What are your views on gay marriage?

[Pimpmynintendo]

IMHO Lord Kanti is the internet Jack Thompson of gay marriage.

 

[El Blacksheep]

i figure i'll post this here:

since this thread has devolved to just a bunch of flaming, the actual debate is continuing in IRC right now. if you can manage to stay on point, you're welcome to join in.

 

[EmperorOfCanada]

@Lord

I dont want to read this entire thread but if I may ask you something, are you saying that gay parents are actually worse parents than straight parents or just that kids that are raised with a mother and father are better adjusted than kids raised in other environments?

I'm not arguing your statements at all just want to be clear at what some other people here are getting hot and bothered over.

 

[Lord Kanti]

I believe that it was granville that stated that laws based on religion are wrong....

I then stated that if all laws that coinside with the ten commandments (they're religious after all) or other religious references are wrong then he ought to strip down a lawbook and tell me whats left.....

the point being that his comment was FALSE, that just because a religion holds something to be true doesnt make it false simply because it's a "religious belief."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

to canada-

I stated, as the textbooks state: the OPTIMAL environment for child rearing is between a man (husband) and woman(wife).

usingthis logic one can see where a dillema arises when the definition of marriage is changed.



now are gays incapable of lovinga child? I'm sure they can love a child, but no matter how much they love a child thier love can never provide what a mother and father can.


I posted sources that coincide with these factualy statments, 99% of this thread is a flame, generally against me amd ignore fact and logical argument


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
also to clear it up as fritz said i should I am not against gay rights, simply i am against the changing of the definition of marriage: gays should be treated equally legally via Civil Union, not by imposing thier beliefs on the majority and changing a definition that has existed since day one.


also this has already been voted on, two thirds vote was in favor of traditional marriage 4 pro gay judges threw the votes out. the judges wer based in san francisco....... u be the judge.

 

[Pimpmynintendo]

I believe that it was granville that stated that laws based on religion are wrong....

I then stated that if all laws that coinside with the ten commandments (they're religious after all) or other religious references are wrong then he ought to strip down a lawbook and tell me whats left.....

the point being that his comment was FALSE, that just because a religion holds something to be true doesnt make it false simply because it's a "religious belief."

I am pretty sure that granville meant laws based solely on religious beliefs are wrong. It being against the law to assailt somebody isn't against the law because of religion it is against the law because you are harming/wronging them.

 

[Banger]

i figure i'll post this here:

since this thread has devolved to just a bunch of flaming, the actual debate is continuing in IRC right now. if you can manage to stay on point, you're welcome to join in.

I would join but I need to head to bed soon and I was already in an hour long debate today. Is hostmasking set yet, if so I shall join tomorrow.


@Lord I never stated that something that is a religious belief is false. However the law is not based on the commandments more so then morality. These laws that we follow today are those depicted by the rich not majority of everyone. Just because the majority agree on 1 law and not another does not make it right in any shape or form.


~~~~~

Who is to judge what is optimal? Someone making things up or actual proof? Which from what I can see you have shown none. If wish to prove such get 1000 parents and 750. and find some straight parents (Male and female) some gay parents (Male and male aswell as female and female), some single parents (both straight and gay) from different social standings (Ranging from poor to rich) and follow these familys for 20 years and show us unbiased information on such and I shall believe what you are saying but saying you wrote paper tells me nothing.


Someone should not go into a debate thinking they are right and have no interest in changing their mind as that is pure ignorance.

 

[El Blacksheep]

if you've ever taken a sociology course (with a completely open mind) you'd realize there really isn't a universal right and wrong; it's all based off of what a society mandates, and in most of the civilized world society's distinction of right and wrong comes directly from religion.

i don't agree with lord kanti at all, but to say laws aren't based on religion is just ignorant. laws define right and wrong (and their punishments), which comes straight from religious beliefs of what is right and what is wrong.

 

[Lord Kanti]

please tell me how the 10 commandments arent solely based on the bible?

the 10 commandments have been in courthousese for years. as to recent rulings, this just goes to show what an ignoramous jackass with free time can achieve....

 

[granville]

I believe that it was granville that stated that laws based on religion are wrong....

Wrong. I never said that. +1 for libel. What I said was that laws protect people's freedom. As long as all people's freedom is being respected, there's no reason to deny freedom. Murder is denying the freedom to live. Anything done against someone's will is a strike to their freedom. And gay marriage isn't interfering with ANYONE's freedom.

But if we go by what the bible has to say, why aren't women slaves? The bible states God's quoted words multiple times that women are to be subservient to men. Since woman's liberation, women have never accepted that men are better than they are. With good reason in my opinion. But it just goes to show that the bible can't always be trusted. And I don't blame God for that either. I blame the men who wrote the bible and put their own beliefs into it instead of what is really true.

But I wouldn't take it too serious. The bible is self-contradictory in many subjects. But lets look at the 10 Commandments:

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

I don't see anything there about gays.

 

[EmperorOfCanada]

@Lord

I do not believe gay parents would be worse parents than a mother and father raising their child. However if your point is that on average, children have the best chance to succeed as healthy (physically/spiritually/emotionally) individuals if they are raised by both their mother and their father..

Then I dont think that is so unrealistic. Of course it is never in black and white but you are talking about ideal circumstances and not simply saying that gays are worse parents then.. Meh its late and I am rambling but so far I wouldnt paint you as a gay hater.

Seems like you are simply trying to make a point that has been twisted and distorted into gay bashing.

*Caveat*
I havent read the whole thing, so if Im wrong, Im wrong

 

[Banger]

if you've ever taken a sociology course (with a completely open mind) you'd realize there really isn't a universal right and wrong; it's all based off of what a society mandates, and in most of the civilized world society's distinction of right and wrong comes directly from religion.

i don't agree with lord kanti at all, but to say laws aren't based on religion is just ignorant. laws define right and wrong (and their punishments), which comes straight from religious beliefs of what is right and what is wrong.

Laws and religion are based on morality. Saying religion and the law are not based on such is ignorance.

 

[quim69]

My views of gay marriage are exactly the same as straight marriage - a pointless exercise.

I don't need my relationships validated by the church or the state.

Marriage/civil partnerships = stupid.

 

[Hehe Moo]

If I found out my kid was gay i would go nuts xD

 

[El Blacksheep]

morality is a social construct based on the concept of right and wrong.

when a child is born, would you say it's moral or immoral? neither, because it hasn't yet been exposed to that social construct.
it's all based on right and wrong; a creation of mankind.

 

[Banger]

morality is a social construct based on the concept of right and wrong.

when a child is born, would you say it's moral or immoral? neither, because it hasn't yet been exposed to that social construct.
it's all based on right and wrong; a creation of mankind.

As is religion and the law ;-)

Kinda proving my un-announced point here

I need to get some sleep, I shall continue this when I wake up.

 

[Destructobot]

I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that the idea of right and wrong predates organized religion. The idea that without religion there is no right or wrong is patently absurd.

 

[Lord Kanti]

quim i feel the same, I don't need the state to validiadate my relationships.. however, I want to show commitment and strap that ball and chain on hard and cold so that my son will grow up to see what it means to be responsible and commited. I know a couple who have been together for a LONG time and have a son and they never got married. when I first met thier son and found out his parents situation he was embarrassed and akward about the whole situation and explaining it....

does that make thier situation wrong? perhaps, perhaps not, but at least my son will never have to face such a dillema and can learn through me the meaning of responisbility; because if "give up" shes getting half

and when you willingly step into a marriage knowing that if you fail and quit at 'making it work' ..... eh you see where Im going with this

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Perhaps Destructobot is unfamiliar with mankind.

man needs law and order. it is in mans nature to worship god and establish laws and religious practices. without order you will have a society that resembles the lord of the flies. There is only one way to see if right and wrong would still be around if there was no religion, and frankly that path is too dangerous simply to say "I told you so"

 

[zombielove]

you bring asmile to my face....


I dont want to dig through threads so here we go... YOU STATED that the bible has no merit because it is abible and based off religion. I STATED that the bible has the 10 commandments and that laws according to these commandments exist TODAY..


i then said, if laws that coinside with religion are wrong then abolishthose laws and see what is left over.....

I NEVER brought the bible up as a weapon against gay marriage so dont label me abible thumping fool.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

IF any one here has taken Soc 16 (marriage and the family) or child development, and actually paid attention, he or she would know that the best environment for a child is witha mother and father.



Plain and Simple... I listed my sources and so far no one here can do the same. Call me names and twist what I have said but untill you can at least find a legitiamate source disregarding what is taught in regards to sociology, child development and psycology, then really you have no merit.

Not only have I posted sources I have taken several classes and read several books that use several sources that all state that a father and mother is the best for a child, I am an educator in the field, and a parent.


I wrote a paper on video games, and by that remark I was informing you taht by writing that paper I have used up my option to write on gay marriage and post my findings. had I chosen gay marriage beforehand my findings would be posted on page 1 of this discussion. I do not have the time to do a free research paper for you. if you are too lazy to check my sources do not use your ignorance as validity to your claim.


One more thing: I don't spell check, get over it.

Ok, now this is something we can work with.

Ok first of all - 10 commandments. Most of these are common for any society. Do not steal. Don't kill people. Pretty basic stuff. It sounds to me like you're claiming that these laws actually came from the Bible. And just to be clear are we talking about the 10 commandments from Deuteronomy or Exodus? Have you even read them? If our laws came from the Bible, where are laws about keeping the Sabbath? Not worshipping false idols? Where is the punishment for the 3rd and 4th generations of children who reject God as their saviour?

Or could it be possible that law and morality comes from social norms and not from the Bible at all? I know your main argument is about society, so let's forget about your idiotic " if laws that coinside with religion are wrong then abolishthose laws and see what is left over....." comment.

Ok so you're trying to gain favour in your opinion because you've taken a high school class on society, because you're an "educator" and a parent? There are lots of parents, lots of people who have been to high school and they all have different opinions from you. These facts hold no sway in what you're trying to argue.

Now, you seem to be so caught up in providing sources, so to please you, I'll post a link here.

Now, does that make my opinion any more valid? No.

So let's get down to it:

I have a lot of opinions on why a gay couple should be able to marry - the big one being the 'loved about to die in hospital, but partner not being able to enter the room argument'. But I think your main concern is gay parenting.

I'm not going to post any sources, because frankly this is all pretty logical. If I post sources, you're not going to look at them. If you're really interested all you have to do is go to google.com.

- Gays cannot have kids naturally. Therefore if they want a child, they need to plan ahead, and probably jump through all kinds of hoops in the adoption process. Any man and woman, no matter their psychological state, criminal record, income, or ability to raise kids can have a child. Try to think in extremes. Who would be a better parent? A poor, redneck woman and her criminal husband who will be put in jail just before the child is born, or a rich gay couple who have saved money, planned to adopt for a long time, have researched child psychology and everything they will need to do to ensure the welfare of their child?

A man and woman is always better? Really?

- What about from the perspective of a troubled child who no one would otherwise adopt? Is that child really better going from foster home to foster home, getting involved in drugs and crime. He could've had a home with a willing gay couple, but the law prevented it.

- From the perspective of society: Are we really better off to continue persecuting people just like we have done to other races and religions? Homosexual relationships have worked in other societies such as ancient Greece, Roman and Japan. How about the Spartans? (You MUST have learned about this in your classes. This is basic stuff.) Wouldn't it be better if we stopped interfering in other people's lives and concentrated on more important things, like the environment, international relations and technology?

- You must also know that the world population is growing. By 2040 we're going to have over 10 billion people on the planet. We need to reduce birth rates. Wouldn't you say the homosexual relationship is ideal for this? Even better than a couple producing only producing 1 offspring, they would be reducing the population of unwanted children every time they adopted.

- As you probably know, children will be teased for just about anything at school. If it's not a gay parent, it will be something else. People have been harassed and even murdered for being the wrong race or religion too. You are one of those people now. Your inability to see that society needs to change, not that children need to be protected from being teased, or not following the standard family structure is just plain wrong.

- If you are against anything that isn't the normal family structure, are you saying that a family with just one parent should be illegal too? If one parent dies, should the other parent have to give up the child? What if an aunt or uncle of the same sex helps raise the child? Would you make that illegal?

Sure, maybe the optimal circumstance for a child is to be with a wealthy, white, non-religious mother and father living in a nice house with a dog. But guess what? The world isn't that simple.

Gay marriage is just as legitimate as any other union. Gay marriage shows a progression of society. If you're against gay marriage then you might as be against inter-racial marriage, women voting and the right for a woman to be able to have a legal abortion.

 

[Psyfira]

How about change the laws and remove the term "marriage" from it. Replace it with a specific legal term for such a union of individuals. In doing so it can provide homosexuals the same rights as everyone else and let the religious people keep their holy matrimony.

Actually that's how they solved the problem in the UK, and I'd be willing to bet other countries have taken the same course too. The only problem is if the religeous types don't accept the title for what it is (like "it's not marriage so it's meaningless").

It isn't that rules like not stealing and not mudering are purely religeous morals, more like the fear of punishment from God at the time was enough keep some people in line. It's a way of enforcing a law at a time when crime fighting, prevention and justice system resources were nothing like what we have today. I'm not saying that's the only reason it's in there, but it's one interpretation.

 

[Lord Kanti]

youer missing the point: if two identical couples with no history of crime violence and poverty wanted to adopta child but one couple was gay and the other straight,, the straight couple is the optimal couple.

throwing random variables into the mix does not change the fact that a mother and father are the optimal environment.

~~~~~~
Homosexual relationships have worked in other societies such as ancient Greece, Roman ...
wtf? you do realize that these societys faild misserably.... I'm surprised that the hedonistic and pedophilic inhabitants of rome havntbeen excavated as solid pillars of salt......

if youre ok with letting a teacher teach your 10 yr old son in exchange for raping him anally.... I hope to god you are not a parent, as this was the common practice in these ancient societies.