• Howdy! Welcome to our community of more than 130.000 members devoted to web hosting. This is a great place to get special offers from web hosts and post your own requests or ads. To start posting sign up here. Cheers! /Peo, FreeWebSpace.net
managed wordpress hosting

Hey, let's get married!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Archbob said:
I'm a Christian myself but I do think the state should legalize same-sex marriages because there's the clause of separation of church and state. The state is not there to represent the church. We have freedom of religion for a reason in this country. Just because you think something doesn't mean you can enforce it on others. Marriage by a clerk basically means you get a certificate that states you are married and you get legal benefits of being married. I do not see whats wrong with giving same sex couples the legal benefits.

However, a church should not recognize same-sex marriage and should be allow gay or lesbian couples to be wedded on church grounds because homosexuals are disdainful in the eyes of God.
As I've demonstrated, time and time again in the best interests of today's society it is right to legislate Marriage as a union between men and women.

Let me ask you something, if the options were:

a. Legally legislate marriage as being between any two persons over a certain age - including persons already married, persons who are blood related (eg siblings) and including between persons of the same sex.

or:

b. Legislate restrictions on Marriage.

Which are you going to choose?
 
Please stay on topic, we are discussing gay marriage in this thread. If you wish to start a discussion about sibling marriages for instance, create another thread to discuss that.
 
Peo said:
Please stay on topic, we are discussing gay marriage in this thread. If you wish to start a discussion about sibling marriages for instance, create another thread to discuss that.
It is on-topic. I'm asking if he wants there to be legislated restrictions on marriage or not - or if he wants marriage not to be legally recognized at all for that matter.
 
Well, that's not what we are discussing here. We are specificly discussing if gays should be allowed to marry. I think he has already answered that question very clearly. You are desperately trying to frame the issue into something else.
 
Peo said:
Well, that's not what we are discussing here. We are specificly discussing if gays should be allowed to marry. I think he has already answered that question very clearly. You are desperately trying to frame the issue into something else.
He's talking about legislation, and in particular marriage legislation. I asked him a specific question relating to that. You don't get more on-topic than that.
but I do think the state should legalize same-sex marriages because there's the clause of separation of church and state. The state is not there to represent the church. We have freedom of religion for a reason in this country. Just because you think something doesn't mean you can enforce it on others. Marriage by a clerk basically means you get a certificate that states you are married and you get legal benefits of being married. I do not see whats wrong with giving same sex couples the legal benefits.
You see he said he's in favour of said legislation but doesn't have a reason other than:

1. "The state is not there to represent the church."

That's a very shallow argument because all he hasn't said how the legislation is in the community's best interests, or why we would be better off with it. He's simply saying he disagrees with the restriction imposed on Marriage. All I asked is does he want there to be legal restrictions on Marriage, and does he want Marriage to be legally recognized - or does he want there to be no legal restrictions on Marriage - or possible no legal recognition at all. The ball is in his court. It's a legitimate question.

I've explained now, Peo, how this is fundamentally related to the topic-at-hand, and that it's a direct response to his post.
 
Peo said:
We are specificly discussing if gays should be allowed to marry.
Oh and to clarify, we have never been discussing that. Gays already are allowed to marry, just like any other person. And like everyone else they have to abide by the legal restrictions of marriage, which means they can marry members of the opposite sex.

What we are actually discussing is legally redefining the definition of marriage. This not about social injustice, or about a group not being privileged to rights that others enjoy, I've explained this.
 
We discuss gay marriage here, only you could misunderstand what I wrote.

He clearly stated that "I'm a Christian myself but I do think the state should legalize same-sex marriages because there's the clause of separation of church and state."

So, he has already answered your question regarding gays. If you want an answer to your question regarding other groups, please start a new thread about that.
 
All I was saying is that this is not a caged discussion. We are talking about the legal definition of Marriage, not what people are "allowed to do". The two are separate and very different. If you feel the need to split the thread then go ahead. But as you can clearly see I was discussing the topic - that is the legal definition of Marriage. I'm not taking it a "new direction", and I don't plan to discuss whether or not polygamous and incestuous marriages are OK or not.
 
Ok, I just thought I should clarify what this thread is about, since you went into other topics with your abc thing.

Again, we are talking about gay marriage in this thread and the fact that gays are now allowed to marry the person they love in The Netherlands, Belgium, Canada and shortly after this thread was started also in Spain.
 
The only real restriction on marriage(in terms of the state) should be two consenting adults(adulting being over 18 years of age or 21 years of age).
In terms of the state, there no real reason why it has to be a man and a women.

In terms of the church, its completely different
But the state is not there to represent the interests of the church.
 
Archbob I'm going to forget that you're American for a moment. Only because the way you think about your legal system can be very different to how others think about theirs.

Just because you can legally do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. But legislation is there to help society function. Now I live in Australia, and I'm proud to be an Australian. Recently Howard passed the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill that amended the Marriage Act 1961 to formally include the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. It also added formally that unions solemnised in foreign countries between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia.

Now The Greens and the Democrats both opposed the legislation - or at least some of their members did. But the Liberals, National and Labour all agreed on it - that's every major party in Australia.

You don't so-often see the parties cooperate like this. Why do we need the legislation? Well here's an example. In Australia Bigamy is a crime. However if Bob goes to a foreign country and marries two women at the same time, and brings them back to Australia, unfortunately we have no way of determining which Marriage to recognize and which not to - so we're basically forced to recognize both of them. It technically does not go against our definition of Marriage - but it would be a crime had it happened in Australia.

However, if Bob goes overseas and gets legally "married" to Steve and they come back, we are legally obligated not to recognize said union as a Marriage, because it goes against our definition of Marriage.

Bush, Blair and Howard all identify as Christian. They're not perfect, but they do their best. All three of them are opposed to allowing homosexuals unions to be recognized as Marriage.

The question you need to ask yourself before supporting legislation changing the definition of marriage is what does homosexuality share in common with heterosexuality? Because they're not the same - they're on opposite sides of the coin. And they're not equal.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that the penis fits the vagina. It's reproductive purpose is achieved only in heterosexual relationships. Sodomy is not the same or equal to heterosexual sex, neither is fellatio or cunnilingus. Sodomy is in fact extremely unhealthy, whereas heterosexual sex is healthy.

Men and women who have heterosexual relations are the natural biological parents of children.
 
Can I point out that heterosexuals also make use of the anal cavity?

Just thought I'd make that point clear before you start singling out homosexuals for being the only one doing that...like you would and I think have already done.

Regards,
 
I'm pretty sure that everyone is aware that there are "deviant" heterosexuals as well. Also, and I don't really know, but what I've heard is that there are many gay couples (men) that don't partake in sodomy at all.

But his point still stands that sodomy is not a "natural" act. Whereas vaginal intercourse is natural. And by extension, romantic homosexual relationships are not natural. And so it doesn't seem fitting to accept homosexual marriages as equal to heterosexual marriages if the relationships are not equal on a sexual level.

And I will add that I really consider myself an open person. I'm not homophobic in the least, and I have friends that are homosexual. It's just that like I said before, I think that more people should be accepting of the view that "It's okay to not accept homosexuality."
 
Last edited:
Yes, it's ok to not accept it on a personal level, but not accepting it is still recognizing it. By not allowing homosexuals to be married, society is not recognizing homosexuals as part of society. You can recognize without accepting, but you cannot accept without recognizing.

Regards,
 
Death Reaper said:
Can I point out that heterosexuals also make use of the anal cavity?
You most certainly can.

Now do you mind if I point out that homosexuals do not make use of vaginal sex?

Vaginal sex is the only form of sex with a purpose, it's also the only form of sex which is healthy. Now I know fellatio or cunnilingus is not overly unhealthy - I could point out that fellatio is known to increase the risk of cancer though. But that's not the point, the point is the only truly healthy form of sex is heterosexual vaginal sex.

On the other-hand though anal sex homosexual or heterosexual is very unhealthy. The body just is not built to take it. I'll finish this later, my mouse isn't working....
 
Meksilon said:
I'll finish this later, my mouse isn't working....
Unless you're using an on-screen keyboard, you have no reason to use a mouse to finish that off.

That has to be one of the worst excuses I've heard.
 
Meksilon said:
You most certainly can.

Now do you mind if I point out that homosexuals do not make use of vaginal sex?

Now that's just a LIE.

Male homosexuals may not...but I do believe that females do? No?

You are disproven on that one.

Regards,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top