Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 20, 2007 12:06:52 GMT -4
Quantify what women have that men don't, or vice versa? I don't think anyone has ever fully understood that. So then how do you know that there are differences, if you can't define them? Some subjects are simply too complex for an internet forum. Whole libraries of books have been written on the differences between men and women and how they approach various aspects of life. I'm getting into speculation here, as I really haven't given the subject much thought before, but if they don't have any functioning sexual organs then they are already effectively condemned to a life of chastity. If they have enough for surgery to correct the problem then they can usually also identify the person's true gender, as i understand it.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jun 20, 2007 13:08:15 GMT -4
How are two gay people hurting each other by getting married? How is it any more risky than a heterosexual couple's marriage?
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jun 20, 2007 17:44:26 GMT -4
How is that any different from what I said, which was "is the chief purpose legally for getting married."?
I can see how that would be confusing. What I am saying is that, with overpopulation and high life expectancy, marriage does not need to be a chiefly child-rearing machine any more. And it isn't. People get married for lots of reasons, child-rearing is only one of them.
Sure I can. Nothing bad will happen. It could have happened five minutes ago and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. The only bad things that will happen will be the same bad things that heterosexual marriages are prone to.
Actually, marriage is not restricted to one definition. From dictionary.com:
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. 2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. 3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. 4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
As you can see, the definition begins with the distinction of a man and a woman, but it continues to include a definition which does not distinguish gender or sexual preference. This is not an either/or thing, it's an and thing.
As noted above, the definitions of marriage disagree with you here. It's not the same thing.
And you haven't distinguished how a straight couple that can't produce children could still get married if that same inability discludes a gay couple from getting married.
Get over yourself I am not accusing you of being a closeted homosexual. By true nature I mean bigot.
If you agree to discriminate without seriously questioning why then yes you are a puppet.
I'm glad that I could finally get a straight answer out of you.
As Data Cable pointed out, you are contradicting yourself in terms of choice. Your problem is that you are working on outdated and way over simplified gender roles. Do you actually believe everybody acts the way you say they do? Not all men fulfill masculine roles and not all women fulfill feminine roles. Two genders aren't "complimentary" as you say they are. It's much more complicated than that. Two people can be complimentary, but a man and a women won't necessarily compliment each other. Then you contradict yourself again by saying that homosexuals are cheating by getting sexual gratification without dealing the the complications of the other gender. I thought you said the two were complimentary. Either way, do you actually think all people get along best with their own gender? I can say from personal experience that I get along better and have had more female friends than male friends. Oh wait, or is that just me being "complimentary" to them? Your view makes no sense because it selectively and arbitrarily decides that people sometimes get along better with their own gender sometimes better with the opposite.
This is a subjective world we live in. You cannot objectively say with any authority that any other person besides yourself is a certain way or not. Predetermined gender roles are a thing of the past.
No, but assuming the entire human race has to bow to your religious viewpoint is completely invalid.
You are still dodging the issue. Please forget about the external problems you dreamed up, this is a hypothetical question. Let's say in this scenario the transplanted people had no problems functioning in their new body. Would you have a problem with two men getting married if one of them had the brain of a straight woman, and would you have a problem with a man and a woman getting married if the woman had the brain of a gay man? Answer the question.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 20, 2007 18:18:05 GMT -4
Wow. What a debate this is! Funny how something so simple can get so complicated huh? Jason seems to be against homosexuals marrying because in his religion it is a sin. There are millions more that would hold this opinion because of the same reason. If anyone's religion finds that homosexuality is sinful, usually they do too. However, I find that in real life some people do not agree 100% with what their religion says. Sometimes that makes them heretical, sometimes not. What I would hope is that if someones heart/soul/common sense tells them that a part of their belief system is wrong, that they are strong enough to stand up to their church. Never assume that just because you've been taught (or trained) all your life that something is right or wrong, that it was necessarily true. I'm wondering if Jason ever felt that everything the church taught him was absolutely true. Did he ever question what the leaders said? Sometimes you have to take a slightly different path when necessary because your soul demands it. Growing up in the 60's as a Catholic, we could commit little sins or big sins or sins that fell in the middle. But all could be forgiven by confession to a priest. That seems so weird to me now. I hope my thinking is clearer today.
|
|
|
Post by wingerii on Jun 20, 2007 18:52:23 GMT -4
Are you sure? The taxes and stock market bit is unlikely, but I'm not sure you can say that nothing bad will happen.
Same-sex marriage has been legal here in Ontario since 2003, and the Canadian Civil Marriage Act became law on July 20, 2005. A motion by the new Conservative government to re-open the issue was quickly and quietly defeated on December 6, 2006.
I defy you to find any way in which Canadian society has been adversely affected by these laws (quantifiable, please), and please spare me any "degradation of moral standards" claptrap; Pope Benedict already covered that quite nicely.
(Needless to say, I voted "yes")
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 20, 2007 18:52:39 GMT -4
Actually, marriage is not restricted to one definition. From dictionary.com: I'm well aware of the dictionary definitions. When I'm talking about what marriage is I'm not talking about the dictionary definitions, which have in part been shaped by the gay marriage debate. Ah, insults. How do you know I didn't questino why? Because I ended up agreeing after all? It is complicated, as you say, but I stand by my assertion that the two genders are complimentary. I agree that not all men and women are necessarily compatible. That's not what I meant. They are complimentary but because they are different there are also complications in creating a lasting relationship. The two ideas are not exclusory. I disagree. I am not asking everyone else to adopt my viewpoint, I am merely explaining it. Again, if a hypothetical situation is too divorced from reality there is no longer any value in considering it. I did. I answered that both bodies and souls of the two genders must be present for a valid marriage, but the question is largely meaningless because the situation is impossible to begin with.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 20, 2007 19:00:27 GMT -4
What I would hope is that if someones heart/soul/common sense tells them that a part of their belief system is wrong, that they are strong enough to stand up to their church. My heart/soul/common sense tells me that this part of my belief system is correct. Yes I have. On several issues actually. Suffice it to say, whenever I have studied or prayed on such an issue I have eventually found an answer to my initial question, though some of them are complicated answers. If I had ever determined that the church was outright wrong on anything I consider important I would no longer be a member.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 20, 2007 19:08:57 GMT -4
Jason, is must be hard to defend your religious beliefs here all the time. I don't know if it is frustrating for you or if you enjoy it. If you are indeed a 'puppet' (meaning someone who blindly follows the leaders of their religion? Is that what it means?)...like I said , if you are a puppet then 90% of the world is made up of puppets. So you would have good company I suppose. At least you are open to discussing these issues, hopefully with an open mind... am I right? I can see however how some of your beliefs drive some people here crazy. Hey, if I was Catholic again and espoused on some of my beliefs I'm sure there would also be friction. And...are you basically getting the comments that you expected? Any surprises? Did you learn anything?
I remember in 1969 when I was eleven, asking the parish priest if it was okay to wear bellbottoms to church!
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 20, 2007 19:27:09 GMT -4
If they have enough for surgery to correct the problem then they can usually also identify the person's true gender, as i understand it. I was unaware that the current state of medical science was capable of determining the gender of a soul. Then again, I was unaware that a soul even had a gender until you brought it up. So the next logical question is, how does one determine that an apparently "normal" body is not in fact "imperfect", in that the physical gender does not match that of the soul?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 20, 2007 21:05:54 GMT -4
Now if you want to argue that it's a privilege that should be given to anyone what wants it, that's fine, but in doing so you have to argue for all forms of non-allowed marriage as it currently stands, not just one form (i.e. polygamy, incest and so forth.) Otherwise all you are doing is upholding other forms of discrimination in a "basic human right". I am really surprised at your failed reasoning here, Phantomwolf. This same "excuse" was used to argue against mixed race marriages. You might have to explain further here. Are you saying that Marriage is a basic human right even though those involved have to meet certain requirements and get a licence? If so, please provide any other example of a basic human right which has conditions and licences attached to it. In the matter of mixed race marriages it was a case of society changing the requirements of the licence, and in this case it might be another case of that, but unless you want to argue that anyone, including sibblings and mutliple partners can get married as a right, then is is not a basic human right and never will be. Having said that, it's up to society as a whole to decide who the licences should be allowed to based on the criteria that society sets. If that criteria includes same sex, then best of luck to them. If it doesn't then there are other, often better ways to get around it. Now I have to admit I don't know whatbenefits there are in the US for being Married. I do know that here there aren't any, so here is doesn't matter if you have a piece of paper in your hand or not. If that is different in the US then fair enough that it might be easier to deal with changing the marriage criteia than implymenting protectional laws to bring non-married relationships to an equal of marriage, but in the end, I do think that the second is the better option all around as it benefits a lot more people If this is flawed reasoning, you better explain why.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 20, 2007 23:44:13 GMT -4
You may not like it, Jason, but you are a bigot. You are trying to use your own personal prejudices to justify treating literally millions of people just in this country differently. You've accused gay people of being mentally ill despite the fact that the medical community took it off the list of mental illnesses decades ago. (And, yes, I do consider those who thought it then to have been bigots as well; thank you for asking.) You've accused them of being subconcious liars. You have strongly implied that they shouldn't be allowed to raise children.
Tell me, in fact--do you believe that gay people should be eliminated from consideration for certain jobs? If so, which and on what grounds? Do you have evidence to back up your suppositions on the subject?
Lionking, you're a bigot, too, I'm afraid. You hold very prejudiced attitudes as to what gay people are like and what the children of gay people are like. Gay people are just as likely--more likely, in my experience--to avoid inflicting unwanted attention onto other people. I've only ever had one woman hit on me after I made it clear that I wasn't interested; I've lost count of how many men have done it. Further, not all children, biological or adopted, of gay people are gay themselves.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jun 21, 2007 5:17:00 GMT -4
I am not asking everyone else to adopt my viewpoint, I am merely explaining it. It may be better to avoid formulations like: "I may have said in the past that sex without marriage is immoral. Well, it is, there's no getting around that fact"then; the "immorality" may be your sincere opinion and the collective orthodoxy of your church, but that does not make it a fact.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 21, 2007 8:08:56 GMT -4
This is a non-issue where I live. Homosexuals here have the right to marry. For five years, now. People in Holland don't have themselves being lead that much by religion.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jun 21, 2007 9:28:33 GMT -4
it's up to society as a whole to decide who the licences should be allowed to based on the criteria that society sets. It's not a matter of if society decides to allow gay marriages, it's a matter of when. For the last few years, recognition of the hypocracy of not allowing gays to marry has been increasing almost geometrically. It is really only a matter of time before gay marriage become as "normal" as mixed race marriages. But don't take my word for it....just wait.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jun 21, 2007 11:04:29 GMT -4
children learn their behaviour from their parents. this is a psychological fact. A child from any sex should take specific characteristics from a female mother and a male father. A father treatment is different fro ma mother's, and bot hare needed for a child to grow up well. As for inflicting attention, I believe it is an instinct to try to capture , well, the "other" sex. having this "instinct" in them with no religious belief to set them straight, they will try to seduce people. something else about the army example: men have functions in society like protecting their family. women can't do the fight and can't usually do exhausting works that need moral and body strength. A homosexual can't do the expected role from them as they are..too morally fragile... I might have hearted their feelings I still laugh at that joke of homosexual in the religious jokes thread...
|
|