Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Same-Sex Marriages
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=647		 Page 22 of 23
Author:  furrykef [ Thu Aug 31, 2006 3:14 am ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
Actually, legally or otherwise, it IS God's place to determine what marriage is. His authority supercedes any earthly authority. My point is, legislation cannot change what marriage actually is.


And my point is that whatever God says does not belong in United States law. It's not even relevant.

- Kef
Author:  What's Her Face [ Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
As a firm Church/State separatist, I say: Agree'd with kef. And if you want to know why I support the separation of Church and State, my answer would be that I was born in Catholic Ireland. That should be answer enough. I don't ever want to live in the same theocratic culture in which my parents were raised.

Freedom of religion = very yes. Theocracy = very no.
Author:  Didymus [ Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm not proposing theocracy (at least not the type of theocracy that is often imposed by fallen sinful men, who would use the name of God to justify their tyranny, such as under the medieval papacy or under modern day Saudi Arabia).

However, I am proposing that I, as a free citizen who lives under a representational form of government, have the right to allow my religious convictions to shape my political views, and to support candidates and policies based on those views. In other words, I will not allow anyone to claim that my political views ought to be excludes purely on the basis that they have religious foundation. That is not fair to me.

I have already discussed why I believe as I do concerning this issue, and why I cannot and will not support gay marriage, either religiously or politically. Religiously, I will never acknowledge or support gay marriage, regardless of legislation attempts to redefine the term. Politically, I will never agree that my voice ought to be excluded simply on the basis that my views are based on my religion. That is where I stand.
Author:  What's Her Face [ Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:58 pm ]
Post subject: 
Yeah, I'll agree with most of that. Well, not agree as such, but you know. But just one thing.....

Didymus wrote:
Politically, I will never agree that my voice ought to be excluded simply on the basis that my views are based on my religion. That is where I stand.


It shouldn't be excluded, certainly, and no one's saying that it should. But your views should be only be made into law if that is what's best for the whole. You know yourself that it's impossible to always get what you want in politics, no matter what your stance is.

Well, unless your name is Joseph Stalin. Now there's a man who knows How to Win Friends and Influence People. ;)
Author:  furrykef [ Fri Sep 01, 2006 12:36 am ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
In other words, I will not allow anyone to claim that my political views ought to be excludes purely on the basis that they have religious foundation. That is not fair to me.


I understand your argument. But certainly you realize that my views are the other side of that coin? That mine should not be excluded purely on the basis that they contradict a religion?

Sometimes, being fair is impossible. I think, in the United States, the proper action for such situations is to choose the one that grants the most freedom. After all, our nation is built upon freedom, much more than it is upon religion. Obviously, "marriage = one man + one woman" restricts freedom: the freedom to marry somebody of the same sex (regardless of whether or not you really consider that to be marriage -- the law has to respect opinions other than your own). On the other hand, I've yet to see how same-sex marriages could infringe upon the rights of people who aren't even involved in said marriages.

- Kef
Author:  ed 'lim' smilde [ Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
But isn't "marriage = one person + one person" still restricting some freedom?
Author:  StrongRad [ Mon Sep 04, 2006 10:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
ed 'lim' smilde wrote:
But isn't "marriage = one person + one person" still restricting some freedom?

Ok, I'll bite.
Yeah, it does.

Simply put, it's telling people how to live, based on how others think they should live. Of course, given human nature towards jealousy, polygamy could be a pain in the butt.
Author:  furrykef [ Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
Hey, I'm in favor of polygamy, too. *shrug* But there isn't such a big demand for that now, I guess.

- Kef
Author:  Atresac [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 3:43 am ]
Post subject: 
I know that this topic is very old, but I was going to make one with this subject and wanted to make sure no one has done it... but they did... so let me take a crack at it.

Personally I am all for homosexual marriage. I see no real problem with it, at all. I mean, what is really so bad about two people getting married? I feel that if they love each other enough to want to be married, they should be allowed to.

A common reason against it is that a homosexual couple can not produce children, however this brings into question all the couples that have a partner who can not have kids. If a woman is infertile should she not get married? If a man is a eunich (sp) should he not be married? I don't think anyone really has the right to put a limit on who you can love.

Just felt like saying that. Blah.
Author:  Didymus [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 6:10 pm ]
Post subject: 
My response is - and always has been - that it cannot rightly be called a marriage. For thousands of years, and pretty much universally across cultures, marriage has been between a man and a woman. And, as one who has been placed in a position to conduct these unions, I cannot in good conscience support such a radical redefinition. Granted, my thoughts are primarily informed by my theology; nevertheless, I'm not going to ignore my theology for the sake of convenience.

Quote:
I don't think anyone really has the right to put a limit on who you can love.

That's a nice sentiment, but I don't think a valid argument for your point. After all, I love my mother, but I'm not going to run out and marry her anytime soon.
Author:  PianoManGidley [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 7:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
Quote:
I don't think anyone really has the right to put a limit on who you can love.

That's a nice sentiment, but I don't think a valid argument for your point. After all, I love my mother, but I'm not going to run out and marry her anytime soon.


But surely you understand the many different varieties and degrees of love. If two adults are truly IN LOVE with each other, feeling that romantic bond that produces only positive effects, then who are you to say that such a relationship based on such profound and earnest romantic love is wrong simply because the two people happen to have the same reproductive organs?
Author:  lahimatoa [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 7:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
So PianoMan, are you interested in obtaining all the rights a married couple has today, or do you want the right call a relationship you may have with another man as a marriage?

In other words, is it about the title, or the law?
Author:  PianoManGidley [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 8:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
lahimatoa wrote:
So PianoMan, are you interested in obtaining all the rights a married couple has today, or do you want the right call a relationship you may have with another man as a marriage?

In other words, is it about the title, or the law?


For me, it's really about the law. I'd be fine with civil unions, as long as the laws granted and recognized by the government are the same. There's still the underlying social issue of the term "marriage" itself, and whether or not it wholly belongs to religious institutions...but for the time being, I think the biggest hurdle and main focus should be granting equal legal rights and protections.
Author:  Simon Zeno [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 8:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
An issue like this is one of the reasons why democracy sometimes fails. Homosexuals are a minority, in the sense that there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals. But the issue of same-sex marriage only pertains to that minority. I fail to see how the unaffected majority should have any say in the affairs of the minority.
Author:  ed 'lim' smilde [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 8:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
Simon Zeno wrote:
I fail to see how the unaffected majority should have any say in the affairs of the minority.
That happens all the time. 1,057 people have been executed in United States history (and about 3000 more are on death row, meaning capital punishment has affected about 4000 people total), yet people still argue over the death penalty.
Author:  Simon Zeno [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:04 pm ]
Post subject: 
I would say that capital punishment most certainly affects those who aren't on death row. For instance, the cost, which comes out of taxpayers' pockets. Also, if someone is put to death, then later is found to be innocent, nothing meaningful can be done. But if a man gets married to another man, then finds out that he isn't gay, he can get a divorce or whatever. The two are in no way the same situation.

Anyways, I was more making a point on the stupidity of the entire conflict, as opposed to making an actual argument.
Author:  Goatface [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:12 pm ]
Post subject: 
Simon Zeno wrote:
An issue like this is one of the reasons why democracy sometimes fails. Homosexuals are a minority, in the sense that there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals. But the issue of same-sex marriage only pertains to that minority. I fail to see how the unaffected majority should have any say in the affairs of the minority


Exactly. I'm all for homosexual marriage. If they're truly in love, and it doesn't affect the heterosexual majority at all, what do you care? The nation is not going to crumble just because people of the same sex become partners. I think it's ridiculous that anybody in this country would consider homosexual marriage a threat.
Author:  Beyond the Grave [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
Goatface wrote:
I think it's ridiculous that anybody in this country would consider homosexual marriage a threat.
That's the Christian Right, folks. They are a group of people who should not be allowed in government.
Author:  StrongRad [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
Beyond the Grave wrote:
Goatface wrote:
I think it's ridiculous that anybody in this country would consider homosexual marriage a threat.
That's the Christian Right, folks. They are a group of people who should not be allowed in government.

So, you're saying that a group should be excluded from government participation because of their religion?

1st Amendment, anyone?


That's really how your post reads. I know you're not that far gone.. Are you?

As a member of the so-called "Christian Right", I take offense to that. As a member of the so-called "Christian Right" that is apathetic with regards to gay marriage, I also disprove the "Christians want to keep gays from being married!" myth, too.
Author:  Beyond the Grave [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
StrongRad wrote:
1st Amendment, anyone?
Separation of Church and State Clause, anyone?
Author:  StrongRad [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
Beyond the Grave wrote:
StrongRad wrote:
1st Amendment, anyone?
Separation of Church and State Clause, anyone?

No such clause actually exists..

All it says is that the government can't control religion..

However, when the two get intertwined, the Church usually comes out on the losing end.
Author:  furrykef [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:13 pm ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
My response is - and always has been - that it cannot rightly be called a marriage. For thousands of years, and pretty much universally across cultures, marriage has been between a man and a woman. And, as one who has been placed in a position to conduct these unions, I cannot in good conscience support such a radical redefinition.


How about eliminating the entire idea of "marriage" from the law, generalizing it to "civil unions" for homosexuals and heterosexuals alike? It can still be called a "marriage", of course, but the word would have no legal meaning.

Heh, I (or somebody else) probably had proposed this idea already, but if I did, I forgot the result.

- Kef
Author:  StrongRad [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
furrykef wrote:
Didymus wrote:
My response is - and always has been - that it cannot rightly be called a marriage. For thousands of years, and pretty much universally across cultures, marriage has been between a man and a woman. And, as one who has been placed in a position to conduct these unions, I cannot in good conscience support such a radical redefinition.


How about eliminating the entire idea of "marriage" from the law, generalizing it to "civil unions" for homosexuals and heterosexuals alike? It can still be called a "marriage", of course, but the word would have no legal meaning.

Heh, I (or somebody else) probably had proposed this idea already, but if I did, I forgot the result.

- Kef

I've often wondered the same thing, Kef. Of course "civil union" versus "marriage" if they are defining the same thing under law would probably be viewed as a purely semantic thing.

Either that, or the argument of "If the government doesn't regulate marriage, then people would be marrying animals, siblings, parents, children, etc.." is likely to come up.
Author:  J-Man [ Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:02 am ]
Post subject: 
I'm heterosexual and I don't see any reason why gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married.
I don't see anything ethically or morally wrong about it. It's really their life and they should be allowed to do the same things other people are allowed to. It's not like it's the end of the human race or anything.
Author:  lahimatoa [ Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:30 am ]
Post subject: 
So if the US was run according to BTG, he'd exclude people from public office based on their religious beliefs.

Well that does it, I'm not voting for him for Dictator for Life anymore.
Author:  Atresac [ Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:58 am ]
Post subject: 
furrykef wrote:
Didymus wrote:
My response is - and always has been - that it cannot rightly be called a marriage. For thousands of years, and pretty much universally across cultures, marriage has been between a man and a woman. And, as one who has been placed in a position to conduct these unions, I cannot in good conscience support such a radical redefinition.


How about eliminating the entire idea of "marriage" from the law, generalizing it to "civil unions" for homosexuals and heterosexuals alike? It can still be called a "marriage", of course, but the word would have no legal meaning.

Heh, I (or somebody else) probably had proposed this idea already, but if I did, I forgot the result.

- Kef


I like the idea, but I think it should remain "marriage". If you call it a civil union it would be similar to the thing after the slaves were freed with the whole separate but equal thing.
Author:  furrykef [ Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:07 am ]
Post subject: 
Atresac wrote:
I like the idea, but I think it should remain "marriage". If you call it a civil union it would be similar to the thing after the slaves were freed with the whole separate but equal thing.


I don't see how. Calling a heterosexual relationship "marriage" and a homosexual one "civil union" would be "separate but equal", but calling them both "civil union" sounds genuinely equal to me.

- Kef
Author:  Atresac [ Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:13 am ]
Post subject: 
furrykef wrote:
Atresac wrote:
I like the idea, but I think it should remain "marriage". If you call it a civil union it would be similar to the thing after the slaves were freed with the whole separate but equal thing.


I don't see how. Calling a heterosexual relationship "marriage" and a homosexual one "civil union" would be "separate but equal", but calling them both "civil union" sounds genuinely equal to me.

- Kef


I worded that wrong, my bad, I meant if you call the heterosexual one marriage and the homosexual one a civil union then it would be.. yeah

my bad.

I agree with ya
Author:  Beyond the Grave [ Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:04 am ]
Post subject: 
lahimatoa wrote:
So if the US was run according to BTG, he'd exclude people from public office based on their religious beliefs.

Well that does it, I'm not voting for him for Dictator for Life anymore.
No, I would just make sure that there is a clause that keeps religion out of politics.


TOASTPAINT
Author:  StrongRad [ Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:14 am ]
Post subject: 
Beyond the Grave wrote:
lahimatoa wrote:
So if the US was run according to BTG, he'd exclude people from public office based on their religious beliefs.

Well that does it, I'm not voting for him for Dictator for Life anymore.
No, I would just make sure that there is a clause that keeps religion out of politics.


TOASTPAINT

But you aren't, and there isn't.

It's really annoying when you fire a shot, then say "toastpaint" in an attempt to get the last word in. You're more grown up than that, aren't you?

Many good laws were pushed through by religious types.

A gay marriage "ban", as "allowed" by Hillary Clinton* would be one in which states decide whether or not to allow marriage between members of the same sex. The states would, more than likely, decide by allowing their people to vote. If a majority of the people in that state don't want gay marriage, then that state will ban it. It's not about religion, it's about the desires of the majority. It should be noted that not EVERYONE opposed to gay marriage is Christian, and not all Christians are totally opposed to gay marriage.

Personally, I would like to see an abolishment of "marriage" as recognized by the government, recognizing civil unions. Leave "marriage" up to the Church.

Since that's not going to happen, though, I suppose the "let the people decide" idea is a good one, but I'd take it one step further and allow votes on the issue every 4 or 8 years in case populations or opinions change.

*Hillary doesn't support banning gay marriage, she does, however believe it is an issue best left up to the states.
Page 22 of 23 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/