|
Post by (A.S.S)Phydeau on Nov 14, 2008 17:05:30 GMT -5
Those of you that cry out to ban same sex marriages are selfish people. How dare you allow your PERSONAL OPINIONS affect the lives of people you'll never meet. How self centered and egotistical that you think you have the right to dictate what other people do with their lives when it doesn't effect you AT ALL.
Let's step into your shoes for a moment. Two people have lived together in a stable relationship for 20 or 30 years. One of the two gets cancer and is dying a slow, painful death. Due to their sexual orientation that is HARD WIRED into their psyche (being Gay is NOT a choice) their entire family has disowned them and the love they spent their life with at their advanced age is the only person they have. Afterall, we couldn't have homosexuals raising children. Sadly, the cancer patient will most likely die alone because the only FAMILY they have isn't legally family. Hence, they can only visit for a couple of hours a day during visiting hour.
How dare these people think they should have the right to be together in a hospital. That might bring on the end of the world!
Well, finally the cancer patient dies. Now, unfortunately the person that died was the primary breadwinner of the household. The remaining partner took care of the home and the love of their life. Because of the same oversight that so many HETEROSEXUAL forget to handle ... leaving a will. Up pops lil brother that disowned breadwinner decades ago demanding he's the next of kin and is entitled to inherit everything the breadwinner owned. Leading to the caretaker being forced to move out while the property is tied up in probate courts for years to come.
I know, it sounds so sad that something like this could happen to someone ... but hey, their sexual orientation makes certain groups uncomfortable so law NEEDS to dictate people's actions to bend a need to the majority's PERSONAL OPINION. Because the OPINIONS of the masses takes presidence over the INNATE disposition of others. So, who cares what happens to the caretaker that never harmed another person in their life, right?
That couple might have adopted a kid that would now be stripped of the only loving family they've ever known because the breadwinner adopted the child and the remaining partner has no legal standing to care for the child they adopted. Who cares if the remaining partner loves the child and the child loves the remaining partner ... it's better to place that kid into a group home. Oh wait, that's right, that scenario wouldn't happen because the PERSONAL OPINION OF THE MAJORITY would feel uncomfortable if some people they never met didn't comply with their feelings.
Isn't the freedom of America AWESOME?!?! I'm sure glad we're free to do whatever we want as long as it doesn't harm other's person, property or infringe on other's pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Oh, wait, that world hasn't existed in almost 100 years now. What was I thinking?
|
|
|
Post by Var]>USK<[ on Nov 14, 2008 17:38:06 GMT -5
Im not Pro Gay, however Im NOT against Gay Marriage...
My Reason?
Why should someone who is the same as all of us be denied benefits just because they dont want to fit in with the norm.
|
|
|
Post by binerexis on Nov 14, 2008 18:49:01 GMT -5
"Those of you that cry out to ban same sex marriages are selfish people. How dare you allow your PERSONAL OPINIONS affect the lives of people you'll never meet. How self centered and egotistical that you think you have the right to dictate what other people do with their lives when it doesn't effect you AT ALL."
"Let's step into your shoes for a moment."
Are you talking to/about anyone who's been posting here? If you are, who?
|
|
|
Post by (A.S.S)Phydeau on Nov 14, 2008 19:23:06 GMT -5
Are you talking to/about anyone who's been posting here? If you are, who? "Those of you that cry out to ban same sex marriages are selfish people." That's about as specific as I need to be. No need to try to get me to "name names". There's really no point in my trying to get the point across to any specific persons because people with the kind of internal insight and perception that could create a person that could allow themselves to believe they have the right to effect the lives of others that don't effect theirs based strictly upon their own opinion wouldn't have an open enough mind to hear a word I said after "I disagree" anyway. I see it as simple as this: Me seeing those that are that closed minded and deciding I think they're pieces of nuts is more "correct" than their belief that their opinion should effect others lives. The fact that I might think some people in this thread are now not worth any respect from me at all is my right. However, I defend their right to believe their way ... just until they try to force their beliefs onto others by unconstitutionally perverting the law to enforce their outdated beliefs. That's when I have no choice but to see them as an enemy of freedom. To use the law to enforce morals is slavery. Not freedom. But, what do you expect when the vast majority honestly believe the United States of America was founded as a democracy. (We were a republic, not a democracy).
|
|
|
Post by Silent_Treatment on Nov 14, 2008 20:18:01 GMT -5
the Great Invisible Sky Daddy Please do not mock a religion because you feel differently. Yes, some people use religion in ways they shouldn't. That doesn't mean that everyone that goes to church is somehow backwards. I am against gay marriage because it contradicts what is stated in the Bible. That is my personal opinion and belief. However, I have no problem at all with 2 gay people living together. I have no problem with the government providing the same allowance to a gay couple as is currently provided to married couples. I DO have a problem with the government bestowing upon a gay couple a title reserved by the church for a couple meeting its guidelines. To me, that is a clear intrusion of the church by the state. If you think I am not worth your respect, then so be it. I lived without it until now, so it shouldn't be a problem in the future. ST
|
|
|
Post by binerexis on Nov 14, 2008 20:35:45 GMT -5
Phydeau, the reason why I asked is because it's unfair to suddenly hate people and throw out insults and say "You know who you are" without giving whoever you're talking about a chance to explain something you misunderstood. Basically, I'm going to stop beating around the bush and assume that I'm one of the people you're talking about.
I have no problem with gay people or gay couples. I don't believe that gays should be persecuted, attacked or seen as people with a mental illness as some people do. However, I do have a problem with people attacking religious beliefs just because they don't like them. If it's part of a religion that homosexuals cannot get married, then they cannot get married in that religion's place of worship i.e If Christianity says that homosexuals cannot be married, then they cannot be married in a church. That is how it is. You may not like it, you don't have to like it, it is part of that religion. I think it's absolutely fine for any couple to have a Civil Partnership. Marriage is a religious thing which has a legal outcome, a Civil Partnership is the legal couple of two persons where the result is EXACTLY THE SAME as that of a marriage only it isn't forcing a religion to accept something which they do not believe in.
|
|
|
Post by ineedhelp}N{ on Nov 14, 2008 21:41:36 GMT -5
Marriage or wedlock is an interpersonal relationship (usually intimate and sexual) with governmental, social, or religious recognition. It is often created by a contract or through civil processes. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriagenotice the "OR"
|
|
|
Post by Filak613 on Nov 15, 2008 11:40:50 GMT -5
Phydeau apparently you can not follow my rules either.....
I really thought it wasn't this hard but clearly it is.
I knew religious beliefs would come into this thread eventually and whole heartedly expected it. But when you have to be a child and stoop down to a level of what was said. It is disappointing.
|
|
|
Post by binerexis on Nov 15, 2008 12:00:47 GMT -5
Marriage or wedlock is an interpersonal relationship (usually intimate and sexual) with governmental, social, or religious recognition. It is often created by a contract or through civil processes. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriagenotice the "OR" Also notice that it's Wikipedia and also that definitions of words change over time.
|
|
|
Post by Wolf]>USK<[ on Nov 15, 2008 12:06:08 GMT -5
Here. Just look at this.
|
|
|
Post by (A.S.S)Phydeau on Nov 15, 2008 19:28:10 GMT -5
Phydeau apparently you can not follow my rules either..... I really thought it wasn't this hard but clearly it is. I knew religious beliefs would come into this thread eventually and whole heartedly expected it. But when you have to be a child and stoop down to a level of what was said. It is disappointing. Filak, Firstly I want to apologize that I honestly had forgotten that you wanted religious debates removed from the forums. I know that ignorance is no excuse, but the apology remains. Out of respect for your wishes I removed/replaced the sentence that provided any religious slant to my posting. I would encourage others to also edit any religious slant from their postings as well.
|
|
|
Post by (A.S.S)Phydeau on Nov 15, 2008 21:37:32 GMT -5
Please do not mock a religion because you feel differently. You are 100% correct and to any an all that might have taken offense or exception I humbly apologize. I have no problem with the government providing the same allowance to a gay couple as is currently provided to married couples. It seems that you an I agree 100% on the topic at hand, although from opposing angles. High five. I DO have a problem with the government bestowing upon a gay couple a title reserved by the church for a couple meeting its guidelines. To me, that is a clear intrusion of the church by the state. Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about it bestowing the same title upon hetero couples married by Justice of Peace or captain of a ship by maritime law? If you think I am not worth your respect, then so be it. I'll respond to this in two parts, the first being the most valid. a) The operative word in that sentence was "might". It was a baited statement that had no substance because I have not actually lost respect for anyone involved. Being honest with myself in retrospect, it was underhanded debate tactics. I should probably apologize again. b) We agree on the issue so I don't really see how you could have inferred that it somehow applied to you, despite it being a baited statement.
|
|
|
Post by (A.S.S)Phydeau on Nov 15, 2008 21:52:07 GMT -5
I think it's absolutely fine for any couple to have a Civil Partnership. Marriage is a religious thing which has a legal outcome, a Civil Partnership is the legal couple of two persons where the result is EXACTLY THE SAME as that of a marriage only it isn't forcing a religion to accept something which they do not believe in. Bin, here in the states, when someone is joined by a the Justice of Peace or a captain of a ship under maritime law, it's still labeled a "marriage". Hell, if you're married by an Elvis Impersonator in Las Vegas ... it's a "marriage" here in the states. Additionally, in some states (although very few these days) there is "Common Law Marriage" where after they've lived together for more than 6 months, have gotten involved in a joint mortgage or financial account and have declared themselves and present themselves as husband and wife, they are considered "married" under state law.
|
|
|
Post by Tsumetai on Nov 17, 2008 21:12:49 GMT -5
I think it's absolutely fine for any couple to have a Civil Partnership. Marriage is a religious thing which has a legal outcome, a Civil Partnership is the legal couple of two persons where the result is EXACTLY THE SAME as that of a marriage only it isn't forcing a religion to accept something which they do not believe in. I don't really care to post here anymore, and Phydeau is doing a fine job in my stead, but I need to correct this. Yes, bin, you are wrong. Again. Marriage is not a facet of religion, it is an aspect of civilization. Religion has never been required for marriage to exist, and atheists prove it every day as plenty of atheists are married, and the law considers them married. Religion does not own the word "marriage". Besides, which religion did you have in mind? Nearly all religions have opinions on what constitutes marriage, and not all religions are against gay marriage, Shintoism for example, hell, not all branches of Christianity are against gay marriage. It's really irrelevant which religion deems who's married (and unconstitutional in this country), and every religion has conflicting opinions on the use of the word; there are plenty of Catholics who think Protestants aren't really married, and vice versa. And legal marriage doesn't force any religious institutions into doing or accepting anything. If it's part of a religion that homosexuals cannot get married, then they cannot get married in that religion's place of worship I agree, wholeheartedly. If a Protestant couple wanted to be married in a Catholic church, the church has every right to say "no" (and they do). However, what you're talking about is a ceremony, and largely irrelevant to legal marriage. You can be legally married without having a ceremony at all, likewise, you can legally have a marriage ceremony without being legally married. There are churches that allow gay marriage, and they do hold ceremonies in such churches, thus the gay couple is married in the eyes of their church, even if they're not married in the eyes of the law. Of all the rhetoric spewed by the anti-gay-marriage side, I find those two lies to be the most annoying. Well, maybe not, that crap about gay-marriage somehow being bad for children is also annoying. I saw a major "support prop 8" video not too long ago, and one point that they dwelled on was that if prop 8 fails, the law would force churches into accepting gay marriages; they were using that point to try to scare people into voting against gay marriage, and the point is not even true. Summery: Religion does not own the word "marriage", and even if it did, there's plenty of religions that allow gay marriage, including some branches of Christianity. Allowing gay marriage does not mean the law would force churches to accept gay marriage. The law does not have the power to force the church to accept gay marriage any more than the church has the power to force the law into banning gay marriage.
|
|
rnz
Junior Member
Dragons rule, Griffons drool
Posts: 88
|
Post by rnz on Nov 17, 2008 22:33:14 GMT -5
(Deleted content for due to my ignorance.)
-rnz
|
|