Gay Marriage and the Church

[theapportioner]

The position of many Christians is that it is okay to be a homosexual person, but that homosexual acts are morally condemnable.

Now, putting aside the recent Supreme Court decision overturning anti-sodomy laws, what is the connection between homosexual acts and gay marriage? Is the idea that gay marriage would encourage homosexual activity? If so, how does this follow?

Of course, this is preposterous. I seriously doubt making gay marriages legal would have any effect on the incidence of homosexual acts.

It is one thing to say that God made marriages sacred - it is entirely another thing to say that and condemn homosexual acts in the same breath (Bishop O'Malley of Boston has done this) - for they are not condemning the acts at all, but the people.

[theapportioner]

Addendum: It should be noted that Massachusetts Bishops are opposed to not only gay marriage, but also civil unions or any sort of benefits for domestic same sex partners (source: the Boston Globe).

[El Blanco]

Now, putting aside the recent Supreme Court decision overturning anti-sodomy laws, what is the connection between homosexual acts and gay marriage? Is the idea that gay marriage would encourage homosexual activity? If so, how does this follow?

Of course, this is preposterous. I seriously doubt making gay marriages legal would have any effect on the incidence of homosexual acts.

Uh, I think you've been watching too much Married with Children. Married people have sex.

And, according to Christianity, marriage and sex are for procreation, to raise children. Thats what the problem with homosexuality is.

It is one thing to say that God made marriages sacred - it is entirely another thing to say that and condemn homosexual acts in the same breath (Bishop O'Malley of Boston has done this) - for they are not condemning the acts at all, but the people.

I don't see how you draw this conclusion. Saying you don't believe in same sex marriages is a far cry from damning homosexuals to hell.

And personally, I don't see why the government needs to be involved in a marriage or why homosexuals are so intent on being allowed to have them. Is all this stink being raised for a tax write off?

[thebiggameover]

[quote]Is all this stink being raised for a tax write off?

yes...

[sspadowsky]

I don't see how you draw this conclusion. Saying you don't believe in same sex marriages is a far cry from damning homosexuals to hell.

And personally, I don't see why the government needs to be involved in a marriage or why homosexuals are so intent on being allowed to have them. Is all this stink being raised for a tax write off?

Have you been living in a fucking cave? They want equal protection under the law! That kooky provision from that nutty ol' constitution! If gay marriages are legalized, gay couples can share health benefits, and have the same rights straight married people have. They might as well try to pass an amendment revoking the right of Blacks to vote. It's the same fucking thing.

This topic pisses me off worse than almost anything else. They're human fucking beings, they're entitled to the same rights and protections as anyone else, and if you want to condemn gay marriage because your religion tells you to, then fuck you, and fuck your bullshit fairy-tale religion, too, because THAT'S the real problem.

I can't believe we're having this fucking discussion in America in the twenty-first fucking century. Supposedly educated and enlightened people actually believe that gays are less human than heterosexuals. No dancing around that one, folks. If you think gays don't deserve the same rights as straight people, you think they are less human.

God, I hate stupid people.[/quote]

[sspadowsky]

And any Catholics that have a beef with what I just said can stick it, because any institution that condemns homosexuality while shuffling child-rapists around like a deck of cards (without a trace of irony), is a lot more fucked-up.

[theapportioner]

Uh, I think you've been watching too much Married with Children. Married people have sex.

DUH. But someone who is gay doesn't need to get married to have sex, obviously. For a committed couple to get married won't have any bearing on how often they have sex, at least I don't see how.

And, according to Christianity, marriage and sex are for procreation, to raise children. Thats what the problem with homosexuality is.

My point is this - many Christians draw a line between "homosexuality" and "homosexual acts". For instance Archbishop O'Malley is very careful to condemn the latter and not the former. I disagree with their position on gay marriage, but that's not the thrust of my message here - the thrust is this: it's one thing for a Christian to oppose gay marriage. You can say it's in the scripture or whatever. Fair enough. It's ANOTHER thing to say you oppose gay marriage, justifying your argument by condemning "homosexual acts" at the same time. For gay marriage is only indirectly linked to gay sex. I mean, we would have no problem whatsoever if a man and woman getting married, even if they do not intend to have sex. So obviously having sex is not a prerequisite for marriage. It is entirely conceivable for two men or two women to love each other and want to get married, and not have sex, or seldom have sex. What is so wrong about a civil union, at the very least?


I don't see how you draw this conclusion. Saying you don't believe in same sex marriages is a far cry from damning homosexuals to hell.

See above. Like I said, saying you are opposed to to gay marriage is one thing; using the sin of "homosexual acts" to oppose it is another, and I think there is something hypocritical about this. Either there is a total disconnect in their reasoning abilities, or it's not "homosexual acts" but "homosexuality" itself that bothers them.

And personally, I don't see why the government needs to be involved in a marriage or why homosexuals are so intent on being allowed to have them. Is all this stink being raised for a tax write off?

I agree with you on the first point.

[theapportioner]

And what you said about procreation and marriage -- I doubt Teresa Heinz was capable of having more babies when she married John Kerry. If that is all marriage is about, then why should they have the right to be married if they cannot produce progeny?

[mew barios]

man i'm so tired of this. especially here, where the state government is currently mulling over making a definition of marriage part of the state constitution. and yet, the only reasoning people give is crap like 'must protect sanctity of marriage :O' an 'arg think of the children c..@!'. my fondest wish is that someone would give me a reasonable, logical explanation as to why homosexuals should be denied any legal recognition of their relationships.

*gate out :O*

[VinceZeb]

sspadowsky:

Since you want to come off as so fucking smart when it comes to gay marriage and "equal rights", I want you to honestly answer this one question:

What right(s) does a straight man or woman have that a gay man or woman does not have?

I strongly advise you to think carefully before you go and flap your gums.

[Dole]

He is talking about the rights that married men and women have that gay couples don't have. There are lots in my country: right of inheritance, guardianship of children, tax issues...I presume their are similar ones in the US.

Its nice to see you only pop back for the occasional bitter, sour, types-like-he-is-crying post Vinthypoosywoosy.

[sspadowsky]

sspadowsky:

Since you want to come off as so fucking smart when it comes to gay marriage and "equal rights", I want you to honestly answer this one question:

What right(s) does a straight man or woman have that a gay man or woman does not have?

I strongly advise you to think carefully before you go and flap your gums.

And I strongly advise you, Professor Gumflapper, to plant your lips on my ass.

Well, dingus, first of all, one thing gays can't do that straight people can is get married. That's just for openers. Dole addressed some of the other ones. I'll drop back in after a while to discuss further.

[Brandon]

He's just upset about your pedophile priest comment.

[AChimp]

Oh boy! I can hardly wait to hear what Obese Adolescent Orator has to say about this topic! :)

Maybe we should open up marriage to private industry so people can shop around for the version they like.

[punkgrrrlie10]

sspadowsky:

Since you want to come off as so fucking smart when it comes to gay marriage and "equal rights", I want you to honestly answer this one question:

What right(s) does a straight man or woman have that a gay man or woman does not have?

I strongly advise you to think carefully before you go and flap your gums.

They have the fundamental right to marry. Guaranteed by case law. Look up the case Loving v. Virginia. It struck down miscegenation laws which prevented people from marrying others of a different color. In the opinion they find that marriage is a fundamental right of citizenship which the gov't can't deny. Perhaps YOU should think carefully before YOU flap your gums.

[El Blanco]

sspad, are you trying to be the board's offical drama queen or something? I'm sorry I have beliefs different than you. It was wrong of me to grow up in a different enviroment and be taught values by my parents which are probably not identical to yours. Next time I want to voice an opinion and join what I believe is an open discussion, I'll know better.


That being said, my whole point is why the government gets involved to begin with. I really don't get it. Am I being discriminated against because I am single and don't get all these nifty benefits?

As for the whole "trying to save the sanctity of marriage", why not look into the 50% divorce rate in this country? I think thats a little more dangerous.

But, hey, what do I know? I'm just some stupid person who believes i na fairy-tale religion.

[sspadowsky]

Well, I'm glad we cleared that up. Thilly. ;)

[KevinTheOmnivore]

It's tough bein' Catholic, aint it. :(

[El Blanco]

meh. This shit don't bug me. Its Lent that really wears on me.

[sspadowsky]

In all seriousness, Blanco, this is no different than denying Blacks the right to vote, or Mexicans from getting drivers licenses. It's not about the government getting involved, it's about honoring the freedoms that everyone is already supposed to have.

If that were not the case, the Declaration would have read, "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all White, land-holding, slave-owning men are created equal, while ******s, women, indians, queers and kikes are not."

You think I'm being a "drama queen"? Fuck you. If you truly believed in equality and equal protection under the law, you'd be right alongside me on this one. And I primarily made the Catholic remark because I knew it would piss off Vince.

It's 2004, for Christ's sake. We should be ashamed that it was barely 50 years ago that Blacks were not allowed to play baseball with Whites.

I get so blindly fucking enraged when this sort of thing comes up, because it just goes to prove that we never learn from history.

EDIT: Well, shit. Now I feel guilty for saying "fuck you," because you went all nice and made a good joke. No hard feelings.

[theapportioner]

sspad, are you trying to be the board's offical drama queen or something?

At first I read this as "drag queen". Whoo, time for bed...

[VinceZeb]

sspadowsky is just laying in way so he can marry his boyfriend. Furthermore, gay people have the exact same rights as same people. If a gay man wants to marry a woman, he sure can. If a straight man wants to marry a woman, he can. Men can't marry men and women cant mary women. Joe blow can't marry a farm animal, a piece of fruit, or a blow up doll. Gay activists want the laws changed to benefit them and to give them MORE rights.

People try to bring this up as civil rights, when it isn't. Minorities in this country had LESS rights than white people did. They were DENIED basic rights that white had. That was unjust. Gay people are not denied any rights. Gay people have discriminatonary protection in our law books. Straight people don't. Gay people have the same rights as straight people do and can do the same exact things straight people do. I can't marry 10 women, a gay guy can't marry his pitcher. Welcome to life.

[Dole]

"If a gay man wants to marry a woman, he sure can. If a straight man wants to marry a woman, he can. Men can't marry men and women cant mary women. Joe blow can't marry a farm animal, a piece of fruit, or a blow up doll. "

-You're just prejudiced. Thats it. Enough with all the indignation. If you equate a same sex partnership to that of a man and a "farm animal, a piece of fruit, or a blow up doll" what the fuck does that say about you?

And every time I hear someone moaning to the effect of 'what about us white straight males? where are our rights' etc, it makes me want to puke. Its just laughably ignorant.

[AChimp]

I'm sure that gay people wouldnt' be opposed to two straight men marrying each other.

[mew barios]

poor vince must be torn between his religiosity and the fact that neal boortz thinks gay marriage is a-ok.

[VinceZeb]

poor vince must be torn between his religiosity and the fact that neal boortz thinks gay marriage is a-ok.

You really should think before you... well, you should start thinking at all. Boortz is ok with homosexuality (which I am not), but he and I agree with the fact that marriage is between men and women and that is what it was originally set up for.

Learn before you speak.

[sspadowsky]

Say, fatty, how do you know? Did "god" tell you? And what is it, exactly, that you've got against it? And can you explain how denying gays the right to marry is not unconstitutional?

but he and I agree with the fact that marriage is between men and women and that is what it was originally set up for.

Source that one for us, why dontcha? Note: the bible doesn't count, as it is a work of fiction.

[Rez]

sex isnt for pro-cree-a-shun :lol

SEX IS FOR FUN >:

[The One and Only...]

If you want to be honest, I'm not sure why people who say sex is for fun tend towards agnosticism/atheism, and why people who say sex for is procreation tend towards being religious.

It just seems so wrong.

One would think that evolutionists would accept that sex's sole purpose is for procreation, regardless of why it was performed.

One would think that religious folks would accept sex for fun as a sign of human transcendance.

Oh well.

[El Blanco]

Source that one for us, why dontcha? Note: the bible doesn't count, as it is a work of fiction.

Because you say so? What the hell is that? Its another argument all together, and you state it as a fact like your omniscient or something.

How about this:

The Constitution is based on the works of Locke, and I think he was full of shit and completly off, therefor, you can no longer use the Constitution as a reference in this argument.

See how it works?

If you are going to debate, can you atleast keep it honest?

[Pee Wee Herman]

The Bible isn't 100% fiction, but so much of it changed or was misinterpreted that it can't be considered anywhere near 100% fact. Many of the things in the bible very likely did happen, but it's hard to tell what's fact and what's fiction. It's not as reliable as thje consitution because the consitution (or the Canadian charter of right and freedoms in Canada) has only had 1 version, with a some changes, but the Bible has been around for almost 2,000 years so there is bound to be some extaggeration or embellishment in certain parts of it.

[El Blanco]

But, the Constitution is vague is some areas, or there are just some things that the Founding Fathers didn't account for.

Oh, and there have been changes to the Constitution. They're called Ammendments and quite a few were politcally motivated. Does this make the Constitution a "work of fiction"?

[ItalianStereotype]

And what is it, exactly, that you've got against it? And can you explain how denying gays the right to marry is not unconstitutional?


not just against homosexual marriage, but homosexuals in general. I think this will provide some insight into your character.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I just can never understand why this board likes having these arguments about the Bible. I mean, it's only like one of the biggest debates in the universe EVER. Yeah, we're going to solve this one here.

I also find it terribly condescending the way some on these boards completely dismiss not only religion, but the religious. Those who believe and practice within the United States.

I believe that the argument should be framed in that context. I mean, politics is all about perception anyway, right? Whether you on the board like it or not, There are MANY people in America who at least "claim" to follow some sect of Christianity. Demonizing what they believe and follow, dismissing it as archaic and "fictional," will get you nowhere, believe me. These people vote, contribute to campaigns, and campaign themselves through letters, phone calls, and other forms of activism. They are a massive, and ACTIVE voting bloc. In many places in this country, they will make-or-break a candidate.

So, just my opinion, but I feel the debate should be kept within a legal/Constitutional framework. Otherwise, this good thread will undoubtedly devolve into OAO talking about his penis size. Thank you.

[Ant10708]

If a man wants to marry another man then I want to marry multiple women. As long as they are okay with it why should me and my multiple wives be denied our tax benefits.

[AChimp]

Because that's just gay.

[sspadowsky]

OK, I feel compelled, in the sense of fairness, to explain my stance.

If I come across as arrogant, I sincerely apologize. Many people on this board have met me in person, and I feel confident that they would vouch for the fact that this is not my aim. I'm just trying to establish a little perspective here.

One of my biggest beefs with "traditional values" is that a lot of people believe what they believe without question. They don't truly examine WHY they believe what they believe. Having said that, I know that many people on this board DO examine why they hold their beliefs. But not all, and those people who do not shall remain nameless, even if their initials start with VinceZeb.

So, if a church, let's say the Catholic Church, just for an example, tells you that homosexuality is wrong, well, WHY? It's not like they just came out with homosexuality fifty years ago. And it's not like there hasn't been any homosexual behavior within the confines of the Catholic Church, as we all know. It's been around as long as history has been recorded by humans. In many cultures, homsexuality has been acknowledged, and even tolerated. It's not as though people just denied its existence. Indeed, fifty years ago, I think many people knew of it, and they just regarded it as, "It's their thing, and it's none of my business."

And here's the central issue: No one in this thread, or any other relating to this topic, has ever said, "OK, here's the reason(s) gays SHOULDN'T be able to marry. No one has come up with that one. That's why I make vitriolic references to the Bible being a work of fiction. In fact, deep-seeded religious beliefs are often the CAUSE of such conflicts.

"Homosexuality is WRONG!"

Why?

"Because the BIBLE say so!"

Well, the Bible was written by men. And it has been interpreted, and re-interpreted by many people and groups, primarily based on their beliefs. Read a "modernized" version of the Bible, and I guarantee you'll see that it's far different from the King James version, which I was raised to read.

The inherent flaw in the argument against gay marriage always, ALWAYS, goes back to deeply-held religious beliefs. Because God said so. Well, that's not good enough for me. I believe in the Constitution. And the Constitution, even though it can be amended, was created in the interest of upholding equal rights for everyone, in spite of the fact that those who wrote it were White, land-holding, slave-owning males. That's why the Constitution is referred to as a "living document." Not because it can be changed to hold to the beliefs of the crackers in power, but because its purpose is to serve the People. It is designed to protect everyone.

[VinceZeb]

sspadowsky, you sure are pretty humble. With your track record for humbleness, you should become a monk. And calling me fat doesnt make me gain 200lbs everytime I sit at this keyboard. I wish you would at least try to insult me with the facts you have about me.

[Dole]

Yeah Sspad! Why pick on that facet when you could have called him bigoted, prejudiced, ignorant, misanthropic, unpleasant, hateful, petty, cowardly, racist....

why there is a whole cornucopia of unpleasant character traits to pick a delightful nosegay from.

[kellychaos]

A legal union of same sex persons really has nothing to do with the church. The "laws" created by the government define what is legal and the church does not. It's really that simple. The only reason for the "stink" is that the church and the combined force of all it's congregations represent a strong lobby. This lobby equates "legal unions" with marriage when, actually, they are not the same. Again, the various churches act as if they invented marriage and; therefore, they have the right to define what "marriage" IS for everyone else. Again, they did not. I'm sure that the idea of lifelong mates began long before the marriage label was slapped onto it.

[The One and Only...]

There are plenty of non-religious arguments against homosexuality. Example:

Homosexuality is wrong because of Kant's Formula of Universal Law.

It would be bad if everyone were gay.

Therefore, it is immoral to be gay.

Each individual should be moral and follow those rules, so banning homosexuality is moral.

[ziggytrix]

Using that same logic:

It would be bad if everyone was male.

Therefore it is immoral to be male.



I don't buy it.

[sspadowsky]

There are plenty of non-religious arguments against homosexuality. Example:

Homosexuality is wrong because of Kant's Formula of Universal Law.

It would be bad if everyone were gay.

Therefore, it is immoral to be gay.

Each individual should be moral and follow those rules, so banning homosexuality is moral.

OAO, that's incredibly stupid, even for you, and even as a hypothetical. It's wrong to be gay because Kant said so? :blah

And calling me fat doesnt make me gain 200lbs everytime I sit at this keyboard.

You're absolutely right. It's the gallons of Haagen-Daas you shovel down that's doing that.

[VinceZeb]

It's the gallons of Haagen-Daas you shovel down that's doing that.

Sorry. Never had Haagen-Daas in my life. You need to come up with some better insults. I know your not that intelligent, so don't try to swing to the fences when you can't even hit a grounder. Start with twinkies, pizza, and McDonald's first. Then move up to the higher-level insults.

[pjalne]

Hahaha, Sspad doesn't know what food Vince eats :lol

[Anonymous]

I know your not that intelligent,

As days go by, I've seen my taste in humor change. However, I don't think I'll ever be tired of the ironic "your stupid" line and all its analogues.

[The One and Only...]

I believe that Kant's moral principle only applies to acts- and homosexual acts can be changed, even if homosexuality cannot.

But I'm no Kantian, and I support gay rights. I was just pointing something out.

[Emu]

So, have you lost the ability to think for yourself or did you ever have it?

[The One and Only...]

I've thought for myself many times.

And you don't deserve Lokar for an avatar.

[AChimp]

http://www.alwaysmad.com/gallery/data/2/15fatkid2.jpg

Obese Adolescent Orator's Thoughts

"I analyzed the nutritional content of the candy bars I ate for lunch. They only put me ninety points over. I can make up for it by just having three slices of cake after supper."

"While I was pooping, I decided that since I can't see the calories, they must not exist."

"I realized that if my parents didn't have to pay taxes, they could use the extra money to build a chocolate factory in the backyard."

"My mom said the only absolute truth that matters is that I'm her special boy."

[Pee Wee Herman]

What a big fat fuck. OAO is so fat that he needs an extra large keyboard because his fingers are too fat for a regular keyboard.

[AChimp]

Yes, and I bet he is a doo-doo head that eats his boogers, too. You ruined my joke, asshole. >:

[Pee Wee Herman]

Go to hell, monkey boy.

[theapportioner]

I believe that Kant's moral principle only applies to acts- and homosexual acts can be changed, even if homosexuality cannot.

Good. But even if we assume that everyone participates in homosexual acts, this does not preclude people having heterosexual acts - it is obvious that it is not a logical contradiction to have both.

It's been a while since I've read Kant, so I don't know if the categorical imperative insists on an exclusive universality. My guess is no, but I'm not 100% sure.

[Emu]

I don't see what's so funny about that picture that every single person on the intarweb has to use it. >:

[El Blanco]

We're sorry, but your mom put it up and we just can't help ourselves.

[The One and Only...]

Good. But even if we assume that everyone participates in homosexual acts, this does not preclude people having heterosexual acts - it is obvious that it is not a logical contradiction to have both.

It is only contradictory because of language abuse. There are bisexuals.

But why are we even talking about this anymore. I. DON'T. SUPPORT. KANT.

[Brandon]

But why are we even talking about this anymore. I. DON'T. SUPPORT. KANT.
I know I don't speak for myself when I say that a lot of times I can't tell whether you're presenting an idea to play devil's advocate or because you actually believe in it.

[theapportioner]

It is only contradictory because of language abuse. There are bisexuals.

But why are we even talking about this anymore. I. DON'T. SUPPORT. KANT.

I don't really care. I was questioning whether Kant himself would use the Categorical Imperative in the way that you described.

[punkgrrrlie10]

I'm sure Kant would question your use of him as well.

[kellychaos]

Actually, as Kant was highly religious, I agree that he would probably be opposed to homosexual marriage ... only his arguments would be much more coherent, concise and elegant than the fat boy's.