Jump to content

Home

Homosexuality & Same-Sex Marriage


StaffSaberist
 Share

Recommended Posts

The fact that I didn't know what SPD and KPML-r were means nothing. I know the difference between socialism and communism...and I disagree with both of them.

 

Frankly, I don't see what your point is here, ShadowTemplar, besides some lame attempt at a personal attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 215
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The fact that I didn't know what SPD and KPML-r were means nothing. I know the difference between socialism and communism...and I disagree with both of them.

 

Frankly, I don't see what your point is here, ShadowTemplar, besides some lame attempt at a personal attack.

 

My point here is that you are in no position to criticise Keynesian economic theory, socialism, social democracy, or welfare systems, since you manifestly know next to nothing about any of them and readily conflate them with communism. That you fail to recognise the name of the second-largest party (actually the largest and the one heading the executive before the recent elections) of your home country's third-most important ally for the past 60 years is also telling...

 

The current American regime thrives on gullibility and willful ignorance. The regime relies on people to take no independent interest whatsoever in history, foreign affairs, (geo)politics, science, and culture, leaving them completely unable to critically analyse the 'news and views' that are being spoon-fed from TV screens and pulpits. That's not democracy. That's theocracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I said was that I disagree with Communism, which is inherently atheistic (it was, after all, a religious discussion). To infer from that one statement that I am criticizing 'Keynesian economic theory, socialism, social democracy, or welfare systems' makes absolutely no sense. So go ahead, prattle on with your patheticly arrogant & nonsensical artuments - I'm beginning to enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I said was that I disagree with Communism, which is inherently atheistic

 

Indeed, my point was that it was inherently religious...

 

All I said was that I disagree with Communism, [...] To infer from that one statement that I am criticizing 'Keynesian economic theory, socialism, social democracy, or welfare systems' makes absolutely no sense.

 

I quote:

 

I know the difference between socialism and communism...and I disagree with both of them.

 

That's the second time in what? a week? that I've caught you in an outright lie.

 

That's the real wonderful thing about written debates. Catching lies and backpedaling is soo much easier - and you can refute point by point the propaganda that talking heads spew in a way simply not possible in oral debates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Don't argue with me...

Telling someone not to argue with you is also defeating the whole purpose of having this particular forum in the first place. :dozey:

 

Every one of the debates that happen here could be seriously shortened if we could all invoke the "Don't argue with me!" command. It sure would make things a lot easier...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Hello.

 

I'm new here, but I've been reading through this thread a bit. (Actually I've been signed up for months, but I forgot that I signed up, heh).

 

I must say that I really enjoy threads like this, because it shows that we people CAN talk about a controversial issue without biting each other's heads off.

 

Here's my own two cents on the whole topic. I honestly don't care what anyone does. Hey, it's their life. They have the right to live out their life in any way they chose.

 

Of course, the Bible states clearly what God thinks of homosexuality, but I also know that God gave mankind the freedom of choice.

 

So, anyone can choose whatever lifestyle they want to live.

 

But, I think that people should get their priorities straight when they get after people for being "intolerant bigots". People should not treat gay people badly just because they are gay, true. But, there are many forms of bigotry.

 

Should someone treat someone badly because they believe in God? No. Should someone treat someone badly because of their skin color, or because they have an accent? No.

 

People can be "intolerant bigots" of just about anything.

 

But... I am probably starting to wander off the topic a bit. Pardon me, I just had to chime in with my two cents.

 

Also I'm not feeling well today, so I hope this post came out okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel once more compelled to put forward the (seemingly rare and unusual) argument that since marriage in general is an outmoded concept, and that two people should not be entitled to any special status nor financial support from the state in return for merely co-habiting, same-sex marriages - and their more bourgeois cousins, civil partnerships - should indeed be outlawed.

 

Along with vanilla marriage.

 

And marriage 'twixt man and sports bag.

 

Marriage is pointless. It provides no benefit to society. In this era of quickie divorce it imparts no extra stability to a relationship. If two people decide to live together, fine... But ritual consecrations of this ilk are completely futile and neanderthal.

 

Secondly I feel compelled to note once again the fact that while homosexuality is not morally reprehensible, (provided both parties are consenting and neither one of those parties is ME,) it is important to remember that it is merely a form of sexual fetishism, no more "natural" than wanting to hump a sports bag, and no less "natural" than say... an unusual predeliction for oral sex.

 

When one recognises this, one starts to wonder why many homosexual activists feel the need to publicise their sexual preference in the mass media. Should anyone care? Should we be watching more important things? Is one's sexual preference something to bandy about? "Gay Pride" rallies. What's all that about? Is it something to be "proud" of? Let's examine the reverse. Should I be "proud" that I spend most of my time lusting after females? I mean, I understand the backlash against oppression and all that, but it's been some time since homosexuality was illegal. Time to give it a rest.

 

And also it's distressing that so many homosexuals define themselves by their sexual preference. We as human beings should not be defined by what arouses us sexually, we have so much more to offer the world. And so many more important things to occupy our time.

 

But it is in the nature of ignorant humanity to form a club or a clique, and to derive short-sighted psychological strength from a uniform, a badge... or a huge Freddy Mercury moustache and biker-hat. It's all the same drab, depressing elitism. Without something to fight for or against, I doubt the activists would be able to maintain their ever-present sence of righteous indignation... and superiority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marriage is pointless. It provides no benefit to society. In this era of quickie divorce it imparts no extra stability to a relationship. If two people decide to live together, fine... But ritual consecrations of this ilk are completely futile and neanderthal.
While it's not exactly beneficial to society, here in the U.S we can get a tax break when we get married. That's the only practical reason I can think of though...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy ****, Spider's back! :)

 

Marriage is pointless. It provides no benefit to society. In this era of quickie divorce it imparts no extra stability to a relationship. If two people decide to live together, fine... But ritual consecrations of this ilk are completely futile and neanderthal.

 

This seems to have no impact on the subject. It seems you're arguing that formal marriage (recognized by the state) should be done away with... that would mean that straight marriages would be done away with as well. Otherwise it's hypocritical to allow the majority of people to marry and not a minority, just because of how you feel about marriage.

 

it is important to remember that it is merely a form of sexual fetishism, no more "natural" than wanting to hump a sports bag, and no less "natural" than say... an unusual predeliction for oral sex.

 

Okay then... well I merely have a form of sexual fetishism for the female gender. As do you I assume.

 

When one recognises this, one starts to wonder why many homosexual activists feel the need to publicise their sexual preference in the mass media. Should anyone care? Should we be watching more important things? Is one's sexual preference something to bandy about? "Gay Pride" rallies. What's all that about? Is it something to be "proud" of? Let's examine the reverse. Should I be "proud" that I spend most of my time lusting after females? I mean, I understand the backlash against oppression and all that, but it's been some time since homosexuality was illegal. Time to give it a rest.

 

Well it's hard to fight for your civil rights when you're in the closet.

 

And also it's distressing that so many homosexuals define themselves by their sexual preference. We as human beings should not be defined by what arouses us sexually, we have so much more to offer the world. And so many more important things to occupy our time.

 

This is something I will agree with you on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by TK-8252:

Holy ****, Spider's back!

WHERE? :eyeraise:

 

Originally Posted by TK-8252:

that would mean that straight marriages would be done away with as well.

I said precisely that, in my original post. You missed it, apparently. "along with vanilla marriage" was the term, I believe.

 

Originally Posted by TK-8252:

Okay then... well I merely have a form of sexual fetishism for the female gender. As do you I assume.

Not quite. Sexual fetishism implies a fixation on (sexualisation of) a non-genital (non sexual) portion of the anatomy, or an object. i.e: the feet, or a plush toy. Something, in other words, outside the general accepted norm. Once again, nothing WRONG in this, but nothing particularly worthy of praise or interest, either.

 

Originally Posted by TK-8252:

Well it's hard to fight for your civil rights when you're in the closet.

In my country at least, homosexual people have all the rights they need. All the rights I enjoy, they enjoy. And some extra ones. Now it's time for them to stop blithering on about what they enjoy in the sack, no? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said precisely that, in my original post. You missed it, apparently. "along with vanilla marriage" was the term, I believe.

 

I wasn't quite sure what you meant with "vanilla" marriage... heh.

 

In my country at least, homosexual people have all the rights they need. All the rights I enjoy, they enjoy. And some extra ones. Now it's time for them to stop blithering on about what they enjoy in the sack, no? :)

 

Not sure what country you're in, because gays don't have any "extra" rights in the U.S. that's for sure. They can't even adopt kids in many states. How the hell does that make any friggin' sense...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what country you're in, because gays don't have any "extra" rights in the U.S. that's for sure.

 

Look at the way I spell. Can you be in any doubt as to the nation of my origin?

 

Colour. Scones. Cup o' tea. FOOTBALL!!!11 (Soccer.)

 

Can't comment on the US. But in the UK, there have been recent rumblings regarding the preferential treatment given to sexual minorities by our law enforcement system. The concept of the "hate crime" is of dubious worth, and when employed by the judiciary it can give rise to injustice.

 

There have been several instances of reverse discrimination/political correctness in my own nation that have really hit the boundary of good taste. I can recall with some accuracy a recent case where an elderly couple in Lancashire were interrogated in their own home by the police for over an hour, after they complained to their local government about homosexual literature being placed in their local civic centres. Apparently the local council had reported a possible "hate crime" to the police, and the police went round to their house to strong-arm them for a while.

 

If activists had a right to post flyers and leaflets promoting their particular brand of fetishism, It was, in my opinion, the elderly couple's sovereign right to publically respond, expressing their disapproval.

 

In my nation, people who in the old days might have been considered "normal" now have fewer rights to free expression than those who might have been considered "abnormal". One cannot offend minorities now, no matter how they may offend one.

 

Inequality is what I disagree with, in the strongest terms. "Positive" discrimination is just that, discrimination. It was never positive, it never will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the UK i think they have pretty much done away with any tax breaks or other advantages you get for being married.

 

However I don't think homosexuals were ever camourng to get married because of tax breaks.. it was probably more about love... and the rights over dependents/next of kin that can be very important when someone is close to death.

 

I don't think that marriage is outmoded... and i'm very liberal... i think that stable relationships can be very beneficial to society and to children. Thats probably why they have been pushed so hard by religious leaders for so long.

 

The only thing that is outmoded is the narrow definition of marriage... and as far as i know gay marriages are now legal in the UK.. at least to some extent.

Lots of people claim that this somehow undermines marriage... but i don't get that at all... surely it adds MORE stable relationships which helps have a more stable society and if anything it makes marriage seem more desirable to everyone.

 

The main flaw with most agruments about marriage is that people erroneously link marriage with religion. Marriage is a civil status, not a religious one. It existed before judaism absorbed it into religion and it just confuses matters to think of it in religious terms.

 

Many people who marry never go near a church, aren't religious, are of differing religions, only go to church just for marriage etc... In that situation its daft that one religious institution should have any say over the rules that govern a practice that is far wider than itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by toms:

In the UK i think they have pretty much done away with any tax breaks or other advantages you get for being married.

That is not quite correct. While many tax breaks have been scrapped since 2000, there are still financial advantages to be gained from marrying, as evinced by the following three informational pages and news reports:

 

http://money.scotsman.com/scotsman/articles/articledisplay.jsp?article_id=2071256&section=Home&prependForce=SM_ - Paragraph 11 onwards.

 

http://www.pinkproducts.co.uk/civilpartnershipsadvice.htm

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4491620.stm

 

This, in my view, is not good. Co-habiting with someone should be a choice you make based solely on your relationship with them. Any financial perks will merely encourage marriages of convenience. On the flipside of that coin, I don't think people deserve any financial assistance for choosing to co-habit. I mean... why? Why should Mr & Mrs Joe Schmo down the street receive any monetary perks that I don't receive as a single person? Or that unmarried couples don't receive? The answer is: They shouldn't. There's no moral reason why they should.

 

Originally Posted by toms:

I don't think that marriage is outmoded... and i'm very liberal... i think that stable relationships can be very beneficial to society and to children.

A registrar, a priest, a rabbi or a sea-captain waving their hands over you as you snog your partner isn't going to make your relationship any more stable than it was before. Ceremony is merely that, brief ceremony, and the relationship will succeed or fail based not on the outmoded concept of "married vs. unmarried", but on whether the partners want to be with each other over an extended period of time.

 

Marriage is totally outdated, a ritual, a state-sanctioned ritual mind you, that encourages people to swear undying loyalty... while the same state makes it fairly simple to divorce. What does this promote, other than the regular breaking of vows? Oaths used to be important. Now they're cheapened every day of the week. Rather scrap the whole idea of marriage and stop people making fools of themselves.

 

Those who love each other will remain together regardless of the approval of the state or their church. Marriage is irrelevant to them. ;)

 

Originally Posted by toms:

The main flaw with most agruments about marriage is that people erroneously link marriage with religion. Marriage is a civil status, not a religious one. It existed before judaism absorbed it into religion and it just confuses matters to think of it in religious terms.

Marriage may be recognised by the state, but the ceremony of the thing, the rings, the socially accepted standard of one partner changing their surname... it's all derivative of religion in general, and superstitious ritual in general. Regardless of the sanction of the state, this sort of thing should not be encouraged. It's a throwback.

 

As regards homosexual marriage specifically, Peter Tatchell, the well-known homosexual activist, made an interesting point about gays lobbying for better treatment in the military some years ago. He said that despite a general desire for equality with straight people, perhaps homosexuals shouldn't be lobbying to join the army, since the army is an amoral, violent and outdated institution that commits war crimes with startling regularity. By campaigning for the right to join the armed forces, perhaps homosexuals were not being as forward-thinking, enlightened or LIBERAL, as they should be, considering their background.

 

Perhaps that argument also applies to marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe that... I think most people view marriage as a serious commitment... I'm certainly viewing it like that.. I don't believe in the idea of divorce, and I don't think my wife will either. We're stuck together for life, basically.

 

but the ceremony of the thing, the rings, the socially accepted standard of one partner changing their surname... it's all derivative of religion in general, and superstitious ritual in general. Regardless of the sanction of the state, this sort of thing should not be encouraged. It's a throwback.

 

The rings date back to the Greeks, who found a thin "nerve" leading from the ring finger on the left hand to the heart. The ring is a symbol of this connection. Pretty sure it has nothing to do with religion..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, this appears to be incorrect. According to these sources, the Egyptians made the first wedding bands:

 

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-History-of-Engagement-Rings-and-Wedding-Bands&id=24579

 

http://www.atlantisring.com/History_of_Wedding_Rings.htm

 

http://www.weddinggazette.com/content/004566.shtml

(The above source corroberates your reasoning behind it, but it's actually the Egyptians, not the Greeks)

 

I agree that the wedding rings/bands have no bearing on religion; there's no problem in my book with atheists marrying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...