Politics and Religion A dangerous game

[vindicator]

All I wanna do is be married but religions act like marrage is exclusively theirs and must be protected

-Rance-

The "word" is subject to interpretation

 

[Preacher]

You might have a point, Preacher, had he actually said anything about "primary means", in regards to whom children are born.

Quarto's comment...sounds nothing like "primary/default means of reproduction".

Actually, I DO have a point, and I thank you for emphasizing that very point your own self:

If both types of people are born "only to" hetero couples, then it must be that "only" hetero couples are able to reproduce. Biologically, this is precisely the fact. By saying "primary/default" means of reproduction, I was merely pointing out this truth, while acknowledging that in vitro fertilization has now made an alternative means of reproduction available...

Even now, if a gay couple (of either type) has not the money and/or insurance coverage, they won't be able to reproduce via in vitro, and they are SOL..

...Male couples aren't the only variety of homosexual couples, however.

True, but it's a moot point:
The "other" type of gay couple yer referrin' to ALSO need the assistance of a 3rd party to reproduce.
In short, a gay couple of either type stranded on a deserted island somewhere are just not gonna reproduce, period.

Ah, intelligent debate.

Indeed; all debate could benefit from a bit more Monty Pythonism.

Addressing the part you quoted, though:
sigma appeared to be chalking up what I said to the "Christian religion", when in fact, that weren't what I said at all. The founding Fathers of the US were of a variety of religious denominations. True, most of 'em would fall under the heading of "Christian", but there were some Jews involved as well. The bottom line is that the commonality of moral/ethical values of those various faiths is considerable, and it is those shared, deeply held principles that enabled us to cast off the Brits and rise to the level of prominence we have achieved in the last 200+ yrs.

All I wanna do is be married but religions act like marrage is exclusively theirs and must be protected

Marriage may not be "exclusively" the purview of religions (i.e. civil marriage), but that's certainly where it got its start - Adam & Eve were brought together in the first place by God His own Self. And, as has been said elsewhere, the State certainly has a vested interest in protecting the institution of marriage.

The "word" is subject to interpretation

Well, the "word" may be, but fortunately the "Word" isn't.
Truth is truth; all each person can do is to decide how to apply said truth to themselves...or elect not to do so at all.

@Ghost:

Quiet, you...

 

[overmortal]

Preacher, I agree with pretty much all that you're saying, but I get the impression that you're creeping closer to the edge of browbeating. (That is, you're not quite there yet, but you darken the door).

To Rance, this isn't meant to be an insult, so please don't take it as one. Why worry about officially being married? I mean, you're already gay and ignoring one Biblical issue, so why worry about being officially married? Even from a legal standpoint, you can still do all of the things a married couple can do. You can live together, have joint bank accounts, change your names to suit each other (I dunno exactly how gay marriages work with name changing). Just make a private vow between the two of your and call yourselves life-partners or husbands or whatever you want. I think the only thing you can't do is file your taxes jointly. You could even have a vow-exchanging ceremony to show the world that you've chosen each other forever and invite all of your friends.

Think about it, you can skip the marriage liscence fees, skip the wedding fees (unless you have the ceremony I just described), and, should it ever not work out between you (or one of you end up swinging back the other way), you don't have to worry about divorce costs, and all of the legal blah blah that goes along with it.

 

[sigma_nunki]

<trying very hard not to insult anyone>

I'll believe that on the same day you can show me a day-old infant (better yet, a preemie) and PROVE that same is gay...

From another angle: Prove to me that (s)he is "straight".

So discriminating against, say, terrorists is a violation of human rights, then, eh?...

I do beleive that I am refering to how people are treated by what they are and *not* why org they may be affiliated with. To even touch on your terrorist comment, is, I think too far off topic and would lead to bad places.

If by "1 religion" you mean the previously cited JudeoChristian faith(s),

No, I don't. I mean *any* 1 religion, *any* country. Although I do see the confusion being that this topic does have a specific application.

Well, the "word" may be, but fortunately the "Word" isn't.

I must disagree with you here. My logic goes as such:
Congecture:
The Word is truth and not subject to interpretation.
Proof by contradicton:
Assume that the Word is truth and not subject to interpretation. Then since the truth is known there would be only one faith, one "interpretation".
But, there are many faiths with very different ideas of what exactly the Word is.
Here we have reached our contradiction. Therefore our original assumption is false.
QED

Why worry about officially being married?

It's an equality thing. from here.
"The courts in Ontario and BC in their rulings dismissed the possibility of civil unions as an alternative saying separate but equal was not equal under the constitution."

All I wanna do is be married but religions act like marrage is exclusively theirs and must be protected

As a way to get around it, Ontario and British Columbia allow gay marriage. If you want it go get it

</trying very hard not to insult anyone>

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Having not developed secondary sex characteristics, our toddler is neither gay nor straight.

 

[Nemesis]

. . . but the fact remains that there really is no reason whatsoever why society should treat heterosexual and homosexual couples equally.

As far as I’m concerned, and I daresay more than a few others who believe in democracy, you got that ass-backwards. In any given case, it is never the principle of equality, but the policy of discrimination that must be justified. That said, is there really “no [practical] reason” to treat the two groups equally? Well let’s see, I know that any number of thinkers on the left and increasingly the right have been endorsing one above all–the promotion of “family”, as in stable, long-term relationships between two people with or without children, which in turn only further promotes “community”, as in groups of families that through their commonality–read “perceived equality”–are more active as citizens and take a greater pride in their neighborhood, an important factor, which some current studies are showing to be “the important factor”, in controlling crime.

I mean, if we’re really going to presume to talk about social engineering, it’s absurd to suggest that the birth rate alone is the be-all and end-all of a successful society. (What, it would be okay to discriminate against men and women on any basis solely because they have through deficiency, disease, or age lost their reproductive ability?) Let’s get “realer” than that.

 

[Preacher]

From another angle: Prove to me that (s)he is "straight".

I'm not saying that folks are "born" one way or another; I was refuting the erroneous idea that *anyone* is "born" gay. More'n likely, one's orientation springs from a combination of inborn and environmental factors, with the edge being environmental factors.
That said, the fact that over 90% of humans turn out "straight" (and only betw. 2-8% turn out gay) pretty much cinches the fact of "straightness" being the default outcome.

I do beleive that I am refering to how people are treated by what they are and *not* why org they may be affiliated with.

Really? Well, a hateful, bitter person could affiliate with Al-Quaeda, Hamas, the KKK, neo-Nazi groups, or just plain be a one-man unaffiliated goon squad... No matter who they do or don't belong to, I'm still gonna "discriminate" against such a person, and it's (as you put it) because of who they *are*. Most folks I know would do the same, and you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who views *this* type of discrimination as being wrong or immoral in any way.

No, I don't. I mean *any* 1 religion, *any* country. Although I do see the confusion being that this topic does have a specific application.

Right. And in this specific application, it would be nigh impossible to prove that the greatness of this country did not spring from the high ideals of its founders. Said ideals were in turn, derived from their deep religious faith, whether a given "founding father" was Catholic, Presbyterian, Jewish, Baptist, Methodist, and so forth.

Congecture:
The Word is truth and not subject to interpretation.
Proof by contradicton:
Assume that the Word is truth and not subject to interpretation. Then since the truth is known there would be only one faith, one "interpretation".
But, there are many faiths with very different ideas of what exactly the Word is.
Here we have reached our contradiction. Therefore our original assumption is false.

Nope. "We the people" are, well, human, and as such are imperfect and fallible. In order to know the truth, one must be open to it. If one is steeped in sin (as all of us are from birth) and/or denial, one may never reach the point of being open to seeing the truth for what it is, or if they do know, they may nonetheless choose to ignore it (basically an expansion on what I said before).

@ LOAF:

Hey, you got a toddler?... well congratulations!...

 

[BlackJack2063]

I honestly think this is blown way out of the field, It shouldn't make any difference if a marriage is same sex, or opposite. The love is still there, and most of all, it is none of our business what straight or gay people do.

On a related subject; what about the genetic advancements, that allow a womans cells to engineered as sperm, for impregnation. Once they perfect this technology, children from Male couples might not be far behind. I say more power them, no religious or political power have the right to say you are wrong on this subject. Churches dictating how I should live my life is one of the reasons why I stopped practicing my religion.

 

[BlackJack2063]

Oh, and why I can be thankful for Bush's tax breaks to poor people, it doesn't help me alot, because I am not married, and it cripples my father, he gets taxed 47.35% of his earnings, he grossed 100K and made just a little over 50K, and many would say quit bitching, 50 is plenty, he is a widower and can't claim benefits. It is unfair that people in the tax bracket above him pay less, percentage wise at least.

Oh and for humor, I heard that the richest man in the world, for ten years now, paid a whopping 1,200 dollars in taxes last year. His salary is only 600k a year, and then they put all his deductions to that. Must be nice to have a floor of accountants!

 

[Quarto]

As far as I’m concerned, and I daresay more than a few others who believe in democracy, you got that ass-backwards. In any given case, it is never the principle of equality, but the policy of discrimination that must be justified.

No. You are very, very, very confused. Even in a democracy, a plane and a boat are not considered equal. One flies but cannot sail (with the exception of flying boats, as I'm sure somebody will point out ), while the other sails but cannot fly. If some Pacific archipelago nation declares that it will subsidize boat manufacturers because it needs boats, this is *not* anti-plane discrimination. It's the same in the case of heterosexual and homosexual couples - a heterosexual marriage serves above all the purpose of creating a family. A homosexual couple, by definition, is incapable of creating a family (at least not without the external assistance that Death mentioned earlier - and why should such assistance be offered? That makes about as much sense as giving the Eskimos money to grow bananas, or setting up rice paddies in the middle of the Sahara). This doesn't make their partnership inferior to a heterosexual marriage (unless you're looking exclusively at reproductive capabilities, of course), but it doesn't make them equal, either.

I mean, if we’re really going to presume to talk about social engineering, it’s absurd to suggest that the birth rate alone is the be-all and end-all of a successful society. (What, it would be okay to discriminate against men and women on any basis solely because they have through deficiency, disease, or age lost their reproductive ability?) Let’s get “realer” than that.

A society with a birth rate lower than the death rate (and the US, like most of the West, is getting close to this point) is dying - so yes, birth rate is indeed the be-all and end-all for a successful society. There are millions of other factors that can also affect a society, and some of them are just as important as birth rate - but no matter what you do to fix up those other factors, your society still won't be able to get away with a negative birth-death ratio for longer than a few years. You really cannot get "realer" than that.




On a sidenote, I should point out that while I'm defending the motives behind Bush's plan here, I don't think the plan itself is a good one - most likely, it will indeed result in a larger number of couples getting married, and a larger number of couples staying married. However, it will also result in people staying in bad (or even abusive) marriages just for the sake of the money, or at least in a dramatic fall in divorce rates offset by lots and lots of married couples living in separation. Of course, the government will want to put an end to this kind of marital fraud, and so will hire additional social workers to check on married couples. This money wastage will lead to a larger budget deficit, and sooner or later, to a tax increase. This tax increase will of course convince more people that they cannot afford children, and the falling birth rates will lead to another costly birth rate-boosting initiative, leading to another tax increase, et cetera, et cetera...

 

[Preacher]

...what about the genetic advancements, that allow a womans cells to engineered as sperm, for impregnation.

Um, I haven't heard of this development...ya got a link to give us for that tidbit?...

 

[Nemesis]

You are very, very, very confused.

If you think I’m confused and I think you’re confused, don’t we have a family of confusion?

Even in a democracy, a plane and a boat are not considered equal.

You mean . . . they’re not part of the transportation family? When did that happen?

If some Pacific archipelago nation declares that it will subsidize boat manufacturers because it needs boats, this is *not* anti-plane discrimination.

Just a guess, but you’ve never had a conversation with a trade representative or lobbyist, have you? (Look, any time a society divies up its resources to give more to “some” and less to “others”, that’s discrimination. And the question to be answered is not about “equality”, but whether such discrimination is fair, reasonable, or otherwise justified and not otherwise harmful.)

It's the same in the case of heterosexual and homosexual couples . . .

But not a homosexual/heterosexual couple? Why are you excepting, and so discriminating against, it?

. . . a heterosexual marriage serves above all the purpose of creating a family.

Yes, and so does marriage in general.

A homosexual couple, by definition, is incapable of creating a family. . .

Any stay-at-home couple, by any definition I’ve ever seen, is a family.

. . . (at least not without the external assistance that Death mentioned earlier - and why should such assistance be offered? That makes about as much sense as giving the Eskimos money to grow bananas, or setting up rice paddies in the middle of the Sahara).

So what you’re saying is that just as the Eskimos won’t be able to grow bananas, or rice paddies to flourish in the Sahara, a homosexual couple is incapable of raising children? Huh???

This doesn't make their partnership inferior to a heterosexual marriage (unless you're looking exclusively at reproductive capabilities, of course), but it doesn't make them equal, either.

You know, at this point, I’d consider it a victory if you could at least concede they were all human.

A society with a birth rate lower than the death rate (and the US, like most of the West, is getting close to this point) is dying - so yes, birth rate is indeed the be-all and end-all for a successful society.

So, in other words, every child, no matter how he/she is “fathered” and raised in the beginning, helps in the end, right?

Right!?

You really cannot get "realer" than that.

No, trust me, I’ve really been holding back in this round.

 

[sigma_nunki]

Preacher, I do believe that you and I don't see eye to eye on many things. You believe what you believe and I'll believe what I believe.

I also think that we have both misunderstood each other to one degree or another along with everyone else. And as such, I will retire from this thread. To much dogma for my liking.

 

[vindicator]

You know I think if the churches want to put their two cents in the should pay some form of bussiness taxes instead of building these lavish palaces and pastors that drive lexsus cars and the child molestor relocation program funds


-Rance-

otherwise they should shut up

 

[Preacher]

But not a homosexual/heterosexual couple? Why are you excepting, and so discriminating against, it?

Huh?...

. . . a heterosexual marriage serves above all the purpose of creating a family.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, and so does marriage in general.

...and marriage in general - much to the consternation of some - is between one man & one woman
.

Any stay-at-home couple, by any definition I?ve ever seen, is a family.

For the purposes of his argument, a family is that which brings new life/lives into the world with the end result of propagating the species. A stay at home couple (gay or straight) that don't have kids cannot do so. Funny thing, though, but gay couples manage to produce startlingly far fewer offspring than straight couples do...

So what you?re saying is that just as the Eskimos won?t be able to grow bananas...a homosexual couple is incapable of raising children? Huh???

The relevant point here, bub, is that they are incapable on their own of PRODUCING offspring...

 

[vindicator]

ok I think I should be a little constructive here from what I have seen people fears on gay marrige span from two major issues

1 that other minority groups will claim rights ex: animal rapists and child molesters

the simple answer to that is that those two situations are not consensual between both parties

2 that passing a same sex marrige bill will make more people turn gay or encourage gayness One of my Ex's who was a hustler told me many times of how married men appraoched him for sex I thing gay marrige would simply allow these people to be free from the percieved moral situation that damages them and their unknowing partner

you guys against gay marrige feel that the natural process is threatened ok so the death rtae is higher you simply cant point a soul finger at homosexuals and my last point nothing spikes an intrest in an old toy like someone else playing with it (gays wanting marrige)

-Rance-

 

[t.c.cgi]

You know I think if the churches want to put their two cents in the should pay some form of bussiness taxes instead of building these lavish palaces and pastors that drive lexsus cars and the child molestor relocation program funds...otherwise they should shut up

Wow, that statement is so over generalized of the stereotypical "TV church" that I don't know if I should be laughing or crying.

All I can say is this thread is now just a powder keg, which I assume is what you wanted in the first place.

 

[vindicator]

No what I want is people to realize that allowing rligion and politics to mix religion and law to mix is dangerous (the salem witch trials) and for them to realize that bush is mixing both and trying to play moral GOD

-Rance-

 

[Nemesis]

Huh?...

Yes, that’s what happens when you try to fit life into black-or-white categories. You obviously don’t know your gay history.

...and marriage in general - much to the consternation of some - is between one man & one woman

Oh my! Massachusetts seems set to cause you some consternation then. And if not, it will still come in time. Reason will out eventually!

For the purposes of his argument, a family is that which brings new life/lives into the world with the end result of propagating the species.

And as I’ve previously suggested, the “argument” has been arbitrarily limited in order to make the issues artificially simpler than they truly are. In sum, a sham argument.

Funny thing, though, but gay couples manage to produce startlingly far fewer offspring than straight couples do...

Excellent case in point–my point, that is. ‘Fewer’ is irrelevant to the real argument. ‘Any’ child born to a gay couple improves the birth rate, and takes nothing away from the desires and plans of straight couples. What’s not to like then? Hmm?

The relevant point here, bub, is that they are incapable on their own of PRODUCING offspring...

This just keeps getting better and better, which is to say more and more silly. Now we are to believe that a person who is gay is impotent or barren as the case may be. What’s next, that “gay” sperm and eggs are somehow genetically incompatible with “straight” sperm and eggs?

 

[prophecy421]

a plane and a boat are not considered equal. One flies but cannot sail (with the exception of flying boats, as I'm sure somebody will point out ), while the other sails but cannot fly

a non powered aircraft is concidered a sailplane which sails and flys, yet they both need pilots to operate

A society with a birth rate lower than the death rate (and the US, like most of the West, is getting close to this point) is dying - so yes, birth rate is indeed the be-all and end-all for a successful society. There are millions of other factors that can also affect a society, and some of them are just as important as birth rate - but no matter what you do to fix up those other factors, your society still won't be able to get away with a negative birth-death ratio for longer than a few years. You really cannot get "realer" than that.

we also have to concider that the death birth rate is due to the fact that most of the people that keel over are from the last big baby boomer era (after WWII when the troops returned home to their women horny as hell and got it on) as well which made the birthrate higher than the death rate. Then their children helped the gain in technological advanced that helped their parents live longer so the death rate has dropped compared to the past. WWII, Korean conflict, and Vietnam plus anyother conflict helped the deathrate increase as well. after Vietnam the soldiers were not recieved well by the country thus counteracting a baby boom to equal the balance, and the recent conflicts hevent been as long timewise for a baby boom to result. When we bring our troops back from Iraq the death/birth rate balance may equalize.

I don't think the plan itself is a good one - most likely, it will indeed result in a larger number of couples getting married, and a larger number of couples staying married. However, it will also result in people staying in bad (or even abusive) marriages just for the sake of the money, or at least in a dramatic fall in divorce rates offset by lots and lots of married couples living in separation. Of course, the government will want to put an end to this kind of marital fraud, and so will hire additional social workers to check on married couples. This money wastage will lead to a larger budget deficit, and sooner or later, to a tax increase. This tax increase will of course convince more people that they cannot afford children, and the falling birth rates will lead to another costly birth rate-boosting initiative, leading to another tax increase, et cetera, et cetera...

I agree to most except for calling separated marriages a fraud. Most of the separated couples are separated for their own personal reasons unless the marriage itself was based on fraud, like if you marry an illegal alien to help them stay in the country for example.

I am a product of a separated marriage and personally hold a very strict standard on getting married because of it. (mom is a drugged up, devious, lying, oversexed whore and dad sticks to his morals and lives on the straight and narrow out of trouble life. I do love them both though) Because of this I am not the type to jump into what I feel should be a lifelong commitment and get married because I got someone pregnant, because of puppy love, or just because I was bored like alot of people do which ultamately leads to cheating, divorce or separation. If true love is found nomatter what the situation is heterosexual or homosexual then they should get married to fortify their undying love for eachother. People that know me and how strict my standards on marriage are were supprised when they found out that I am engaged and am getting married, but our marriaged it based on a true undying love that we hold for eachother that has held through alot of situations that strain and destroy marriages and relationships with most other couples. I have also stopped practicing my religion for the fact that it is my life and I will live it the way I see fit and not be dictated by the church. I dont want to get too deep into a debate on the pros and cons of religions that is anothertime another topic, plus Its allmost dinnertime and im hungry but thats what works for me personally and everyone is different and have different beliefs and how that act on them thats what makes the world a fun and exciting place to live. I cant wait untill we contact another form of intelligent life to add some more fun to the mix. atfer all it is the bible that states in not so many words that humans are the only intelegent life in the universe, and because its the teachings and words of god and god created everything in the universe, gods word is the truth and infallibe and thats the way it is and should be. It will be an interesting time. I think somewhere in the passed we lost the addenum to the bible, like we usually loose the ones that come with programs and games, that says oh by the way along with humans I had some downtime and was bored and created the vulcans, klingons, ewoks, wookies, and being homosexual is ok and normal just like jerking off.