Gay Marriage/Gay Rights/Etc.

[kbohip]

Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church if you want to know what the men in the Vatican teach. God owns the Church not the other way around as the Church is the Bride of Christ.

Why do say people have started to wise up? If you mean they have rejected God and Church this has been going on for awhile.

Wow. What I said went completely over your head didn't it? Who said anything about rejecting God. I certainly haven't. And no, just because I don't sit in the pews on Sunday at my local Catholic church doesn't mean I'm rejecting God.

Ah ya know what, I had a lot more to say but why waste my breath? This is a stupid ••••••• thread anyway, as all these pro-gay ones always turn out to be. I'm outta this joke.

[madhatter256]

If gay marriage is allowed, then they should allow people to smoke inside bars again. I'm all for second hand smoke.

[Phopojijo]

I'm still waiting for you to cite the example of the culture that we should adopt that says marriage is between any two people regardless of their sex. Until then, the shrunken head comparison makes sense.

As stated earlier, Canada?

[madhatter256]

Canada has no culture. It's Canada, very secular..... try again.

[Dutchcedar]

As stated earlier, Canada?

That's only been for the last five years. Doesn't it take a bit longer than that to call a law a culture? Oh wait... the petri dish culture... that just might come in handy here.

[Keven]

If gay marriage is allowed, then they should allow people to smoke inside bars again. I'm all for second hand smoke.

Ugh, I'm pretty libertarian but smoking is disgusting and I'm all for banning smoking in public.

And just about everybody, conservative and liberal, disagrees with me.

[JustinC939]

If gay marriage is allowed, then they should allow people to smoke inside bars again. I'm all for second hand smoke.

How many times do I have to say this?
There are victims of second hand smoke because second hand smoke is very obviously bad for you. Gay marriage has no victim. People are not going to die of cancer because gay people are getting married.

^^^ Bull. We've already seen the discrimination charges.

That's how this game is played. Make a law and anyone that refuses to abide is discriminating, loses their tax exemption or whatever.

If people decide to get divorced because of legal gay marriage; wouldn't that be self inflicted discrimination because it really came down to their own choice to dissolve their marriage?

I'm still waiting for you to cite the example of the culture that we should adopt that says marriage is between any two people regardless of their sex. Until then, the shrunken head comparison makes sense.

The shrunken heads comparison doesn't make sense because there really aren't alot of Americans who want to shrink heads. And even if there were. Shrinking heads obviously implies vandalism to the dead so there stands a pretty good reason why we shouldn't shrink heads. Maybe if a person consents to having their head shrunk in their will before death, than maybe we have an argument for shrunken heads, but like I said. Nobody is really interested, so it's really a non-issue.
Regarding the culture issue:
Not every culture is going to define a marriage between one man and one woman. Sometimes it can be defined one man and however many women he chooses to be with. Some may just define it as a legal contract of two people that creates kinship. As stated before, the Canadian definition of marriage differs from ours.
There is no single and universal definition of marriage. Your argument is entirely based on the sentimental value of a word in which no one person has the rights to.

I didn't say gay couples couldn't raise kids, I said they can never have their own. Children have a right to know their mother and father.



Can a mother marry her son or daughter?

Not legally, but again the reasons are obvious. Incest leads inbreeding which is bad .
But then again why not? Most definitions of marriage rarely excludes those who are related. According to Genesis, marriage is a union that is divinely ordained between one man and one woman. Well a brother and sister, mother and son, and a father and daughter. Are all a man and a woman, so I guess they should be allowed to marry in your eyes. After all, your definition says they can.
BTW, I'm not the one who is arguing that we should base our marriage laws on a single religious definition, so I'll leave that up to you guys to explain that away

[JustinC939]

Another thing that I will add to this is that the LGBT community will eventually get their way in this country and marriage will one day be legal for all of them.
It's all about money, and the LGBT community generally has more disposable income (for obvious reasons) than those who are straight. And once churches, ballroom owners, bridal shops, and tuxedo rental stores all realize that there is money to be made on gay weddings; all that morality, and religious nonsense people cling to will go right out the window in favor of profits
Because the only REAL god anybody has in this world is money.


I'm not saying that's right, but it's true.

[Keven]

the LGBT community generally has more disposable income (for obvious reasons) than those who are straight.

Uh, what?

[JustinC939]

Not all that hard to imagine.
Gay couples generally don't have children to care for.
There are others, but the above reason is the most obvious.

[Dutchcedar]

Justin, your passion is to be commended. The logic and facts used here, on the other hand, not so much.

[Keven]

Not all that hard to imagine.
Gay couples generally don't have children to care for.
There are others, but the above reason is the most obvious.

Sorry - that makes absolutely no sense.

Not every gay couple makes $150k per year, lives in a 2 bedroom condo downtown, likes watching HGTV and drinking wine and drives a Volvo station wagon.

I think gay marriage will eventually become commonplace in this country, but not by that logic.

[JustinC939]

Sorry - that makes absolutely no sense.

Not every gay couple makes $150k per year, lives in a 2 bedroom condo downtown, likes watching HGTV and drinking wine and drives a Volvo station wagon.

I think gay marriage will eventually become commonplace in this country, but not by that logic.

I'm not referring to the gross income of the LGBT community so much as I was referring to their disposable income. You see. If you have a couple raising children on $100,000/year, that couple will have significantly less disposable income than a couple who earns $100,000/year with no children to raise. And I'm pretty sure that most heterosexual couples are raising children, and again, for obvious reasons most homosexual couples are not raising children. Pretty basic logic here.
And this is not to mention that homosexuals (particularly male homosexuals) earn more than the national average. The above facts and logic stated here suggest that the homosexual community would be a rather lucrative demographic because this particular group would be more likely to spend liberally on wedding ceremonies, jewelry, bridal gowns, tuxedos, and the various other things that go along with a typical wedding.

I'm not saying that these are the right reasons homosexuals should get equal treatment, but these are the reasons that they will.

[JustinC939]

Originally Posted by Dutchcedar
Justin, your passion is to be commended. The logic and facts used here, on the other hand, not so much.




I presented a logical argument, unfortunately most people don't respond well when faced with reality.

[JustinC939]

Homosexual marriages have no victims.

People who are offended don't have the right to NOT be offended. Because if the did, you'd have to write pretty much ban everything. Westboro Baptist Church probably offends 99% of the people this country including myself. But they are allowed to protest and look like assholes because of our first amendment right. And Muslims are offended by pretty much anything and everything that we do in this country, so should we make laws to make them happy? No.

I brought up the fact that the definition of Marriage varies from culture to culture, and from nation to nation. But I'm not making the argument that we SHOULD submit to the laws of another culture because of the vast differences that exist between cultures. It is actually for that very reason that I make the argument that we SHOULD NOT be required to submit to the standards of other religious cultures. We in a country that is based on freedom and equality for all, because who is to say which religion, which culture, or whose laws are right or wrong? There will always be people who disprove of what someone else does everyday. Mormons offend people because the worship their god a little differently than traditional Christians. But does that mean Mormons should be banned from practicing their religion? No, just so long as they aren't infringing upon the rights of others. It is the nature of human beings to dislike or be offended by things that are different. To put it another way; I don't suggest that we adopt the practices of every possible culture, or religion that may exist or may have existed. I am saying that people should have the right to practice the traditions of their respective religion, culture, or non-culture that may exist just so long as they do no real harm to others. Human rights don't exist to protect what's popular because these things don't need to be protected for obvious reasons. Human rights exist to protect what is unpopular. Gay marriage is mostly an unpopular subject in which some people may find offensive. But denying these people their right to marry a consenting adult of their choice because it offends a religious establishment would be absolutely no different than denying the rights of a religious establishment to freely practice their beliefs because another group is offended by them. Homosexual people are human beings, and therefore are entitled to the rights that anyone else has.


I have condensed my argument into one single post for everyone here to see. Like it or not, the logic I have presented here validates my points 100%.