ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 6:16 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 3:31 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 11:08 pm
Posts: 2115
Location: Lair of the Internet Anti-Hero
Hasufin wrote:
Forevergrey wrote:
So, you lost your point, so your trying to sidetrack us with crap that doesnt have anything to do with what we were discussing, which was your inane claim that marriage is litrally thousands of years older than modern religions.

Admit it.

You Lost.
What, is this your only tactic? Insult twice and then claim victory without having addressed any of the points made?


Now, according to Jewish tradition, Abraham was born.... blah blah blah...
Image

I sure do love smokescreens


I love them too, only not in debating.

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/B/believeitornot/originshindu.html wrote:
Hinduism has evolved from a mixture of beliefs practised by people living along the river Indus in India and Pakistan from as far back as 7,000BC


This alone saves me the bother of argueing that Abraham only brought in the 'Religionanity' of Jedaism, while the belief in 'Jehovah' or whatever other name you wish to attach to God was around since the the creation of man... if your a believer.

But I can dodge all that. Hinduism is practiced today and its older than your pyramids by a good few thousand years old. Advantage = Me.
Now can you FINALLY conceed your point and return to the topic with less of a focus on outragous statements?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:23 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 3:21 pm
Posts: 1366
Location: nowhere near the damned sacred rainbow ... U.S.
Now I have nothing against gays, though I do find the act repulsive. This isn't because I'm racist or sexist or a million other -ists that people love pointing out to others. It's because I've been brought up knowing that a man marries a woman, and a woman marries a man. And what makes this problem horribly debatable ... is that I'm far from the only one.

Alright .. you might be able to say that there has been a point in which marriage has not been affiliated with religion a whole hell of a long time ago, but today, it definitely is. At least for most people. Marriage is commonly held in churches .. churches that practice a religion that speaks out against homosexuality. We may try to have everything else separated from religion, yet I've never heard of any problems with religion in churches and their ceremonies until the gay debate.

It's too bad that gay marriage is spoken out against by the same churches that hold our marriage ceremonies. If it wasn't ... there wouldn't be much of a problem .. well for me, anyway.

_________________
::darksetyuna gets the Yevaud333 Chronomantic Seal of Approval for Funny-@$$ $#�+::

/me basks

<a href="http://darksetyuna.modblog.com">Who says computer doesn't taste like meat!?!</a>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:48 pm 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 139
http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/B/believeitornot/originshindu.html wrote:
Hinduism has evolved from a mixture of beliefs practised by people living along the river Indus in India and Pakistan from as far back as 7,000BC. The Hinduism of today took shape during the second millennium BC, when the Aryan people, a nomadic tribe from the Baltic region, arrived in India.
'bout those smokescreens... "2nd millennium BC" isn't that contemporary with Judaism?

But that's besides the point. Would you care to consult with Hindu leaders on what is and is not marriage? No? Then why should I accept a Christian concept of marriage? Or a Muslim concept? I know! Let's say that you can only marry if you pay a bride price in cattle!

As darksetyuna mentions, marriage is commonly held in churches. But, to the best of my knowledge, no homosexual couple is suing to be able to get married in a church. They're after the legal institution of marriage - the exact same secular option as is already open to one and all heterosexual couples regardless of religion.

That's the thing - I have heard no argument against gay marriage that was not tied into religion - and religion should not be a valid argument in regards to a legal agreement.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 5:46 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
This just in from the loony left:

I'm for gay civil unions, but I don't think the government has the right to call them marriages. But then, I don't think they have the right to call heterosexual unions marriages either. Marriage is ultimately a private (though not always religious) institution, originally designed to make procreation and child-rearing easier, but now tied in with modern notions of romantic love (romantic love, in the way we understand it today, has only been around since the Renaissance or so). Marriage is, IMO, an utterly idiotic institution and a throwback to the middle ages. I have no problem with monogramy per se, I just think that institutionalizing and ceremonializing it as happens in marriage is idiotic. The government should have nothing to do with such nonsense. Depending on who you ask, Marriage is about procreation, sexual intercourse, or love. Why should the government get involved in the regulation of any of these things?

Civil unions, on the other hand, the government does have a say in, because civil unions change the legal status of the two people entering into it, financially, inheritance wise, etc. I believe any legal recognition of marriage per se is unnecessary. People who want to undergo the traditional ceremony of marriage should be able to use the legal institution of civil unions, but so should, say, two very good Platonic friends, or two sisters who have lived together their whole life. Hell, I think civil union should be able to be applied to more than one person. In that case, members of religious orders, for example, could enter into one big collective civil union with each other.

My point is that it's not the job of the government to interfere in romantic and/or erotic relationships in any way. People involved in romantic relationships should have the option of legally and financially uniting in a special way, but so should anyone else who wishes to. And if they want to call their civil union a marriage, and go through the traditional ceremonies associated with marriage, who the fuck cares? Legally, however, they should be no different than two people entering into a very close business partership.

On an unrelated note, someone brought up an interesting (though ultimately irrelevant) point in a class I took today, when we were discussing gay marriage. Gay people and straight people actually have the exact same rights vis-a-vis marriage. A straight person has just as little right to marry someone of their own gender as a gay person, and a gay person has just as much of a right to marry a person of a different gender as a straight person. So it's not a question of a certain group of people being treated differently than another group, but of a certain behavior being treated differently than another sort of behavior.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 6:28 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 6:38 pm
Posts: 3148
Location: Gay bar at the end of the universe
It doesn't fucking matter. Let people screw/marry/sodomize/spank whatever the hell they want so long as all parties involved consent.

If you can find a secular reason why homosexual marriages will not benefit the nation then that is great but so far no one has put up anything more serious than Slippery Slope fallacies and spewing of unsupported and apparently baseless relgious ideologies.

Shut the fuck up and let the fags get married.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 6:54 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2003 7:12 pm
Posts: 731
Location: Central Coast, Colanirfia
Interesting ideas Icy, but what you're saying is basically giving people who want to "marry" free benefits. This will ineitably lead to a whole lot of shady tax evasions, custody issues (hey, the parents are "married" to my church, and so am I, why can't I have the kid?), etc.

The solution is to ban public marriages; then you can't say anyone's being discriminated against, there are little religious/philosophical issues, and no chance of abuse by legal whizzes. The problem is that a whole new can of worms is opened up, particularly in the "Hey, I'm just her baby daddy, marriage was outlawed years ago, screw you!" variety. One solution to that might be state care for all children and higher taxes, or a better way of making absentee fathers pay, but there remain problems. Society would have to go through great changes to get to a point where it could accept a marriae free government.

Bottom line: We're gonna have discrimination against gays, abuse by law whizzes, or rampant abandonment of relationships and (likely) children. It's a tough choice.

_________________
Quote:
"In real life, you don' have a Subterfuge skill above one." - Phill
"What?! You spent THREE YEARS believing that I didn't masturbate!" - Steven


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2004 7:58 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:33 am
Posts: 187
Location: Undisclosed at this time.
darksetyuna wrote:
It's too bad that gay marriage is spoken out against by the same churches that hold our marriage ceremonies. If it wasn't ... there wouldn't be much of a problem .. well for me, anyway.


Then dont hold the damn marriages in churches, then. The church is a private institution and can do what it likes. But what you are basicly saying is "Because SOME marriages are performed in SOME churches that dislike homosexuality, the term of marriage cannot be applied to gay people".

And the name IS important. Equal rights need to be had right from the start, not this segregated "We'll have our marriages, you folk have your version of them". Id have thought we'd have learned to avoid that shit with the racial and gender equality issues we'd had in the past. We probably will have this again when transvestites demand the right to change their birth certificates or something.

And Lucus, we do not need to ban marriages to prevent discrimination. I think that you are taking that argument way too far.

_________________
I came to see the CIRCUS, not some half dressed tart spouting dire warnings. -BG2, Shadows of Amn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2004 9:11 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 3:21 pm
Posts: 1366
Location: nowhere near the damned sacred rainbow ... U.S.
Quote:
Then dont hold the damn marriages in churches, then.


No .. see .. marriage itself is a ceremony affiliated with religion. Marriage outside of a church is a technical thing called elopement (marrying without a church figure to guide the couple through the ceremony), or Elvis with a bible.

I think that's what the gays are trying to avoid.

_________________
::darksetyuna gets the Yevaud333 Chronomantic Seal of Approval for Funny-@$$ $#�+::

/me basks

<a href="http://darksetyuna.modblog.com">Who says computer doesn't taste like meat!?!</a>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2004 10:26 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 2:17 pm
Posts: 5983
Location: Around about there.
Hey, why don't we ban marriage and put the children under the care of the state?
After you sift out the communist ramble Kollontai did make a bit of sense with regards to eliminating marriage in the western sense in her Theses on Communist Morality in the Sphere of Marital Relations (The communists eventually decided that what she was proposing was too radical). Placing children under the care of the state and equality of women in the workforce would render the two main reasons for a family unit to exist redundant. Without them only the need to create the next generation is left as a reason for maintaining some form of family unit, and that is as simple as engaging in a drunken one night stand.
So yeah, banning marriage will stop the bitching and the divorce proceedings, not only will one bunch of people shut up and get it on, but a bunch of lawyers will be out of work.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2004 2:13 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2428
Location: In the ether, Hand of DM poised for enervation at will
I have to agree. Gay marriage is nobody's business except the gays getting married. People need to mind their own business and stop complicating things because they want to jump on the "OMG IT IS SO WRONG!!11!!1!!oneone" bandwagon.

If a gay marriage was interferring with someone else's life, then I could see it being a problem. However, they don't most of the time, so leave the damn gays alone and let them live their lives.

_________________
The scent of Binturong musk is often compared to that of warm popcorn.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2004 3:49 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:33 am
Posts: 187
Location: Undisclosed at this time.
Maybe its different in America, but here people get married without churches all the time. You can get married in the registrar office, or in a hotel, or any damn place you like and you are regarded as "married" by the state and those present, long as their is a government registrar. I would perfectly understand a religious organisation refusing to marry gay peoples. I wouldnt AGREE, and Id mock them for their old fashioned stupidity-probably more then once- but yeah, its their right. But saying something cant be called marriage, because marriage often takes place in churches and is therefore a "religious" term, is just stupid. I think we are both gunning for the same thing, but I believe the term is very important, and it'd be better to try to get equal marriages and fail then get "Civil Unions" and lay the groundwork for yet ANOTHER dumb civil rights battle in which segregation will rear its ugly head.

_________________
I came to see the CIRCUS, not some half dressed tart spouting dire warnings. -BG2, Shadows of Amn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:25 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:33 am
Posts: 187
Location: Undisclosed at this time.
Ahah! Found it. Sorry for doublepost, but here it is.

12 reasons why gay people should not be allowed to get married:

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control. (You just imagined the penguins. Anyway, penguins are unnatural: they're birds, they fly underwater. Nuff said.)

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire counrty. That's why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "seperate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

That is all. We now return you to your regularly scheduled bigotry.

_________________
I came to see the CIRCUS, not some half dressed tart spouting dire warnings. -BG2, Shadows of Amn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:44 am 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 11:08 pm
Posts: 2115
Location: Lair of the Internet Anti-Hero
I saw a comedy festival today, and one segment had a Chinese guy step out and give a fanatastic performance. One thing he said though struck me as a rather good summary of the whole "Your bigoted if you dont support homosexual marriage"

"Im Chinese and a comedian, that makes me special. If you dont think I'm funny it means your a racist bastard"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2004 7:12 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 3:21 pm
Posts: 1366
Location: nowhere near the damned sacred rainbow ... U.S.
Quote:
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire counrty. That's why we have only one religion in America.


How many religions in America support homosexuality, yo?

Actually .. I dunno. Do research for me, please. ^__^

_________________
::darksetyuna gets the Yevaud333 Chronomantic Seal of Approval for Funny-@$$ $#�+::

/me basks

<a href="http://darksetyuna.modblog.com">Who says computer doesn't taste like meat!?!</a>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2004 4:46 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2428
Location: In the ether, Hand of DM poised for enervation at will
Cenwood wrote:
*snip*


Classic. Sometimes, there's nothing more satisfying than pointing out the obvious double standards of the self-righteous.

_________________
The scent of Binturong musk is often compared to that of warm popcorn.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:51 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:55 am
Posts: 4234
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Cenwood wrote:
I dont' wanna repeat it, it was too long


The sad thing is I know there are people who believe that those are all valid reasons.

_________________
Remember, one always has what they need, nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes, we just don't know what we need.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:55 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 11:08 pm
Posts: 2115
Location: Lair of the Internet Anti-Hero
Undoubtedly, if your opposed to gay marriage then you MUST be self-righteous.

In the same way your close-minded if you cant understand how an older man and a young boy can truely love each others.

In the same way that its a double standard to outlaw consentual incest.
(Let alone letting them marry, my goodness, such bigots)

In the same way its appalling to have a law against beastiality, if the dog isnt consenting, why is it humping the woman? Double-standard.

Lets step it up a little, whats wrong with cannablising the dead? What if its grandpa's dying wish to be eaten by his family so he can live on as part of them, your imposing on that families believes. Come on, diversity is life, remember?

Why do we not allow these things? Oh, a fuzzy concept, barely worth considering in these enlighted and liberated times.

It erodes society. It tears apart the basic building blocks upon civilisation is founded.

And if you dont agree with me, its because your a racist bigot.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2004 10:26 pm 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 139
Valid points. How much personal freedom can a society allow before losing coherency?

It is my opinion that an individual's freedoms stop when they impinge on the freedoms of another; that is, I think ritual cannibalism should be fine provided it does not cause a health hazard to others nor involve eating unwilling victims*. I'd like to think my stance is consistent with relation to the other issues raised.

That being said, and returning somewhat to topic, I've yet to see any argument that I accept showing why allowing gay marriage impinges on others' freedoms.

If, on the other hand, the opposition to gay marriage is simply because those wanting to get married are homosexual, with no more rational basis behind it... then I suppose it is bigotry.


* granted that the definition of "willing" is somethign that can be debated endlessly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2004 11:19 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 11:08 pm
Posts: 2115
Location: Lair of the Internet Anti-Hero
Hasufin wrote:
Valid points. How much personal freedom can a society allow before losing coherency?

It is my opinion that an individual's freedoms stop when they impinge on the freedoms of another; that is, I think ritual cannibalism should be fine provided it does not cause a health hazard to others nor involve eating unwilling victims*. I'd like to think my stance is consistent with relation to the other issues raised.

That being said, and returning somewhat to topic, I've yet to see any argument that I accept showing why allowing gay marriage impinges on others' freedoms.

If, on the other hand, the opposition to gay marriage is simply because those wanting to get married are homosexual, with no more rational basis behind it... then I suppose it is bigotry.


* granted that the definition of "willing" is somethign that can be debated endlessly.


So you ARE saying, let me get this straight, that you approve of

Consentual incest
Consentual (?????) Pedophilia
Beastiality
Canabalism

As you aprove of Pediphilia I'll take it as granted you aprove of there being no defined age of consent, as well as, naturally no outlawing of any substance.

A world like this existed my friend. It was the barbarian age, and crops up from time to time should the chance for the dark side of mans nature to florish presents itself. A merry utopia indeed you wish to build for us. Animals in buisness suits shall be our future, if you get your way, and love thy family will mean something quite different.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2004 12:00 am 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 139
Hardly.

"Consentual" is an operative term here. You did not specify ages, and what the age of consent should be is assuredly a point worthy of debate - simply not on topic. And proving consent with an animal is a question that is wholly academic to me - and while I do not approve of cruelty to animals, I am also unable to find a justification for a law specifically against bestiality. Being disgusted by the practice is not alone adequate.

The widespread stricture against incest is largely justified by the supposed health risks to a child so conceived - modern medicine can adequately avoid that problem, though again how that is to be implemented is worthy of discussion; notwithstanding once again matters of consent.


My opinion is thus: that when a society or government takes it upon itself to restrict a person's actions, it must ask why such restrictions are necessary. This is not to say that every action that is now forbidden should be allowed, simply that we should have a solid understanding on the reasoning behind that prohibition. Such is hardly the characteristic of a barbaric society, but a deliberate one.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group