Sign In
Register
Help
Marriage in most secular societies has become more a legal access to certain societal rights, as opposed to the traditional notion of marriage as a religiously inflected right of passage. Therefore, within these secular societies, homosexuals should not be denied the same legal/societal rights and priveliges available to heterosexual people, especially seeing as though there are no limits on the way a homosexual person can contribute to the (usually) capitalist economies of said secular societies.
There's no point in arguing from a religious pov with regards this topic, because most of the places any of us on this board live in are parts of broadly secular countries, where religion is mostly paid lip-service. Religion has very little pragmatic application within the legal systems of our countries, beyond a 'word of religious disapproval' muttered here or there. Religion really has become a gloss in most secular nations, and is outmoded when compared to the things that really drive the countries in which we live: economics and cultural post-modernism. Hence we can laugh at idea's like 'the sanctity of marriage' (whereas 150yrs ago, if you did the same, you would be viewed as behaving blasphemously), and typically associate marriage with high divorce rates as much as with any idealistic outlook on the notion of marriage.
In todays society, marriage provides the keys to another level of governmental welfare. That is the cold, harsh truth for anyone who still believes religious ideology is still the forming factor of marriage in today's secular societies. And homosexuals who are willingly accepted into the fabric of these societies in order to partake in it's economic momentum have just as much right to marriage-influenced state providence as any heterosexual person.
$2.
help with homework... same-sex marriage what do you think?
MultiQuote#27 Guest_Levana_*
Posted 01 April 2005 - 11:12 PM
America's about freedom, isn't it? Why shouldn't everyone get the same rights? You'd have thought we learnt our lesson with the blacks and the Holocaust. Discrimination has no place in a country that claims to be 'the land of the free'. And, seeing as I'm a culprit of same-sex marriage...gasp...everyone do the freak-out dance...okay, better?
I admit, it's disheartening that we don't get the rights that others do [I'm an American citizen, aren't I? Okay, given, my wife isn't, but there you are]. But we have faith that someone will get a fucking clue up there SOMEday...
State was created to separate the government from religion--they should not be mixed. It's a dangerous thing.
x
I admit, it's disheartening that we don't get the rights that others do [I'm an American citizen, aren't I? Okay, given, my wife isn't, but there you are]. But we have faith that someone will get a fucking clue up there SOMEday...
State was created to separate the government from religion--they should not be mixed. It's a dangerous thing.
x
#30
- Luscious Apparatus
-
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 2,260
- Joined: 11-August 04
Posted 03 April 2005 - 12:45 AM
Daft Punk, on Apr 1 2005, 10:25 PM, said:
Marriage in most secular societies has become more a legal access to certain societal rights, as opposed to the traditional notion of marriage as a religiously inflected right of passage. Therefore, within these secular societies, homosexuals should not be denied the same legal/societal rights and priveliges available to heterosexual people, especially seeing as though there are no limits on the way a homosexual person can contribute to the (usually) capitalist economies of said secular societies.
There's no point in arguing from a religious pov with regards this topic, because most of the places any of us on this board live in are parts of broadly secular countries, where religion is mostly paid lip-service. Religion has very little pragmatic application within the legal systems of our countries, beyond a 'word of religious disapproval' muttered here or there. Religion really has become a gloss in most secular nations, and is outmoded when compared to the things that really drive the countries in which we live: economics and cultural post-modernism. Hence we can laugh at idea's like 'the sanctity of marriage' (whereas 150yrs ago, if you did the same, you would be viewed as behaving blasphemously), and typically associate marriage with high divorce rates as much as with any idealistic outlook on the notion of marriage.
In todays society, marriage provides the keys to another level of governmental welfare. That is the cold, harsh truth for anyone who still believes religious ideology is still the forming factor of marriage in today's secular societies. And homosexuals who are willingly accepted into the fabric of these societies in order to partake in it's economic momentum have just as much right to marriage-influenced state providence as any heterosexual person.
$2.
There's no point in arguing from a religious pov with regards this topic, because most of the places any of us on this board live in are parts of broadly secular countries, where religion is mostly paid lip-service. Religion has very little pragmatic application within the legal systems of our countries, beyond a 'word of religious disapproval' muttered here or there. Religion really has become a gloss in most secular nations, and is outmoded when compared to the things that really drive the countries in which we live: economics and cultural post-modernism. Hence we can laugh at idea's like 'the sanctity of marriage' (whereas 150yrs ago, if you did the same, you would be viewed as behaving blasphemously), and typically associate marriage with high divorce rates as much as with any idealistic outlook on the notion of marriage.
In todays society, marriage provides the keys to another level of governmental welfare. That is the cold, harsh truth for anyone who still believes religious ideology is still the forming factor of marriage in today's secular societies. And homosexuals who are willingly accepted into the fabric of these societies in order to partake in it's economic momentum have just as much right to marriage-influenced state providence as any heterosexual person.
$2.
From the standpoint that religion has no bearing on politics, I envy you living in England. Unlike in America, if one of your delegates even tried to play a religious card in an election, they would be pounced heavily by the press. America is supposed to be church and state seperate, but the truth is, it isn't. Taking into consideration that my country was founded by religious outsiders who came here to avoid religious persecution, it's highly unlikely that we will ever be able to get to a point where they have nothing to do with one another. If we ever do, it certainly won't be for a long time.
#31
- Length Of Love
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,953
- Joined: 13-August 04
Posted 03 April 2005 - 02:26 AM
Gay couples should be able to get married, I have no problem with that. Live and let live. As simple as that. Your sexual preferences don´t make you a better or a worst person. The problem is in the closed minds that rule the world today.
#32 Guest_Daft Punk_*
Posted 03 April 2005 - 06:53 AM
interpolMOD1, on Apr 3 2005, 05:45 AM, said:
From the standpoint that religion has no bearing on politics, I envy you living in England. Unlike in America, if one of your delegates even tried to play a religious card in an election, they would be pounced heavily by the press. America is supposed to be church and state seperate, but the truth is, it isn't. Taking into consideration that my country was founded by religious outsiders who came here to avoid religious persecution, it's highly unlikely that we will ever be able to get to a point where they have nothing to do with one another. If we ever do, it certainly won't be for a long time.
Yeah, you're totally right, in America there is a close relationship between religion and politics. It's a shame. Even somewhere like America, with it's close right wing/church relations, the act of marriage (on a pragmatic societal level) has very little to do with the church ceremony, and a lot more to do with the social benefits that marriage brings. Hence, rationally, there is no reason as to why the religious aspects of marriage should be such a deciding factor when it comes to who can, and who cannot, marry. After all, the religious aspects of marriage tend to (more than anything) provide good memories to keep in the scrapbook or for the VHS/DVD player. But the constant, everyday benefits of marriage are to be found in the status and privelige that a married couple recieves from the state; benefits and access rights to new avenues of life. This is more a legal allowance, and is the truly pragmatic social core of the act of marriage, not the fact that you've been hitched by some priest in the eyes of God.
So, it may be that way in America, but that's something that really needs to change. If the legal system asks you to provide, without taking into account your religious/sexual preferences, then it must be ready to give back, without taking into account your religious/sexual preferences.
#33 Guest_EmoTheEmu_*
Posted 04 July 2005 - 11:51 PM
I do not agree, and the reasoning bieng...
I do not go around sharing my sexuallity with people.
I do not take part in a 'Straight day parade'.
I do not wave flags around the streets where families gather displaying my personal sexuality.
I think that it is unneeded, and pointless.
If a man loves another man, so be it, but PLEASE keep it to yourself.
If a woman loves another woman, so be it, but PLEASE keep it to yourself.
I mean, if you have Microsoft word, go in to clip art and type in gay.
There is 25 pictures.
That is awful.
I am not for it, that's all I can say.
I do not go around sharing my sexuallity with people.
I do not take part in a 'Straight day parade'.
I do not wave flags around the streets where families gather displaying my personal sexuality.
I think that it is unneeded, and pointless.
If a man loves another man, so be it, but PLEASE keep it to yourself.
If a woman loves another woman, so be it, but PLEASE keep it to yourself.
I mean, if you have Microsoft word, go in to clip art and type in gay.
There is 25 pictures.
That is awful.
I am not for it, that's all I can say.
#35 Guest_EmoTheEmu_*
Posted 04 July 2005 - 11:58 PM
evy, on Apr 1 2005, 09:42 PM, said:
God says he loves all his children no matter what. and gays are no exception. i think gay marriages should be allowed. i mean if you love that person and want to marry them, marry them. if the heteros can do it, so can the homos.
http://www.religious...rg/hom_bibi.htm
Please, search the above site.
It explains more about that.
The Bible says more about homosexuality than you think.
#36 Guest_Magdalena_*
Posted 05 July 2005 - 12:13 AM
Fuck, you just had to come back here.
This thread is 3 months old, yet you bring it back just to post your idiotic opinions. Not only that, you posted 3 times in a whopping 7 minutes....ever heard of the EDIT button?
DIE you annoying little cunt!
This thread is 3 months old, yet you bring it back just to post your idiotic opinions. Not only that, you posted 3 times in a whopping 7 minutes....ever heard of the EDIT button?
DIE you annoying little cunt!
#37
- E-Slut
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 802
- Joined: 03-March 05
Posted 05 July 2005 - 01:52 AM
evy, on Apr 1 2005, 09:42 PM, said:
God says he loves all his children no matter what. and gays are no exception. i think gay marriages should be allowed. i mean if you love that person and want to marry them, marry them. if the heteros can do it, so can the homos.
I agree.
I saw two neutered male dogs going at it tonight. Are their gay perverted asses going to hell?
#38 Guest_pattonlovingwhore_*
Posted 05 July 2005 - 10:45 AM
Magdalena, on Jul 5 2005, 01:13 PM, said:
Fuck, you just had to come back here.
This thread is 3 months old, yet you bring it back just to post your idiotic opinions. Not only that, you posted 3 times in a whopping 7 minutes....ever heard of the EDIT button?
DIE you annoying little cunt!
This thread is 3 months old, yet you bring it back just to post your idiotic opinions. Not only that, you posted 3 times in a whopping 7 minutes....ever heard of the EDIT button?
DIE you annoying little cunt!
It's okay, shes 13 and religious. Soon the slutty years will come along and while she may remain a narrowminded fuckwit it's quite certain she will be a hypocritical open legged one.
<3 etc.
#39
- Length Of Love
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,880
- Joined: 02-April 05
Posted 05 July 2005 - 11:14 AM
pattonlovingwhore, on Jul 5 2005, 04:45 PM, said:
It's okay, shes 13 and religious. Soon the slutty years will come along and while she may remain a narrowminded fuckwit it's quite certain she will be a hypocritical open legged one.
<3 etc.
<3 etc.
she's already said she wants to be a groupie...lets go for the second option eh?
#40 Guest_EmoTheEmu_*
Posted 05 July 2005 - 11:43 AM
youresocutewhen..., on Jul 5 2005, 11:14 AM, said:
she's already said she wants to be a groupie...lets go for the second option eh?
I am not religious, I have said numerous times that I am unsettled with my faith.
Fckd id asked, I responded, as did all of you, if you want the thread to disappear, tell a mod, or even better, DON'T RESPOND!
Thank you.
#41 Guest_pattonlovingwhore_*
Posted 05 July 2005 - 11:54 AM
EmoTheEmu, on Jul 6 2005, 12:43 AM, said:
I am not religious, I have said numerous times that I am unsettled with my faith.
Fckd id asked, I responded, as did all of you, if you want the thread to disappear, tell a mod, or even better, DON'T RESPOND!
Thank you.
Fckd id asked, I responded, as did all of you, if you want the thread to disappear, tell a mod, or even better, DON'T RESPOND!
Thank you.
Well you're just a fucking idiot then? Alrighty? That more suitable?
You responded, and I responded to that. Isn't that the way things work. It's a topic that invites discussion... so here we are discussing it. Are you with me so far?
You suggest you dont go around sharing your sexuality with people? Well you pointed out you wanted to be a groupie and that you think Carlos D is the sexiest man alive. You 've already shared with us that you're heterosexual. Gasp.
Maybe you don't grasp the concept that even if you happen to be against the legalisation of gay marriage you still face the possibility of seeing gay couples together, for you, whether or not they have that piece of paper doesn't change a thing.
#43 Guest_shefoundthelonelysound_*
Posted 05 July 2005 - 12:52 PM
I totally agree with same sex marriages. I mean, put yourself in their shoes. You love someone with all your heart and unconditionally, and you want to spend the rest of your life with them, but aren't allowed to make this commitment legal. You could just argue that, they could just live together etc, but it is not fair to deny people the freedom of being able to say 'oh we are married' or allow them to actually get married and actually make the commitment. Same sex marriages are equally as loving and legitimate as different sex marriage, and so they should be accepted so, both morally and legally.
#44
- Evil
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 319
- Joined: 16-May 05
Posted 05 July 2005 - 03:00 PM
EmoTheEmu, on Jul 5 2005, 05:51 AM, said:
I mean, if you have Microsoft word, go in to clip art and type in gay.
There is 25 pictures.
That is awful.
There is 25 pictures.
That is awful.
can i just ask.. what clip art do you have? my clip art dosent conjure up images of men humping each other through the backdoor....
oh. im all for gay marriages.
#47 Guest_EmoTheEmu_*
Posted 05 July 2005 - 06:42 PM
Why would a superior bieng create humans to reproduce sexually if it was meant to be optional?
Two men can't reproduce, nor can two women.
Think of humans like... puzzle pieces:
> < : nope
< > : nope
< < : There ya' go!
It's just not meant to be....
In my oppinion.
Two men can't reproduce, nor can two women.
Think of humans like... puzzle pieces:
> < : nope
< > : nope
< < : There ya' go!
It's just not meant to be....
In my oppinion.
#48 Guest_Lennox_*
Posted 05 July 2005 - 08:32 PM
EmoTheEmu, on Jul 5 2005, 06:42 PM, said:
Why would a superior bieng create humans to reproduce sexually if it was meant to be optional?
Two men can't reproduce, nor can two women.
Think of humans like... puzzle pieces:
> < : nope
< > : nope
< < : There ya' go!
It's just not meant to be....
In my oppinion.
Two men can't reproduce, nor can two women.
Think of humans like... puzzle pieces:
> < : nope
< > : nope
< < : There ya' go!
It's just not meant to be....
In my oppinion.
Well if there was more of < > and > < there would be less overpopulation. It's a solution not a problem.
#49
- Slow Hands
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 82
- Joined: 03-October 04
Posted 05 July 2005 - 10:27 PM
As with the general consensus, there is no logical reason for not allowing gays to be married. My one pair of neighbors have been partners for 20 years and I'd be happy to see them able to be legally wed. I'm completely for it.