OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

[Liquid_Evil]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Liq- while you, in my opinion, have a very strong argument about rights ending where your nose begins, you forget one major portion of the equation when you talk about adoption agencies. The child.

I thought I addressed that pretty concisely when I posed this question earlier:

Isn’t it better to have same-sex parents than no parents at all?

I believe that people that are homosexual are not innately less capable of raising a child than their heterosexual counterparts. Denying custody of a child to them because of their genetics (and if there’s not enough evidence for you to believe this yet, you’ll have enough in your lifetime) is the exact same thing as denying them because of skin color to me.

If an adoption agency were judging off of someone's race, clearly wrong. But, when you bring in lifestyle, that is a completely different thing. Lifestyle is, in my opinion, a vital portion of what an adoption agency should be looking at. Now, you feel that there is nothing wrong with the lifestyle, thats fine, you are welcome to that opinion.

I’ll agree that lifestyle should be examined when determining the best course of action for the child because we don’t want heroin addicts and similar shady role models getting custody over another life. However, to me, homosexuality isn’t a lifestyle any more than birds flying or otters swimming. They each listen to their genetics.

Being attracted to men, or women may or may not be genetically determined. Who one sleeps with is part of one's lifestyle. Attraction and actions based on attraction are two different things.

I see what you’re saying and human beings are indeed capable of giving in to or refusing their desires, but it sounds to me like you’re encouraging homosexuals to make the choice not to act on their desires to be with members of their sex. Assuming you are, think about this society as one that thought heterosexual relationships were taboo. Would you choose to ignore your wife to be with a man because that was the norm? Since your genetics determine that you are predisposed to being attracted to women, you probably find the idea unsatisfactory (to say the least). Can you then apply the reverse of this hypothetical question to homosexuals? Why should they be asked to live the same lie?

Beyond religion, I believe that a child has the best chance when they have a mother and a father. You can consider that hateful, or bigoted, or whatever. I believe that with all the research I have seen, that it is fairly obvious that a child has the best environment with a mother and a father.

Understandably, that is something I just can’t take one’s word for. If you have a link to any of that research, I would love to see it.

 

[Thyiad1]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

[highlight]Firstly a note from *Mod hat on*[/highlight]

No one here has suggested anyone is an idiot for religioius beliefs. Believe me, poops and I are watching this thread like hawks to see if it goes over ANY line and no one here has been anything other than passionate but not hateful.

If you think you are reading hateful posts, hit the post report button and we'll have a close look. We are aware this has the opportunity to go south very quickly, but so far I'm impressed beyond measure by the posts here. It's a far cry from a time when I remember someone leaving this forum due to the homophobic posts of some people on this board. I'm delighted that we've come a long way.

[highlight]*Mod hat off*[/highlight]

I am very, very sorry.

I'm trying hard not to do that, but typing doesn't always get tone-of-voice and other signs across, and emoticons don't do the job better (littering text with them just makes it look not-serious, imo) It's easier to have real, semantic misunderstandings, too.

Absolutely correct, Thrandir and I'm often on the recieving end of it. In this case you have nothing to apologise for.

I was not saying "*Mod hat on* stop being so rude", I was saying/am saying "I feel that believers are not having enough respect for those of us that don't believe. That you/they are imposing your/their beliefs on me/others and our/their conduct in no way effects you/them." Hope that's clear.

Your reasoning - although flawed in my opinion - has been courteous and in no way hostile to any group. As has every post here in my opinion.

I've mentioned a bit earlier that my only reason is based on my faith. If I didn't believe in God, I'd shrug my shoulders and say "Whatev. Let them do what they feel like."

Which is honest and I applaud that. My issue is with those who wish to patent the word 'marriage' for mixed sex couples only for ... as I see it, no reason whatsoever. It's causes distreess to same sex couples but doesn't effect in any way those banging on to limit the terms of marriage.

I can't. By the laws of my church I can not re-marry within the Church without an annulment, which states in part, that the marriage never existed. Period. Stop. End of Story. Any childern from an annuled marriage are considered born out of wedlock.

Yes you can. You CHOOSE to accept the rulings of that body which you freely joined. That is your choice. One you could reverse if you so wish. G ay couples are not in the same position if that body of which you are a member declares that no same sex couple may get married whether they are a member of their organization or not.

See my point? I don't believe I've seen any g ay rights organization saying "bad religious people must be made to have same sex marriage ceremonies in their places of worship". They may lobby ("I'm a christian and I want to get married in church.") but I don't see them wanting to make it mandatory. What an organization does is up to them.

The issue - again - is organizations who have no valid reason to be involved, wanting to dictate the behaviour of those who are not a member.

Think non-drivers would be pleased to have the Auto Association lobbying against them? "Driving must be mandatory, down with cyclists!". Extreme but you see the point.

I'm ignoring the rest of your comments because I'm not an American and they don't apply to me.

The majorty can not be trusted.

That depends on the people involved. Mobs aren't generally very bright, they egg each other on and lose all sense of reason. That holds true for extremists of all groups.

Concerning the adoption I have to add, that I would have concerns about same sex couples adopting children, too. They do indeed need the best environment, and apparently same sex relationships don't offer this kind of "best environment" since they're still being viewed as offending and eyed suspiciously. Because g ay couples are still being discriminated they can't offer the best environment, but it isn't in their hands to change that, but in the hands of those voicing suspicion and criticism.

I'm glad we aren't getting into the realms of g ays abuse children. There were a couple of early posts that made me wonder ....

As regards this issue, Grisu is correct. I would rather see a kid placed with two people of the same sex who had a stable relationship than a mixed sex couple who were married but hated each other. Or had one party that was abusive. Or drunk.

I've seen adult survivors of child abuse, I've seen children who had an alcoholic parent and would they prefer a stable same-sex partnership for 'mum' and 'dad'. Yes. 100%.

I most certainly don't expect others to live according to my beliefs but I believe that a child had a right to a mother and a father who have made a commitment to work together to raise that child. Its not something you can argue against because its only what I believe.

I don't believe that mixed-sex = committment to raise a child. There's a lot of rubbish parents out there. The only bearing children have on same-sex marriage issue is how society may view them, it isn't a reason to prohibit the act of same sex marriage.

But there is the difference to me, I'm not remotely interested in what to guys are doing in their own house and I have no interest in forcing my beliefs on them. IMHO, God has already taken care of a lot of this, two men or two women, no matter how hard they try, can't make children all by themselves.

A fair comment. Do what you like but don't force it on me. Nothing wrong with that jj.

@ Caly - great analogy. Yeah it'll annoy some people but let's all take a step back and recognize that not everyone shares the same beliefs. And that is really what this thread is about. Let's not cry foul when really there was no hate there.

 

[water_moon]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I will disagree with anything else that removes children's right to a mother and a father.

What about children who have lost a parent? By your statment there should be a law stating that a widow or widower with children should be forced to re-marry.

My cousin's mother disappeared when he was 5, I assure you my uncle's re-marraige was far worse for B__ than if his father had remained single. And morally it harmed the child far more.

It was quite common for child to only have one parent frankly, esp. when the #1 cause of death for women was childbirth. Ever noticed the number of fairy stories with evil step mothers??

While I tend to agree that the ideal enviroment for children is a multi adult, stable, loving family. But I've known pleanty of people raised by a grandparent or single parent, and even a mother and grandmother. Or strangers totally unrelated to them by blood.

As for the Biblical aspect, I feel impelled to point out that in the Ancient Jewish world women did all the child raising, and then didn't see much of their sons once they reached "adulthood". Look at the story of Jesus LEFT BEHIND in the Temple. No one noticed for DAYS becuase Mary though he was with Joseph and vice versa.

@thyiad: you said that g ay couples do not have same options to leave their organization, but they do, this isn't China, where citizenship is enforced. I don't know if you knew HBeachBabe, but she and her partner moved to Sweden for that very reason.

 

[water_moon]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

What I find REALLY disturbing is that amendments and laws like Prop 8 are, well common place. Over half of the states in the US have ratified the exact same thing years ago Florida and Arizona did at the same time as California, and yet there was very little comment. All in all 43 of the 50 states define marriage as between a man and a woman.

What makes California so dang important that they matter more than Texas? Where their constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions, I might add...

 

[Caly]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

What I find REALLY disturbing is that amendments and laws like Prop 8 are, well common place. Over half of the states in the US have ratified the exact same thing years ago Florida and Arizona did at the same time as California, and yet there was very little comment. All in all 43 of the 50 states define marriage as between a man and a woman.

What makes California so dang important that they matter more than Texas? Where their constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions, I might add...

I think I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but the California decision was unusually harmful in the views of g ay-rights advocates because it was not simply removing theoretical rights, it was removing actual rights. Before Prop 8 passed, same-sex marriage was legal in CA. That's why this is different than the other states which have passed similar amendments (though there has certainly been quite a lot of criticism of those amendments as well).

Thanks Thyiad, I am glad you did not think my analogy was intended to be hateful. That said, I truly regret having made Gabriel and possibly others think that I believe there is an equivalence between something as patently silly as the FSM, and Christianity. The only equivalence I intended was to compare oppression of g ays with the oppression of Christians. I do wish I had just restricted my analogy to an existing religion, though I suppose that might have been offensive to someone else.

 

[Thrandir]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Your analogy made me think carefully, Caly.

I guess I would respond with this:

If FSM followers had begun some religious institution which, because of their beliefs, they wished to withhold from Christians, it would be right (within their PoV, at least) for them to do so. And if that institution was clearly theirs, nobody else should have a say.

The difference between this and the real issue is that marriage does not "clearly" belong to any one group.

 

[water_moon]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

It was allowed only because it wasn't explicitly banned. There are a lot of things that are understood and thus not explictly outlined, or frankly, unthought of that aren't explictly banned. The fact that it was allowed, then not, then was, and now not again just tells me that the laws had yet to be written. Not that it was somehow special.

Digital age laws are in that same process. AT&T is charging ~ME~ basied on how many ads this site has becuase they had more money to lobby to prevent passage of a bill that woud outlaw them from doing that, at some point the government may step in and say "wait, that's unreasonable." And do something about it, but until they do, that doesn't make it right or wrong, just legal.

Laws do not define our morality, and there are plenty around the world that are unjust. I guess I just have a problem with seeing so many people get so worked up and agressive over how 35 million people define a word when 3.1 BILLION people are told how many children they are ALLOWED to have. Or when a women is stoned to death by her family because she was raped.

Does a law saying homosexuales are not allowed to LIVE not some how count becuase the law has always been the same??

 

[Rapha]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

If FSM followers had begun some religious institution which, because of their beliefs, they wished to withhold from Christians, it would be right (within their PoV, at least) for them to do so. And if that institution was clearly theirs, nobody else should have a say.

The difference between this and the real issue is that marriage does not "clearly" belong to any one group.

By that logic, since marriage does not clearly belong to any group, what gives the right to anyone (Christian or not) to prevent same-sex marriage? Isn't there some sort of contradiction there?

 

[Caly]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Your analogy made me think carefully, Caly.

Oh, that is good then

I guess I would respond with this:

If FSM followers had begun some religious institution which, because of their beliefs, they wished to withhold from Christians, it would be right (within their PoV, at least) for them to do so. And if that institution was clearly theirs, nobody else should have a say.

The difference between this and the real issue is that marriage does not "clearly" belong to any one group.

I agree with the idea that some institutions "belong" to the religions which started them and that excluding non-believers is not inherently discriminatory. A good example is Holy Communion. It's a strictly Christian institution and non-Christians are forbidden from receiving it, and in fact there are strict rules governing who in the faith can receive Communion and when. I do not believe this to be discriminatory in any way, not least because Communion itself grants no federal benefits or protection. It's simply a religious rite.

Marriage, in comparison, does not "belong" to Christianity. It did not originate with Christianity and one does not need to be Christian to be married. Christians do have their own ideas about what the word means, just like they have their own ideas about what the word salvation means, or the word damnation. But Christianity does not own marriage. Additionally, marriage does grant benefits on a federal level, so I would argue that even if marriage had been historically associated with or unique to Christianity, it would still be worth re-examining its role in our society now that it is a legal institution as well.

 

[VoX Dei]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Why? The last time I checked the US has a lot of children waiting to be adopted into a loving home, why should it matter what gender the parents are, as long as they want the child? (surely it's better than an orphanage?)

I'm not familiar with the numbers on children waiting for a foster home in US, but from what you wrote above, I assume we share the same viewpoint on this matter. In theory, all a child needs is a good development environment (ie., a loving home and not an orphanage). However, taking into account the bigger picture of western societies (ie., the currently most widely accepted society values), it is not hard to imagine that in most schools a child fostered by a same-gender couple would be shunned by most of their peers. Foreseeable repercussions on the child's development are mostly bad, but this cannot be taken as a certainty as there are no known cases of children raised by same-gender couples that have become adjusted/maldjusted adults. That said, I believe same-gender/different-gender couples both have the same ability to love and provide for a child. What I don't believe is that at this time western societies in general will have a beneficial impact on the development of children being raised by a same-sex couple. Changing people attitudes is usually a slow process. In social psychology there's a well known phenomena, 'perseverance of belief' - people tend to stick to their initial beliefs no matter how wrong you show them they are. Attitudes usually change gradually. Thorough thinking about alternative attitudes (much like what I'm seeing in this thread) usually is a first step in producing a faster attitude change.

It seems that religion seems to be used as a cover for some people for their homophobic beliefs (here's an example of what I'm thinking of)

This may well not be about my post but as it follows a reply adressing it, I will comment it too. We may low the woman in your example, and call her homophobic for going against her employer directives and refuse to marry a homosexual couple based on her religious beliefs. Now as a mental exercise, let's imagine that during WWII some german non-Nazi soldier received order from his CO to shoot an unarmed *** and refused to do so according to his conscience/belief. Would you use any derrogatory term to categorize this soldier? The point here is that things usually are not linear. Ofc the example you provided is compelling. I also feel tempted to pass judgment and categorize the woman as homophobic. However, wrong it may seem to us, we should not hasten passing judgment on others for acting according to their own conscience/beliefs.

Edit: *** = J ew. I don't understand why this word was filtered.

 

[Thyiad1]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Watermoon please re-read what I wrote. You have totally misread it.

 

[Cius]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I love reading these type of posts as I find the process of trying to adopt other people's viewpoints a very useful and desirable outcome. I think too often when people debate they do so without any intention (subconsciously often) of ever changing their opinion. I hope I don't have that too badly. I'd like to take this in another direction. I am a devout Christian who believes in God. I believe that all people are God's children and as such all are precious to him. That is why I find any kind of discrimination or hatred despicable.

At the same time I realize that to protect society a certain level of restrictions of personal freedoms are necessary. As an obvious example it could be argued that restricting a murders need to murder is prejudiced against him. This is an obvious case where current laws around incarceration etc are justified to protect society as a whole.

I am also an engineer. As such I fall heavily on the logic and science side of the fence. While I am religious I attend a church that encourages reasoning and thought over blind faith. In fact the leaders of my church include many men of science who follow that same approach. As such I feel justified in analyzing my churches view on *** marriage from a scientific basis.

Some articles I found on the internet:
This one is by a religious person. It has been slated by several parties: http://www.cmda.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=9126&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm
This one refutes the one above. I looked up the primary study they reference (Donaldson) and it does not seem to have even looked into the primary concerns listed in the first reference, despite the fact that it is used to refute the above study. I found that odd. The primary argument in fact seems to be limited to the great need for adoptive parents and how sane sex partners being excluded is a major cost to them. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/issues-action/medical-privacy/***-adoption-6076.htm
Primarily they state: "There is currently little research on the long-term outcomes for children adopted by gays or lesbians. However, studies on children dating back 25 years conclude that children raised by *** and lesbian non-adoptive parents fare as well as those reared by heterosexual parents" and then quote 4 studies.
Reading a lot of articles there seems to be little evidence that children raised by same sex couples are worse off. The problem is the studies only cover where the marriage lasted and while the hard research is so thin its difficult to confirm a lot of things.
I decided to look into the health implications more as it affects society greatly in terms of both health costs and burdens and risk of transmitting diseases:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/feb/05021709.html
That study also brought up one that I had not read before. The fact that homosexuals are much more often pedophiles. Also 70% of new HIV cases in the study area where homosexual men.

Next I looked at divorce rates and there seems to be almost nothing. In 2005 the Netherlands showed that divorce rates where similar among heterosexual couples and homosexual relationships. A couple places indicated that there is a massive shortage of data on this issue due to how recent it is in most places. Considering that some of the religious sites quoted large infidilety and multiple partners being common I found this excellent study interesting as it seems to refute that: http://www.ccpr.ucla.edu/ccprwpseries/ccpr_058_06.pdf

At the end of about an hour and a half of research and reading I am neutral from a logical point of view. There is some good evidence that it can and does work as well as traditional marriages. There is also good evidence that there are serious concerns relating to homosexuality in general when it comes to:
- Health
- Social disorders (seems to be mainly due to prejudice and homophobia, not conclusive though)
- Length of relationships effect on adoption due to divorce, abuse, illness, death etc.
- Declining birth rates
- Children needing a father and mother figure for healthy development.

Again, its such a new area with so little research into it that especially allowing adoption is perhaps something that should be waited on. As to Marriage there are many countries that have legalized it and hopefully studies will continue to be done assisting our knowledge.

Again, from a religious perspective I still have to stand against it, from a logical perspective I am remaining on the fence, but have the major concerns listed. I invite people with access to better information to share studies (not opinions) on those topics.

 

[Timjl]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I was saying/am saying "I feel that believers are not having enough respect for those of us that don't believe. That you/they are imposing your/their beliefs on me/others and our/their conduct in no way effects you/them." Hope that's clear.

Yep, I agree. The days of Christendom - when Christianity could and did determine social standards and behaviour - are over. I believe, as a Christian - quite strongly - that it is bad for Christianity when the church (the community of believers) demands a position of power; or that it's own norms of behaviour are legislated.

Then it is no longer a message of liberation or deliverance; then it becomes a normative message that only goes to strengthen the Church's own position, and serves the church's interests, rather than being an authentic gospel message. For a thousand years, we (Christians) have (in the west) told a gospel story comprised of salvation, redemption, and eternal damnation, holding out the hope of release from these burdans through the church itself. In other words, "you are damned, and only we can save you".

This has furthermore been compromised by the Church minimising any alternative that may lead to social disruption (since the Church's position depends on social and political stability) and the further marginalisation of those to whom the gospel was first preached - women, the poor, the marginalised of society. This requirement or demand for social conformity is simply another aspect of a very un - Christian desire for power....

 

[Starving_Poet]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Thyiad - you missed my sentiment about 'God given rights'. It has nothing to do with a religious God - it's the simple fact that no Government can grant rights. We are born with them. The Government can only protect them from other who would look to steal your rights. Should those people be the Government, then we as a people have a right to overthrow the Government.

Anyway, it is purely semantic; it is about the word. But ever since the state began granting marriages without the church the word has lost it's 'traditional' meaning.

If we lived in a society where only the churches could grant marriages, then this argument would hold water, but if the states do it, then it's up to a vote of the citizens of the state to determine if they want to do it or not.

I'll say it again - a vote isn't about making the right choice, it's just letting the people make one.

 

[snickersnack]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I think I understand your point with this amendment, but just to be certain (before I respond and maybe make a mistake) what exactly are you trying to convey?

There've been a lot of posts since this one, so maybe the thread is way past this by now, but what I mean is that I think the idea that homosexual behavior is a misuse of human sexuality is is wrong. Homosexuality is part of human sexuality. For some people, heterosexual behavior simply isn't feasible.

I can see how you might acknowledge that homosexuality is part of human nature and at the same time say that it's a misuse. Though it seems to me that that implies that homosexuality is a choice, and I don't think that it is for most people. Most people are ~90% straight or ~90% ***.

If it isn't a matter of choice, then it isn't a matter of morality.

I love reading these type of posts as I find the process of trying to adopt other people's viewpoints a very useful and desirable outcome. I think too often when people debate they do so without any intention (subconsciously often) of ever changing their opinion.

:thumbup: I wish more people understood that.

 

[NoisemakerArrow]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Is this "debate" still going on? I already settled it. All facets of it.

I was going to say a few things about religious people and what I think about them, but apparently they're protected now.

So, how about this: In countries with good education systems, people stopped going to church because they realized it's a scam. In countries with bad education systems, you have Oral Roberts.

Religion is a bunch of crap, as I already said. Always has been, always will be. And if you disagree, address the points I made in my previous post, which nobody dared to do, because they are irrefutable. And the fact that a religion has been around for a while doesn't mean squat. Christianity was once new and persecuted, but it grew in power and began to do the persecuting. Christianity points its finger at cults, forgetting it started out as one. Travolta and Cruise take their Ponzi scheme very seriously, even though it's been around for only a few decades. Ratzinger says the credit crunch shows that "money is nothing", but doesn't mention the gigantic wealth accumulated by his scam.

What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us! - Pope Leo X

I am surrounded by priests who repeat incessantly that their kingdom is not of this world, and yet they lay their hands on everything they can get. - Napoleon Bonaparte

This so called new religion is nothing but a pack of weird rituals and chants designed to take away the money of fools. Let us say the Lord's prayer 40 times, but first let's pass the collection plate. - Rev. Timothy Lovejoy

Funny, ain't it? Call up some old people and tell them that if they send you $2000 you will give them $20 000 000 once you get the money out of an African bank and you go to jail for fraud. But call up some old people and tell them that if they send you $2000 you will make sure they go to play golden harps on fluffy clouds and sing Kumbaya for all eternity and you get tax-exempt status.

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers. - Denis Diderot

And yet it is the religious (Gabriel74) who complain of persecution.

"Heresy" -

Etymology 1: Middle English heresie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin haeresis, from Late Greek hairesis, from Greek, action of taking, choice, sect, from hairein to take, Date: 13th century

Etymology 2: 1175–1225; ME heresie < OF eresie < L haeresis school of thought, sect < Gk haíresis, lit., act of choosing, deriv. of haireîn to choose

That sums up Christianity pretty neatly, so put a sock in the Christian tolerance canard. It sure as hell wasn't atheists burning people at the stake for 2000 years. Oh, and Islam was jacked from Christianity, Christianity was jacked from Judaism, Judaism was jacked from the Epic of Gilgamesh and others, who, in turn, were jacked from even earlier folk tales and myths. And in their time, each were the one true religion. Until they weren't.

Watch "Zeitgeist". You'll learn about these "true" religions.

Oh, and doesn't someone's signature on these forums say "Willful ignorance is the worst kind of ignorance"? Because that's what clinging to religion is, in this day and age. Every one of the "chosen ones" thinks their religion is right, even though they have no proof and everyone else thinks the same about their religion. Religion is not brainwashing? Hahaha. A Christian is so damn sure Christianity is the way to go not because he ever used his brain to evaluate that claim, but because he was brought up in Christianity. He never, ever stops to think that he could very easily have been born to different parents or adopted by different parents and brought up in a different religion. And then those parents would have filled his head with ******** from a tender age and he would have grown up damn sure that Islam is the way to go. Or Scientology. But, of course, he will never think of this, and when confronted with the question, he will have the stock answer of those with no answer: God wanted it this way.

Edit: Cius says "The fact that homosexuals are much more often pedophiles."

I don't know about that...all those Catholic priests claimed to be straight.

 

[snickersnack]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

And I would argue that traditional marriage is protected by the dictionary.

As I responded to Thrandir:

Please explain in what way Marriage as it exists in contemporary American society is in any way "traditional." I am viewing marriage as a societal institution. Maybe you are not, but in that case, I don't see what your posts have to do with the rest of the thread.

Also, you can't just quote some book or website as an authoritative source.

 

[Thyiad1]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Noisemakerarrow - You missed the point.

Here it is again for you: *everyone* may make their case without being abusive or deliberately offensive. That's those who support g ay marriage and those who don't. That's those who believe and those who don't.

You make another bigoted rant like that again and you will be taking a vacation from this forum.

You may make your point, you will not do so in such an objectionable way.

And yes, I'm an athiest and I thought you came across as a tool.

 

[jjscud]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Also, you can't just quote some book or website as an authoritative source.

I completely agree, and as CrazyBear pointed out, some of the other dictionaries further down the page defined marriage differently.

My point still stands, if marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, then same-sex marriage is not requesting a change in the rights, its requesting a change in the definition of marriage. This is clearly more than just a question of rights.

In fact, one of the very first statements of the Pro proposition 8 argument was that civil unions would still exist and have the same legal rights as marriage. In many places the definition of marriage is the only thing in question, equal rights for civil unions are already covered.


Now, on a similar topic, in an attempt to know exactly what I was talking about, I went through and reread the information for the voter's information pamphlet for Proposition 8 in California and was very disappointed.

While the wording change was very clear, the effects were completely un-addressed. Each side had a statement in there explaining why they thought it should or should not pass BUT the statements were conflicting and were basically opinions about the law.

Even leaning clearly to one side based on my beliefs, I find it very frustrating that there is no clear indication of the effects of the law, only biased opinions.

 

[sirpoopsalot]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

... address the points I made in my previous post, which nobody dared to do, because they are irrefutable...

Actually, trolling is seldom worthy of a proper response, which is a much more likely reason why no one bothered to respond.

As to your point that 'church is a scam for making money'... Organized religions have done a lot of good for humanity (admittedly, they've done some bad things too). My uncle works for Habitat for Humanity, and he builds houses for people that couldn't otherwise afford a house. Although I'm not religious, I do give time and money to that cause (through his church) when I have the opportunity. And even if some of the money I donate may be used to further causes I don't entirely agree with (publishing pamphlets that 'spread the good word', for example), I know at least some of my donation will help others that need it. As "scams" go, I can live with that one. Also, it's my money anyways... what do you care how I choose to spend it?


But, back to my main point: belittling others beliefs and trying to bully others into your views is unacceptable, and it's hardly a way to win others to your cause. As Thyiad said, you're on very thin ice.