Breton Thief Oriana Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 The debate in the U.S. Has two standpoints, both with rather good arguments. The pro-marriage standpoint is that if two people love each other, they should be allowed to be married. The anti-marraige standpoint is that it goes agianst God's will, and does not contribute population to society, as do heterosexual marraiges. It is the same arguments as in the whole abortion issue. The religious-right allways use god as a weapon of words, which is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eltiraaz Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 That is not correct. The issues with abortion and homosexual marriage are WAY off. Allowing homosexuals to be married means letting two people express their love for each other. Continuing to allow abortions means; taking innocent lives, not allowing people live up to the consequences of their actions. If you commit a sexual act with someone you dont want to have a kid with, then thats your first mistake. Even if you were using protection and it proved innafective, I say tough luck. Thats no justification to steal the life of a child, and their potential for good in this world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Thief Oriana Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 That was not the point I was trying to make at all. I meant that the Religous-right says the same thing about both. IE, that it "Is against God's will. if I quote a passage that has absolutly NOTHING to do with this issue, it proves that I am right and that god hates you." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eltiraaz Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Yes, allowing homosexuals to marry is against the belief of most religious types. However, abortion should be wrong to anyone with a decent set of morals and a brain. You are correct though. That is the arguement most religious fanatics use. "We are always right! It doesnt matter what you say, you're going to hell!" I would hope that I dont follow that stereotype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Thief Oriana Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 It isnt my point that it should be. Furthermore, it isnt the argument for this thread. EDIT<--POST ELTIRAAZ'S EDIT: well, I wouldnt know if you fit it. I'm not sure if that's your reason to ban both or not. It isnt the point of this though. let's just say that it shouldnt be illeagal for homosexuals to get married, and leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchik Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Why is it that debates focusing around religion are invariable stuck on christianity? I don't know what proportion of the world actively worships this particular belief but there are many in the US who have different creeds. Anyone quoting the christian god as a reason for enforing a law is denying the right to freedom of worship. I thought that was a fundamental tenet upon which the USA's freedoms were supposed to be based. In the case of gay marriages there may be a marginal justification when the marriages being considered involve church services. That surely is a debate for each sect and perhaps each church. But if these are secular marriages god should not come into it at all! I am not a believer but have no problem with others believing what they like. In Moorish Spain, islam, judaism and christianity were treatred as equal - as they should be today! So please would all you good, honest, practising christians, stop imposing your beliefs on others! It is short-sighted, intolerant and, as one who knows the bible extremely well, I am prepared to add deeply unchristian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Thief Oriana Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 If anyone who knew were asked this, they would say, as i will, that the religious-right is currently in power in the U.S. also, they are the majority, and therefore, turn the U.S. into a sprawling mass of hippocrits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevermore Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 Anyone quoting the christian god as a reason for enforing a law is denying the right to freedom of worship. I thought that was a fundamental tenet upon which the USA's freedoms were supposed to be based. Acually it would be this: If the US was to pass a marrage ban soley based on christian beliefs then it would be breaking the establishment clause of the constitution. While we would still have freedom of to practice any religion, it's just the US would have, in part, established a religion. Though arguing that the US is religusely nuetral is foolish and the gov't all ready has in part established a religion.----- I think gay marrage should be legal. I see no reason for it not to be. None. Though one can't take the milk without buying the cow under teh usuall US court systems. Here's what I mean: If homosexual marrage is legalized then the term love is expanded to include odd couples. And right on, I think love should be acceptiable in all it's forms. What if a man realy loves his cow though? If he loves the cow, why should he not be able to mary it? If the cow don't mind (and I doubt it would) why cant his love for the cow be legaly documented? Or what about a man and his seat cushion? The cushion doesn't care, and the man loves the cushion, so why not? I see nothing wrong with a marrige as long as all included partys do not object (not caring and objecting are diffrent). So 2 men and a women, a man and a cow, a woman and her pet snail. Why not? If the USA says that it goes agianst god's will then they are breaking the constitution. If they are saying it goes agianst nature, then so is stoping evolution and so we should revert back to a state where evolution is possable. The constitution was written to protect the minority, the individual. To keep one's natral right sacred and unscathed unless the one proves they can not handle them. If a decent human gets their kicks from marrying heterosexualy, homosexualy, or even animasexualy then why not let them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 What if a man realy loves his cow though? If he loves the cow, why should he not be able to mary it? If the cow don't mind (and I doubt it would) why cant his love for the cow be legaly documented? A cow can not give consent to the arrangement. Or what about a man and his seat cushion? The cushion doesn't care, and the man loves the cushion, so why not? A seat cusion is an inanimate object, and therefore the love is entirely one-sided. That's not a marriage by any reasonable definition. I see nothing wrong with a marrige as long as all included partys do not object (not caring and objecting are diffrent). So 2 men and a women, a man and a cow, a woman and her pet snail. Why not? Because not objecting is not enough. All parties have to want the arrangement, not just fail to protest enough. An animal or an inanimate object can not express this desire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevermore Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 not objecting is not enough. All parties have to want the arrangement, not just fail to protest enough. An animal or an inanimate object can not express this desire. Well it comes down to the individual persons' opinoins. Should both partys have to give consent , or should no protest be enough? (No protest though can not mean you drug them and stuff, so on...) If someone/somthing doesn't care, and only good (the other's happieness) can come out of it then why not? It can't hurt anyone, least they marry a meat grinder and consimate their marrage. The only thing that should be debatable is wether or not the marrige is religuosly accepted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.