Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

I read your initial post as "I don't like the idea of gay marriage, but I'm not in support of banning it." Is that what you meant?
Just curious.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I find Same sex marriage perfectly ok. I used to find it bad, but then i thought, wat if was the other way around? Wat if people found male with female wrong? Would you do it then?

_________________

If male and female were ever considered wrong, then the human race wouldn cease to exist.

_________________

Didymus, is on a roll.

_________________

I think what firemarc was meaning was essentially to put yourself in the other person's shoes: What if YOU were the one being denied rights simply because you happened to be of a sexual orientation that was a minority and seen by many as "wrong" or "unnatural"?

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

I think same-sex marriages are considered to be a major sin.

_________________
If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try again.

That's no reason to ban it, though, badri.

As a Christian, I will be judged for MY sins. If gay marriage is a sin, then the sinners will be judged accordingly. Besides, before I get all high and mighty, I've got my own sins to deal with. Somehow, a lot of people forget that..

Remember kids, when you point a finger, you've got 3 more pointing back at you.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Okay, but can you (or anyone else, for that matter) state any solid SECULAR argument as to why it should be banned, because that's what the law should be based on?

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

I'm not sure I believe that secular reason is required to be obvious for every commandment from God.

If you require that, you'll be at odds with religion sometimes.

_________________

I'm not requiring a secular reason to support the religious argument--I'm requiring a secular reason to write the law, since the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution says that "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion..." ...essentially meaning that you can't use a religious belief as the sole reason to write a law. There needs to be some sort of secular argument that holds water for it to be constitutional.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Excellent point. I'm with you there.

_________________

Bush doesn't have any sort of plan as to what to do to make Iraq stop going "BOOM" all the time, and it's really hurting his ratings that he looks like such a moron on the issue.
So he keeps mentioning "Gay Marriage" becasue it's an excelent way to distract you from all the dead bodies that keep piling up over there in Mess-O-Potania.
And that's all you need to know about Gay Marriage: It's a distraction from the real issues. Get over it.

_________________

I just hope that in 50 years everyone will be able to look back at this time in history when we were still debating this stuff and think, "what were we THINKING?"

Bush's plan

Try Googling "bush plan iraq" before commenting again.

Mindless Bush bashing drives me crazy.

_________________

Thank you, Lahi. I don't necessarily agree with everything Bush has done, but I do get tired of mindless bashing. And if we had a Democratic president, I'd feel basically the same.

_________________

That's a speach, it's not a plan. Outlining your intentions is not the same thing as presenting a plan.
Example:
I want to build a treehouse. It will be a great treehouse. I have no tools, no lumber, and no clue how to build a treehouse, but I think I can still insist that this treehouse will great me as a liberator.
There, that's a "plan" by your definition.
I hope you're crazy now. You deserve it.

_________________

Or you know, you could have read it...

"There are five steps in our plan to help Iraq achieve democracy and freedom. We will hand over authority to a sovereign Iraqi government, help establish security, continue rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, encourage more international support, and move toward a national election that will bring forward new leaders empowered by the Iraqi people."
Doesn't sound like a plan at all..

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

The sad thing is that you needed to point it out to him, StrongRad.

Sarge, you're just embarrassing yourself in your quest to make me crazy. I advise you to give it up.

_________________

It's nice that you guys are starting to get along... but please get back on topic. Remind me again what the Iraqi conflict has to do with same-sex marriages?

...

_________________

too true stu

(heh, that rhymes)

*TOASTPAINT GUYS*

Here's what I think. Marriage is a religious tradition. Therefore, it borderlines that church and state seperation so I don't believe the federal government should be poking around with that. Issues like that should be a state decision. That's my opinion right there.

As for if I think the marriage should take place at all, I think it is only fair that there be some way of recognizing love between two people of any orientation. Marriage is the only thing out there right now that does that. It is the ultimate promise of devotion. Granted, marriage has always been a tradition reserved solely for heterosexual couples but if you think about it only in the last century has homosexuality begun to sort of get accepted (sadly it still isn't) but we are a much more open minded society than we once were. And as such, we need to move forward. Change is inevitable and generally good. The only bad things that comes from gay marriages come from the people protesting it.

Also, if you are married by a judge, how is that sinful against a religion? My parents were married by a judge.

Just some ideas.

_________________
I draw. Lots.

Bush uses Gay Mariage to distract you from what's going on in Iraq. Or, at least, that's his intention.
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/gaymarriage.html

_________________

Even if that were the case (which is debatable to the point that I don't think anyone can truthfully say that except for Mr. Bush himself, since it's allegedly all going on in his head), it still does nothing for the argument at hand: Should gay marriage be legalized? Why or why not?

I challenge anyone to provide a solid secular reason as to why there should be a ban on gay marriages. If you believe it to be sinful for religious reasons, that's fine and dandy, and it's totally within your rights as a citizen of America and as a human being in general to believe that; however, being an issue of law in a country that practices a seperation of church and state, all religious arguments are essentially cannon fodder because they do nothing to answer the debate of the law itself. If anyone wishes for their interpretation of the Bible to be governmental law, then I suggest they join with the Christian Exodus, which has a greater chance of forming their own country independent of America where their wishes come true than for their first plan (enough conservative-minded Christian voters to select like-minded representatives in a specific area of the USA to influence more Christian-based laws for the country) to succeed.

So, now that that's aside, my challenge still stands: Are there any legitimate, solid secular reasons as to why gay marriage should be banned, whether on a federal or state level?

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Okay, how about here?

Ignore the first blog entry and read the next two.

_________________

I'm not convinced that any argument against gay marriage has to be completely secular, for the simple reason that marriage, as it is conducted in the United States, is not a purely secular institution. I'll give you a perfect example of what I mean: as a minister, I am authorized by the state of Mississippi to conduct weddings, and yet, my authority to do so is entirely founded on the fact that I am a clergyman, a religious office. If separation of church and state were practiced as strictly as you propose, then I should have no such authority.

And furthermore, anyone coming to me for marriage will do so under a biblical definition of marriage, not a secular one, or I will not conduct it.

_________________

A secular one?

I'm very sorry for asking, but what do you mean be secular? Do you mean by the laws of the Lord?

Nobody is going to force you to conduct marriages you don't want to conduct. As a provider a service (and by service I mean the commercial conotation of the word, as opposed to the religious ritual conotation) you can, like any other service provider, reserve the right to deny service to anyone you choose. Don't like the color of their hair? Been feeling a bit down on left-handed one-eyed eskimos? Then no service for them! Any time you want to, you can be like the Soup Nazi, only you don't serve soup.
Just becasue something is legal doesn't mean that you must sell it to anyone who wants it. Look at Microsoft. Lots of people want their source code, but they won't show it with anyone unless the Justice Department or the DOD orders it.
Oh, and it's nice that you think that your status as Clergy makes you authorised to conduct wedding, but the State of Mississippi begs to differ. Well, not so much begs as legislates, you see. Your authority to conduct weddings derives from the State, but your authority to conduct such weddings in your church dervies from your church. If the state didn't licence you to conduct wedding in the first place, your church-borne authority would be moot since none of the wedding would would perform would be legal.
So you can say "My authority to <conduct weddings> is entirely founded on the fact that I am a clergyman" all you want, but really we both know that your wedding-conducting authority is founded upon a licence that the state granted to you when you applied for one. You probably had to pay for that licence as well, or pay some sort of fee to have it renewed. That being the case, money was the means by which you aquired your marriage-granting powers.
/sarcasm
The State!
Legislation
Money!
A licence!
It's just so Religious in nature!
/end sarcasm

_________________

Um, have you even read the comments on those two entries? You know, the comments that completely remove all credibility from these arguments?

_________________
So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil? Do you think you can tell?

well no one can force you to perform a marriage... i would have no issues with it being a decision left up to the churches and... um... church people that do the marrying stuff seperately, and can't speak for them... but in the cases of getting married by a judge, i think that it should be legal.

what i'm saying is it should be the churches decisions whether they are gonna allow marriages like that in their church, but if a church won't marry someone then they should be able to get married by a judge. that's not infringing on anyone's beliefs. if you think it is a sin then it's those people's problem and not yours that they are getting condemned if that is what you believe. personally i think it's ridiculous that some people look at gay relationships as sinful, but hey... religion is not about making sense. neither is politics

_________________
I draw. Lots.

But a secular law that opens up the possibility for gays to marry wouldn't require you as a minister to marry anyone you or your church did not see fit to marry--there are always courthouses for people to get married in.

As for what lahi linked to...long read, but there are some fundamental flaws in their thinking, I believe:

The articles essentially state that it is impossible for people in group marriages to appreciate the total love and devotion that is common (or perhaps not-so-common anymore in America) in monogamous marriages. I find this to be untrue, since I think that love is more profoundly complex than to say that it can only happen totally between two people. And since they seem to believe in such a strong link between same-sex marriage and polygamy, I must further state that just because they tested some couples in Vermont doesn't mean that all same-sex couples have such attitudes towards infidelity or polygamous relationships.

There was a lot of talk of the "breakdown of marriage" in Scandanavia, but the articles refused to discuss the institution of marriage in the other Nordic countries where it has been legalized, such as Denmark. Denmark has had it around the longest--since 1989--and reports from that country state that many people--including religious clergymen who once were against it--see that same-sex marriages have actually BENEFITED the institution of marriage for both homosexual AND heterosexual couples. They have seen a decline in infidelity, a decline in the spread of STDs, and a decline in suicides throughout the country. In Scandanavia, professors linked the decline of marriage and parenthood directly to same-sex marriage being legalized, threatening that the same would occur here in America. However, our two countries are different, and I'm sure that there is a much more complex web of sociological structure at play in such a decline than just same-sex marriage (if it was truly a contributing factor at all).

Also, arguments against parenting skills are dubious, since there are reports to say that same-sex couples here in America have no adverse effects on the children they raise; in fact, many studies state that it is not the issue of the gender of each parent, but rather the love and proper attention and care they provide for the child.

Their concern is protecting the traditional views of marriage, their main reasons being for the issue of mental and social health for all parties involved--spouses and children. However, the evidence is dubious and the results highly debatable. If gay couples have mental or social problems whilst in a relationship, it is either a) for the same reasons that strained heterosexual couples have problems or b) they are still having people lash out in prejudice against them, causing them to be stressed about their lives. You'd be stressed, too, if you wanted to be with someone you loved more than life itself but had so much of your society telling you that you "not allowed" to love that person that way.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

People that claim that Marriage is the foundation of society conviently ignore something that is so glaring that I think it deserves greater scrutiny:
If marriage is so great, why do you want to not allow the Gays to have it? Wouldn't we all be better off if they had marriage too? If it's some sort of magical, wonderfull, fantaabulously funderfull fondation of society, yet you think the Gays shouldn't have it becasue... what? You want then to contribute to the downfall of society? This is all a secret plan to create a sub-class of pseudo-married gays? WTF?

_________________