The debate "Being gay is not a sin. but if you think bad about them then its a sin. ooops" was started by
August 10, 2016, 10:49 pm.
6 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 7 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Blue_ray posted 1 argument, RogueAmerican posted 4 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 11 arguments to the disagreers part.
Blue_ray, RogueAmerican, hunadi and 3 visitors agree.
historybuff, sabrina, shuhel_2005 and 4 visitors disagree.
And they chose another poor decision to make
If we agree that they deserve all the same rights, privileges and responsibilities that come with marriage, I don't understand how the word used makes a difference. If they had created a new word, all the laws about it would have to be rewritten to include it. By simply including same sex marriage under the same word, there is no ambiguity about whether they are equal. Language grows and evolves with society so, even had same sex marriage not been acceptable historically, there is no reason it shouldn't be now.
To be clear, you have no objections to gay people have every right that comes with marriage, you just disagree with the word being applied to a same sex couple?
the comparison is very apt. the definition of person was limited to white people because it suited the white people.
the definition of marriage was limited to one man and one woman because it suited the Catholic Church. both are wrong and outdated.
The equivalency isnt a true equivalency. What reason is there to say a black person isnt a human. The only equivalency you could draw is if genders are equivalent.
it isn't arbitrary. it is extending the defininition to apply to everyone. just like the defininition of person was extended to include black people. was that an arbitrary and bigoted change?
No, an arbitrary change of definition is bigoted. Homosexuals couldn't tolerate the definition of marriage being between a man and wife.
and that system was flawed. just like slavery was a widespread system that we adopted. we eventually learned it was wrong.
we now know that gays have every right to get married. your ideas are outdated and based on 2000 year old bigotry.
However if we consider every homosexual union marriage, whats wrong with a seperate union for homosexual?
That was the widespread system we adopted.
there isn't a solidified definition of marriage now. there never has been. the Catholic Church had its version. the Romans had a version, the Greeks had a version etc.
just because Christianity spread far and forced it's views on people does not make it the correct definition.
When was there a solidified definition of marriage beforehand?
before man marraige wasn't a thing, who cares what happened before then?
so the thousands of years of history that predates all of that means nothing to you?
just because you have a book that says it is the beginning does not mean that it is.
if you want to go all the way back I can quote Genesis 1 with God creating adam and eve, and the first marraige. then we follow marraige though the Jewish tradition until Christianity into modern times.
if course you don't believe in that agnostic and all so going back won't solve anything.
The fact that you are completely missing is that marriage has existed in many forms for thousands of years and in the majority of them, until Christianity became dominant, homosexuality was not am issue. Marriage predates Christianity. If you want to go further back, Christianity changed the definition to make it solely man and woman, and shouldn't have. You picked your starting definition at a point in history convenient for your religious views, but it just as easy for anyone else to pick a time previous to that and your argument is moot.
But let me put it this way: it isnt a governmental term. It is far more potent. It was a disservice to change it. The prudent course was to recreate government unions.
Though this ruling may be justified, it isnt a solution since we must recognize homosexual unions; there is no legitimate reason why heterosexuals should be recognized and not them.
Please understand that i know this issue is over; I am just trying to present a logic basis for my standings. I am trying to show that I am not a bigoted homosexual hater, and that there is some reasonable base to my stance. I feel people who share this position are typically generalized and prone to being ignored--to simply be called a homophobe without question. I recognize gays should be represented, but not by assaulting what marriage is. And certainly not by the will of the SCOTUS disagreeing with policy and rewriting to suit their agendas.
But calling it marriage and not allowing gays to enter into it isnt revoking anything. Nobody is being harmed nor oppressed. It was institutionalized marriage; if you wanted to get married you went through the government (or religious, but still government aspects). Now there comes a problem with gays not being recognized as a union. But they couldn't get married because it wasnt a man and a woman pursing marriage, not because of their sexual orientation.
Now the issue becomes: how do we allow homosexuals to have an equal position before the eyes of government. Stupidly people passed civil unions which were horribly developed and created further issues. The best alternative was to abandon marriage, and create a unilateral union. This did not happen. Another possible alternative would be to create another equal institution; however, the purpose of this new institution would be to provide a union for those meeting the requirements of a homosexual union. Not a discriminatory policy, but just a black and white obvious difference: they meet different requirements.
You may at this say that is discriminatory; however, a just examination would look at past racial discrimination. Any modern day, civilized individual would agree that blacks are people, and the only distinction between they and whites is the color of their skin and possibly culture (by association). Now if a black person wants to vote and is denied, we must ask why? They are citizens, they are people--what is the distinction? They want only what white men receive, and there is no legitimate difference between the two men of different colors. Therefore, it must be that the black man is discriminated against.
Here is where the case changes: do homosexuals seek an identical station? A homosexual couple seeks marriage. They are denied the marriage. We again must ask why. Homosexuals deserve to love and be recognized as much as hetetosexuals; however they seek marriage and are not male and female. A candid reflection can explain this with the same question as before. Is there a difference between these homosexuals and heterosexuals? They have different sexual orientations, but that should bar them from marriage. However a simple fact remains: they arent seeking marriage. A marriage requires it being between a man and woman, but they seek a homosexual union. They are not being discriminated against because there is a legitimate claim as to why they shouldnt be married.
separate marriage from government institutions and each group can define and call it as they want. I don't disagree with that. however as long as it's a legal term, it must be extended to all people regardless of orientation.
yes, because the Catholic Church decided it was. our lives are no longer ruled by the Catholic Church. marriage can now be whatever society wants it to be. and since the Majority of Americans as well as the supreme Court have decided that includes gay marriage, the debate is already over.
Marriage was been a heterosexual term
no of course not. but historically there have been same sex marriages. in greece, the Roman republic and empire. in ancient China. gay people have been getting married for thousands of years. it was the domination of the Catholic Church and their dogma that created the "marriage" you are referring to.
Was marriage a creation of the US government?
you are trying to draw the two together and it doesn't make sense. a marriage of two partners is the norm for many societies. a prohibition against homosexuality is a religious thing. society didn't decide it didn't like homosexuality, religion did. religion forced society to condemn homosexuality. thanks evidence of this is that Romans fully accepted homosexual relationships until Christianity took over
If marriage had been a government abstraction, I would have to agree with you.
I see our contention then. Government sponsored marriage exists because the heterosexual construct was extrapolated from society. Government didnt make it. Ot adopted it. I think that is wrong. It adopted marriage then perverted it. In my opinion men and women, in the eyes of the government should be subject to general unions.
honestly, as long as all parties enter into the marriage knowing that it will be polygamous I have no real problem with that either.
the main issue I see with it is that it would make keeping track of information much more difficult.
And why is polygamy illegal? Polyamorists should be able to marry? Why do we discriminate against them?
the genders do differ from what Christianity has pushed as the only acceptable norm. but luckily for all of us we don't live in a theocratic state and one groups religious beliefs are not grounds to suppress a minority.
Just say it. The genders
I would also like to follow that up: isnt polygamy discriminating against polyamorists?
very little. they are a couple who love each other and may or may not want to have a family together. a gay couple is just going to use a different method to have children.
What is the differemce between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple pursuing marriage?
even if you think it is abnormal, other people do not. you can say that and think that if you want. but the second you try to withhold their rights, like marriage, you are discriminating against them.
Even if you believe in God or not, you are did not evolve/be created to hump the same gender. That is not how it works. I am not violating or dicriminating anything by saying it is abnormal.
What minority am i discriminating against
and if you asked someone in the 1700s they would have said the something similar about a black man being a person. you are holding onto an outdated definition to protect your religious world view even though it do so you have to suppress the rights of a minority and violate what Jesus said.
It is completely abnormal to homosexual.
and the word people used to only mean white people. we now recognize that we were wrong to exclude a minority from our definition.
the definition of marriage is no different. it used to only be accepted as man and woman. we now recognize that it was wrong to exclude a minority from the defininition.
Because i feel you shouldnt change a definition for an agenda. Marriage was for men and women. It should have been dropped from government and a general union for all couples should have been implemented. That is my only grievance.
That raises the question, why create a new work for a gay marriage? You recognize that they should have every right, so what difference does what it is called make?
No. You look to far into the issue. I believe a gay couple should have every right that heterosexual couple has. Its definitional: i can apply for a 501c3 if i meet proper conditions. Marriage should be the same, even if its ridiculous to continue it at this point. Originally, it was a seamless transition to incorporate it, but now homosexuals want recognition too. They should have equal rights, but it wouldnt be a marriage in the tradition of the words.
then they should be allowed to get married. if you petition for them not to be able to get married you are trying to create religious laws that punish a minority.
Homosexuality should not be punished by law
I'm not asking if it's a sin, I'm asking if it should be made illegal and punishable by law.
are you good at math?
You are mixing morality with legality. Its perfectly fine to petition against it. And not going to confession is a sin.
when you say you don't have to fight for their right to do their immoral action, does that actively fighting against it and petitioning for it to be illegal by law? cause that's what many Republicans are trying to do.
why don't you make not going to confession a crime while your at it. not getting baptized should be illegal too?
actions that don't harm anyone and are only made immoral by a religious text should not be legislated against under any circumstances.
I dont understand. Can i not love someone but dislike what they do? Or do we hate the most vulnerable of society? It isnt sinful to be against an immoral action.
no one is asking you if they can have a homosexual marriage. that is their right as protected by supreme Court. the debate is over. for most countries it has been over for quite some time.
Jesus said to live every one. he never said anything about homosexuality being wrong. so trying to block them is directly against the wishes of Christ. you are committing a sin by attempting to stop them.
I differ entirely. A christian says marriage is between a man and woman. They also believe homosexuality is a sin. I cant say "go ahead, do it", but i can say i dont believe that is right and i will not participate nor advocate for it. It would be sinful to go after the individuals and not the sin of homosexuality. Im not saying they cant marry perios, but they cant have a homosexual marriage.
I would argue that includes trying to prevent them from getting married. that is a sin.
you can disprove of it all you like. but the moment you do anything but show love for your fellow man you are sinning.
You dont have to like homosexuality though. Nor tolerate it morally. Oppression is a different story though.