Gay marriages... dictated by religious authorities - Page 3

Riddick · #21 07-09-2006, 03:05 PM

I wish we could all put gay marriage behind us so that we can start to focus on what is really corrupting society - interracial marriage.

FlFishOn · #22 07-09-2006, 03:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am confused by this statement. Are you asking for gay people to prove that their existance will not be a detriment to future generations of people?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. They simply need to prove that gay sham 'marriage' is benign to society instead of insisting that the straight community defend heterosexual marriage.

kevin017 · #23 07-09-2006, 03:24 PM

i wish i could put flfishon in a bottle and everytime someone tried to disagree with me I could let him out to pwn them.

gay marriage deprives straight people of the coolness of being in the marriage club. straight people view marriage as something with specific entry requirements and it is special to be a part of this club, and they don't want gay people bastardizing their clubs entrance requirements, because then the club isn't really very meaningful anymore.

being gay is caused by changes in your brain (and probably other stuff too but at least that), due to both genetics and environment. i bet we'll have a pill that fixes it right up within 20 years...

chezlaw · #24 07-09-2006, 04:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
being gay is caused by changes in your brain (and probably other stuff too but at least that), due to both genetics and environment. i bet we'll have a pill that fixes it right up within 20 years...

[/ QUOTE ]
So much better if they could have an anti-bigotry pill. Sadly, being sane, I don't believe that's likely.

Perhaps we could have a go at breeding bigotry out of the population - what do you reckon?

chez

bunny · #25 07-09-2006, 09:19 PM

I agree with you - gay marriage should be the same "legislatively". If religious people see them as not "proper" marriages then they shouldnt recognise them. The argument that allowing this distorts what is socially acceptable and makes it harder to bring up kids correctly seems strange to me. I think the same can be said for any controversial legislation a parent disagrees with. Continued to its conclusion it seems to imply that society shouldnt have rules regarding how contentious issues are handled - this seems backwards to me.

I also agree that it is a hidden religious influence from our history (especially here in australia where, until recently, religion stayed pretty much out of politics).

Phil153 · #26 07-09-2006, 10:16 PM

This isn't a religious issue and to frame it as such is disingenuous.

bunny · #27 07-09-2006, 10:23 PM

On my part at least it's just mistaken, not disingenuous. I thought that the legislative existence of marriage was implemented to give some legal bite to the religious concept. I also assumed that's why gay marriage wasnt recognised (because it doesnt fit with what is religiously condoned as marriage).

Phil153 · #28 07-09-2006, 10:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I was wondering if you could go a little more indepth on this please. I am always confused by the comparison to polygamy and beastiality. Especially when the issue of marriage is brought up when two adults of the same sex want to get together for a monogomous relationship. I have trouble seeing what's so wrong with these relationships.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's a perversion of the natural state of affairs, and as such it weakens the social fabric in the same way polygamy and bestiality do. Consenting adults can of course do what they wish, but society needs to sets some standards on the degree of perversion it's willing to publicly acknowledge and embrace.

Social moral standards affects the development of children. For examples, adults are free to engage in heterosexual orgies, but it's harmful for children to learn about these at an early stage or think they're an acceptable behaviour. Teenagers coming of age are best served by seeking out monogamous, emotionally fulfilling relationships with members of the opposite sex. Decreeing other alternatives to be acceptable is bad for society and individuals in my opinion.

Phil153 · #29 07-09-2006, 10:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I thought that the legislative existence of marriage was implemented to give some legal bite to the religious concept. I also assumed that's why gay marriage wasnt recognised (because it doesnt fit with what is religiously condoned as marriage).

[/ QUOTE ]

You're probably right. My only point is that while atheists tend to be more liberal (blasé?) than theists, some of us have very similar morals and ideas about society for reasons not related to god or the bible. There are good secular arguments for most religious positions on social policy.

bunny · #30 07-09-2006, 10:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
...My only point is that while atheists tend to be more liberal (blasé?) than theists, some of us have very similar morals and ideas about society for reasons not related to god or the bible. There are good secular arguments for most religious positions on social policy.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont know how it is in america (I had assumed it was moreso than here) but many advocates of legislation like this in australia specifically argue from religious premises. Certainly, if there are secular reasons then they should be considered.

I was agreeing with what I had assumed midge was saying - namely that religious justification has no part in politics.

I'm interested you regard homosexuality as against nature, yet not institutionalised marriage itself. Are you sure that monogamy is the "natural" state of affairs? I confess ignorance, but I would have guessed that primitive humans wouldnt follow this practise (multiple partners is common enough in a society with entrenched monogamistic practises - I think it would be even greater without societal constraints).