Do you support gay marriage?

[chaos]

I don't see religion and politics mixing together nicely. It always have a nasty after taste... Better use Neil Gaiman apporach. Stop worshiping the gods and let them die.

I'm praying that Pratchett's Death comes to collect my soul when i die. I'd love to have a curry with him.

That would be awesome, but wait a mo.... Did we just go offtopic? =D

 

[Liquid Skin]

I don't see religion and politics mixing together nicely. It always have a nasty after taste... Better use Neil Gaiman apporach. Stop worshiping the gods and let them die.

I'm praying that Pratchett's Death comes to collect my soul when i die. I'd love to have a curry with him.

That would be awesome, but wait a mo.... Did we just go offtopic? =D

I won't tell if you won't.

 

[Tachi]

I'm tellin! :lol: :wink:

 

[Liquid Skin]

I'm tellin! :lol: :wink:

Get him lads! *dogpiles*

Yay i broke the thread!

 

[Tachi]

I'm tellin! :lol: :wink:

Get him lads! *dogpiles*

Yay i broke the thread!

ahh, so thats how i broke my thumb then

 

[Ramadahl]

I think it's unfair that churches are allowed to get away with banning their clergy from carrying out same sex marriages.

Um, well marriage like that is a religious thing anyway. It's kinda taking the piss to say "Hey, we're doing something which is against your religion, but perform a religious service giving us your blessing for it."
I see no problem with giving gay couples the same legal rights that come with marriage as other couples, but it seems to be asking a bit much to expect religious folks to give their support to it.

I remember I heard a story where the priest refused to marry a couple on the basis their wedding rings didn't make a complete band or something, which is supposed to be the symbology behind wedding rings iirc. If priests can refuse to marry people on a basis such as that, why should they be forced to make an exception for gay couples and marry them regardless on their own beliefs?

 

[CitizenGeek]

^ Yeah, I understand all of that. But I just think that a church would never be allowed say that interracial or black marriage was against their faith and deny such couples from getting married. So, why is it okay for them to do it in relation to gay couples?

 

[chaos]

^ Yeah, I understand all of that. But I just think that a church would never be allowed say that interracial or black marriage was against their faith and deny such couples from getting married. So, why is it okay for them to do it in relation to gay couples?

Do you dream of getting married all in white in a church?
Sorry, couldn't resist. But, seriously, the catholic church against condoms, for chrissakes!!!
If not on refuse to marry because the couple is gay, they could refuse because you need to cleanse yourself form sin before getting married or any other rubbish like that... =/

 

[Ramadahl]

So, why is it okay for them to do it in relation to gay couples?

Because that's what their religion says.
It's religion, it doesn't have to make sense.

 

[Kurogane]

So, why is it okay for them to do it in relation to gay couples?

Because that's what their religion says.
It's religion, it doesn't have to make sense.

aaaaaaaaaaand religion just takes a heavy blow.

 

[Otaku-san]

So, why is it okay for them to do it in relation to gay couples?

Because that's what their religion says.
It's religion, it doesn't have to make sense.

Only Socialism makes sense

 

[chaos]

and only anarchists are pretty

 

[arthur_webb]

Sorry - it's late so I stopped reading at around page five.

I'm heterosexual, so please tint the following words with your spectacle shade of choice.

I personally am in total support of the freedom of the individual, so long as it doesn't impact upon the freedoms and well-being of others. Therefore, I would support a homosexual marriage if asked. Yet, in spite of this, I wouldn't want to watch homosexuals "getting it off".

On the subject of moveable sexuality, I tend to agree that preference is hugely affected both by a person's genetic make-up and by their environment. I also believe that, whilst it's perfectly feasible that some preferences are set at birth, it's just as likely that they can change with experience and time. In other words; when some people claim that one is "born gay", I won't disagree with them. If that is their personal experience, then who am I to challenge? However, I full-well do not agree with the whole "you're set for life and that's that" lobby. Just as I've come to love eating prawns and watching romance-themed TV and films, both of which I hated when I was younger, I don't see why somebody else couldn't become interested in the "other sex" later on in life.

I mean, how many of us were sexually attracted to pretty much anyone at the age of three? It's a development, not a physiological absolute.

And to what's been said about evolutionary theories explaining the origins of homosexuality, I say entirely possible but perhaps a tad far-fetched? One might argue the same of the Catholic church, in that fornication is disallowed, which seems to prevent the human race from reproducing at the rate our sexual urges would have us do. Since religion was thought up, or at least begun by humans (a thinker, a prophet, a conveyor of some sort), does that mean Catholicism is another one of nature's "birth control" systems, to cite an absolutely ridiculous example. :lol:

(Please no, "U totly dnt understand religion man u got it rong". I know what I said, and the purpose isn't strike out an argument about the validity of faith. Is was merely some food for thought.)

 

[arthur_webb]

That goodness they saw sense. Or tomorrow at work I'd start refusing to pay suppliers with names I didn't like the sound of due to my deity the Invisible Pink Unicorn or something.

Possibly one of the most readily conceivable and wholly believable deities yet. Where do I sign up?

 

[CitizenGeek]

I personally am in total support of the freedom of the individual, so long as it doesn't impact upon the freedoms and well-being of others. Therefore, I would support a homosexual marriage if asked. Yet, in spite of this, I wouldn't want to watch homosexuals "getting it off".

I don't know why people feel they must make that distinction when it comes to gay couples. I fully support the marriage of Tony and Cherie Blair, but does that mean I want to see them 'getting it off'? Of course not, and the same goes for pretty much every other marriage so I think it's kind of begrudging to make that statement.

Just as I've come to love eating prawns and watching romance-themed TV and films, both of which I hated when I was younger, I don't see why somebody else couldn't become interested in the "other sex" later on in life.

I think there's probably a grandiose difference to sexual orientation and fondness for prawns or romance-themed entertainment. As in, one is a highly complicated, psychological, biological, deep-seated expression of one of the fundamentals of humanity (sexuality) and the other isn't ;]

And to what's been said about evolutionary theories explaining the origins of homosexuality, I say entirely possible but perhaps a tad far-fetched?

Not really. It seems to fit fairly perfectly; lots and lots of animals engage in homosexual behavior and there has to be some reason for it.

One might argue the same of the Catholic church, in that fornication is disallowed, which seems to prevent the human race from reproducing at the rate our sexual urges would have us do. Since religion was thought up, or at least begun by humans (a thinker, a prophet, a conveyor of some sort), does that mean Catholicism is another one of nature's "birth control" systems, to cite an absolutely ridiculous example.

Well, assuming you're being serious: That's wrong on a number of levels. First of all, the Catholic church actively encourages it's adherents to have as many children as possible. Secondly, the church is a making of man's mind, not of nature.

 

[arthur_webb]

I personally am in total support of the freedom of the individual, so long as it doesn't impact upon the freedoms and well-being of others. Therefore, I would support a homosexual marriage if asked. Yet, in spite of this, I wouldn't want to watch homosexuals "getting it off".

I don't know why people feel they must make that distinction when it comes to gay couples. I fully support the marriage of Tony and Cherie Blair, but does that mean I want to see them 'getting it off'? Off course not, and the same goes for pretty much every other marriage so I think it's kind of begrudging to make that statement.

Just as I've come to love eating prawns and watching romance-themed TV and films, both of which I hated when I was younger, I don't see why somebody else couldn't become interested in the "other sex" later on in life.

Well, I think there probably a grandiose difference to sexual orientation and fondness for prawns or romance-themed entertainment. As in, one is a highly complicated, psychological, biological, deep-seated expression of one of the fundamentals of humanity (sexuality) and the other isn't ;]

And to what's been said about evolutionary theories explaining the origins of homosexuality, I say entirely possible but perhaps a tad far-fetched?

Not really. It seems to fit fairly perfectly; lots and lots of animals engage in homosexual behavior and there has to be some reason for it.

One might argue the same of the Catholic church, in that fornication is disallowed, which seems to prevent the human race from reproducing at the rate our sexual urges would have us do. Since religion was thought up, or at least begun by humans (a thinker, a prophet, a conveyor of some sort), does that mean Catholicism is another one of nature's "birth control" systems, to cite an absolutely ridiculous example.

Well, assuming you're being serious: That's wrong on a number of levels. First of all, the Catholic church actively encourages it's adherents to have as many children as possible. Secondly, the church is a making of man's mind, not of nature.

I make the distinction since the entire thread is about discussing such a distinction. Regardless, aside from contending me for making said distinction (as I believe you yourself did when you named this thread), I do believe you are in agreement with what I said.

You see the two much differently to the way I do. If we were to analyse sexual interest from a purely physiological design, the same endorphins are involved in producing the stimulus one gets from enjoying certain food as are in producing the feeling of love and attraction. I'm sure you know there is more to the science, but the fundamentals are similar, at the very least.

Ah, but correlation does not imply cause. Animals may exhibit extraordinary behaviour for a multitude of reasons - not necessarily as a direct result of their evolutionary development. My dog did not "evolve" to learn to come to the kitchen when she hears the sound of a crinkling dog food bag; she learnt to do so.

Haha, I thought I'd be picked up on my knowledge of the church. Yet, in spite of this, I believe my point still stands. Fornication is still disallowed, which conflicts with the animalistic human urge to reproduce. Man's mind was formed of nature (or God - another dispute we do not want to begin). Many will argue that evolution was God's "design tool", allowing the two ideas to co-exist. In which case the cause for Darwinian evolution, survival of the fittest, is due to environmental change. Which in turn, we could argue, is due to nature or God. Assuming the two entities are the same, we might then conclude that every human invention is a direct result of nature/God.

It all gets very messy, I agree. So perhaps we ought to focus on the subject at hand, rather than homosexuality's origins. I do believe that the former is far more significant than the latter.

 

[CitizenGeek]

adamcube, the new research into gay brains (check here) seems to indicate that homosexuality is nature rather than nurture.

But, anyway, the topic at hand is gay marriage and yesterday was the first day that gay couples in California could officially marry. The first couple to get married were octogenarians Del Matin and Phyllis Lyons, partners who have been together for 55 years. Also getting married is George Takei of Star Trek fame. I honestly don't see how anyone can look at these couples and think they should be denied the right to marriage!

 

[Vinnie]

I support it. It's a free world, why should people be forced out of love because our society tells us it's wrong? That's my stance...

 

[Ryukai]

adamcube, the new research into gay brains (check here) seems to indicate that homosexuality is nature rather than nurture.

But, anyway, the topic at hand is gay marriage and yesterday was the first day that gay couples in California could officially marry. The first couple to get married were octogenarians Del Matin and Phyllis Lyons, partners who have been together for 55 years. Also getting married is George Takei of Star Trek fame. I honestly don't see how anyone can look at these couples and think they should be denied the right to marriage!

They don't have the right to marriage, that's a religious thing. They have the right to a Civil Union though, so they can get the same rights a married couple. Just don't think it should be labelled a "marriage".

 

[CitizenGeek]

They don't have the right to marriage, that's a religious thing. They have the right to a Civil Union though, so they can get the same rights a married couple. Just don't think it should be labelled a "marriage".

Marriage is not a religious thing, it pre-dates religion and the state is involved in handing out marriage licenses. If it was purely a religious thing, then it wouldn't matter; the point is, it's not a religious thing and therefore calling it anything less is discriminatory.