don't just wake up one day and decide to be homosexual, its a part of your existance, you can't descriminate based on that. YOu can have sex with lots of different people, but what you feel inside is love. If you're a guy and you feel love for antoher guy, thats not a decision you make. Anyone who is in love can tell you that. Tis part of who you are. You were born to love that person.

I understand that you have moral concerns over gay marriages, but legally, its bulletproof.

Damn Alliance....you are a much better debator than me or anyone else here !

I get to personal with my debates sometimes when i feel I am encountering brainwashed minds.

Originally posted by docb77
I'm not forcing anyone to get married, but if they want to that's the only option open. I don't accept that gays can't change. Anyone can change, It can be dam hard, but it's possible.

Storm's right.

well, you never know.

Yeah but even if it's the case, people don't have to do it.

Gay people developed differently. They shouldn't have to change thier sexuality, they do not HURT anyone else by being who they are.

People can change their skin color, get plastic surgery to look different. Is that right? Should thay do that just to fit in? Shouldn't we appreciate who we are? I thought somehting existed called self-respect.

Originally posted by Alliance
So women aren't included in that then? Because it only says "men." I don't think it does. You proabably don't either. The point is we know that mankind refers to man in general. A couple is two people. In a homosexual couple, both people are denied a legal contract based on an aspect of their existance.

The point is that you are limiting two people from entering into a two person institution that gives them mutual rights superior to other relationships. This isn't about the right to marry a woman, its about the right to marry the person of your choice. You are excluding a group of people from fully participating in the institutions govenrment offers. Thats discrimination.

All men are equal, all women are equal, that doesn't mean that they are identical. If they were everyone would be bi.

So what you're saying is that it's about a right that no one even thought of until the past 5 or so years. I would hardly say that's an "unalienable right". The hypothetical homosexual couple are denied that legal contract based on not meeting the qualifications of said contract. I can't apply for a blacks only scholarship, or a native american one. Should I whine about that? The prerequisites for the marriage license include that the two parties applying for it must be of the opposite gender.

Originally posted by Alliance
Could you change your race for me? I know it's be hard, but then you could just fit in with every else. Its more...natural.

Well, I guess I wouldn't have said what I did above if I could do that. What I could do is change my lifestyle, fit in with another culture. I could assimilate to living a mexican - for instance - lifestyle if I needed to. Race and sexuality are not the same thing. Ones genetic, the other - no conclusive proof either way.

Originally posted by Alliance
Some of us are in their shoes. Some of us were born in them, some of us can put ourselves in them. Try it. Its eye opening. How would you like it if you were denied marriage because you wanted to marry a woman that you loved? Your love is not recognized, appreciated, or understood.

I can imagine that, heck I can even say that I've experienced it. Feelings aren't always mutual, and it does hurt. Doesn't change the law.

Originally posted by Alliance
People don't just wake up one day and decide to be homosexual, its a part of your existance, you can't descriminate based on that. YOu can have sex with lots of different people, but what you feel inside is love. If you're a guy and you feel love for antoher guy, thats not a decision you make. Anyone who is in love can tell you that. Tis part of who you are. You were born to love that person.

Oh, I really doubt even the most die-hard believers in it being a choice think that it's an overnight choice. My own theory is that it's like addiction. perhaps there's even a genetic proclivity to it, but like alcoholism (which also has a genetic component), if that weakness isn't triggered it won't be a problem. Likewise, if someone does fall into it, it doesn't mean that the should just go with it. So while a person may have less control over their feelings than they'd like, they still have some control. I've liked girls emotionally who I knew wouldn't be good for me. I didn't pursue those relationships. Same deal with gays. It's hard, but it is possible.

Originally posted by Alliance
I understand that you have moral concerns over gay marriages, but legally, its bulletproof.

There are moral concerns. I also have concerns about incestuous marriages, bigamist marriages and mutually abusive marriages. Should all of those be allowed as well? Legally it doesn't hold water any more than it does morally.

By the way Urizen, My name is Eric.

Originally posted by docb77
All men are equal, all women are equal, that doesn't mean that they are identical. If they were everyone would be bi.

Originally posted by docb77
So what you're saying is that it's about a right that no one even thought of until the past 5 or so years. I would hardly say that's an "unalienable right". The hypothetical homosexual couple are denied that legal contract based on not meeting the qualifications of said contract. I can't apply for a blacks only scholarship, or a native american one. Should I whine about that? The prerequisites for the marriage license include that the two parties applying for it must be of the opposite gender.

Originally posted by docb77
Well, I guess I wouldn't have said what I did above if I could do that. What I could do is change my lifestyle, fit in with another culture. I could assimilate to living a mexican - for instance - lifestyle if I needed to. Race and sexuality are not the same thing. Ones genetic, the other - no conclusive proof either way.

Part of the reason there is no conclusive proof is that no one trusts the science talking about sexuality. If people claim a genetic link, they often want to engineer babies to not be homosexual or to discriminate based on the "gay gene." If there is no genetic link, people like you claim its a behavior and want to condition it out of society. If you know anything about genetics, you know that most everything is a combination of genetic predisposition and behavior.

Try talking to homosexuals, you'll find that most don't think its a behavioral pattern. Certainly don' tpass judgements on things untill you talk face to face with homosexuals and explain why you are partially disenfranchizing them.

Originally posted by docb77
I can imagine that, heck I can even say that I've experienced it. Feelings aren't always mutual, and it does hurt. Doesn't change the law.

YOure saying <<we'll its ok that we have segregation, because its the law>> THAT is unamerican.

Originally posted by docb77
Oh, I really doubt even the most die-hard believers in it being a choice think that it's an overnight choice. My own theory is that it's like addiction. perhaps there's even a genetic proclivity to it, but like alcoholism (which also has a genetic component), if that weakness isn't triggered it won't be a problem. Likewise, if someone does fall into it, it doesn't mean that the should just go with it. So while a person may have less control over their feelings than they'd like, they still have some control. I've liked girls emotionally who I knew wouldn't be good for me. I didn't pursue those relationships. Same deal with gays. It's hard, but it is possible.

If you read my post, its not a choice at all. Calling homosexuality an addiction and a weakness is personally disgusting on the highest of levels.

Men aren't all genetically (as you mentioned) to like women. YOu can't force someone in this country to do somehting agianst your will. Your story doesnt make sense and isn't based on any fact. YOur "theory" is actually on conjecture.

There is a difference between choosing which specific people you like and which sex you like. Homosexuals dont feel sexual attraction for the oposite sex. You cant just choose another any more than you can choose to feel sexually attracted towards men.

Originally posted by docb77
There are moral concerns. I also have concerns about incestuous marriages, bigamist marriages and mutually abusive marriages. Should all of those be allowed as well? Legally it doesn't hold water any more than it does morally.

Abusive, incestusous, and bigamist marriages have been shown to hurt people. Abusive rlationships certianly hurt people. Incestuous marragies lead to twisted. Bigamist/polygamist marriages often lead to spousal neglect. Incestuous marriages are often used for cult religous family structures. Gay marriages don't hurt people. They most likely help in the same way that straight couples are helped by marriages.

Originally posted by Alliance
Men and woman are legally identical. Unless your sexist...

Actually, If you know your history, homosexuality began being publically discussed in the 1950s in the US. I belive all people whould be treated equally under the law. Marriage is a privledge given to all US citizens, except homosexuals. Civil rights are in place to protect the rights of minorities, do make sure that they are not discriminated against by people with opinions similar to yours. The prequistes for a marriage license are unconstitutional. You cant have a discriminatory contract.

Since when has the US been about assimilation. When your family immigrated, they didn't assimilate. America's strength lies in its diversity of people. YOu can't pretend to be something you're not.

Part of the reason there is no conclusive proof is that no one trusts the science talking about sexuality. If people claim a genetic link, they often want to engineer babies to not be homosexual or to discriminate based on the "gay gene." If there is no genetic link, people like you claim its a behavior and want to condition it out of society. If you know anything about genetics, you know that most everything is a combination of genetic predisposition and behavior.

Try talking to homosexuals, you'll find that most don't think its a behavioral pattern. Certainly don' tpass judgements on things untill you talk face to face with homosexuals and explain why you are partially disenfranchizing them.

Is a law just if tis discriminatory. The "laws" as you put them are unconstitutional. There is a reason the extreme religous conservatives want to put in a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. THe constitution protects gay marriage. The only way to stop that is by raping the constitution with ant-gay marriage amendments.

YOure saying <<we'll its ok that we have segregation, because its the law>> THAT is unamerican.

If you read my post, its not a choice at all. Calling homosexuality an addiction and a weakness is personally disgusting on the highest of levels.

Men aren't all genetically (as you mentioned) to like women. YOu can't force someone in this country to do somehting agianst your will. Your story doesnt make sense and isn't based on any fact. YOur "theory" is actually on conjecture.

There is a difference between choosing which specific people you like and which sex you like. Homosexuals dont feel sexual attraction for the oposite sex. You cant just choose another any more than you can choose to feel sexually attracted towards men.

Abusive, incestusous, and bigamist marriages have been shown to hurt people. Abusive rlationships certianly hurt people. Incestuous marragies lead to twisted. Bigamist/polygamist marriages often lead to spousal neglect. Incestuous marriages are often used for cult religous family structures. Gay marriages don't hurt people. They most likely help in the same way that straight couples are helped by marriages.

I answered this post in the gay marriage thread.

😂 ok, perhaps we should keep it in there. I hate writing books.