Support NeoGAF

[Anthropic]

It should be noted that Issue 1 is so poorly worded that the Republican Governor, the two Republican Senators, and the Republican mayor of Akron all oppose it.

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/state/9915184.htm

 

[jecclr2003]

kurisu you must have missed the part where I said I realize it's an ancient institution. I understand it USED to be a way to bolster your livestock and size of land. It was a barter system.

But this is 2004, not the dark ages. And in todays meaning, marriage IS a religous institution. Deny it all you like, but that's what it is in TODAYS CONTEXT.

And once again people mis-read things to take what they want out of them. I've already said I don't care if homosexuals form a civil union, or get the same benefits. Thats not an issue to me. But don't try and call it marriage when it doesn't fit the defenition. It todays context, regardless of which faith you might be it IS DEFINED as a union between a man and woman.

But like I;ve also said, I find it fishy that the government gives benefits for something that in TODAYS TERMS is deemed a religious practice. Kinda defeats the whole church and state thing, doens't it?

I don't care what the hell goes in your bedrooms, just as you shouldn't care about anybody elses. I'm not trying to be bigoted, but I'm sorry if MY views don't match yours. Such is life, people have varying viewpoints. Nothing is black and white, his topic fits right into that grey area that people will NEVER come to a middle ground on.

Like I also said you make a law allowing gay marriages, and you'll have the 35-65 religous majority on your rear end and wanting you out of office for allowing something that is reprehensible in their eyes. Thats the key demo, the ones who actually vote, ages 35-65+. And politicians won't do something that would jepordize their fragile state of affairs in politics.

Tis bill will NEVER come to pass one way or another, it will never be allowed yet never banned. It will continue to be a grey area. Thats just the way it is....

 

[shoplifter]

I've already decided that when this passes, I'm creating a petition for next year's ballot replacing all instances of 'marriage' with 'civil unions' in the Ohio lawbooks.

 

[megateto]

It todays context, regardless of which faith you might be it IS DEFINED as a union between a man and woman.

People defines things. So that can and in fact is changing.

Off-topic: Do you believe in evolution?

 

[jecclr2003]

shoplifter this has no chance of passing. Not one. It will be lucky if it even hits a ballot and isn't thrown out.

But if it does pass I'd be right there with ya.

and for the record yes I do believe in evolution.

 

[Nerevar]

But this is 2004, not the dark ages. And in todays meaning, marriage IS a religous institution. Deny it all you like, but that's what it is in TODAYS CONTEXT.

Are you consciously ignoring all the posts that directly contradict this statement, or are you really just trying to make yourself look this bad? Marriage does have a religious aspect to some people, but not to everyone. It is primarily a social and legal institution that predates any of the western religions by thousands of years. Why do you keep banging your head against the wall and refusing to accep this?

 

[Goreomedy]

Jecc, you should read the bible IN CONTEXT. Then, perhaps, you'd see that homosexuality is never condemned by scripture.

And you're wrong. Marriage hasn't been redefined by Christianity. But your boys sure are making a go at it now...

Something has to happen. Equal marriage rights, or no marriage rights.

 

[Mercury Fred]

But this is 2004, not the dark ages. And in todays meaning, marriage IS a religous institution. Deny it all you like, but that's what it is in TODAYS CONTEXT.

So, tell me, when Britney Spears gets married in Vegas then divorces the same week or when reality shows are dedicated to marrying on screen, are those out of TODAYS CONTEX? If so, where would you place them? Just curious. Also, could you talk about divorce in general and how that fits into your ideas concerning marriage as a religious institution?

And once again people mis-read things to take what they want out of them.

Is this anything like the selective reading of the bible that people like yourself partake in in order to justify their own bigotry? You bring up Sodom and Gomorrah, but what about the biblical mandate against eating shellfish or stoning women to death for cheating or killing someone for working on the sabbath?

I'm not trying to be bigoted

You're doing a very good job of being a bigot for not trying. Congrats.

 

[Diablos]

Why do people even waste their fucking time... seriously...

 

[shoplifter]

shoplifter this has no chance of passing. Not one. It will be lucky if it even hits a ballot and isn't thrown out.

Dude, are you kidding? It ON the ballots Nov 2 and polls here in Ohio show it at something like 65% in favor. The opposition says they've got $1.5 mill to combat it, well they'd better fucking start.

 

[Nerevar]

But like I;ve also said, I find it fishy that the government gives benefits for something that in TODAYS TERMS is deemed a religious practice. Kinda defeats the whole church and state thing, doens't it?

Jeez, didn't even read this. You're really thick, aren't you?

 

[Goreomedy]

Why do people even waste their fucking time... seriously...

Because we're sick and tired of the smug, ignorant asses like Jecc, and will continue to "annoy" them every chance we get.

 

[Diablos]

Not sure what side you stand for, but I was talking about the church... not GAFers

 

[NotMSRP]

Religion should be banned. It's one of the biggest stirs for human stupidity.

 

[IJoel]

And in todays meaning, marriage IS a religous institution.

But like I;ve also said, I find it fishy that the government gives benefits for something that in TODAYS TERMS is deemed a religious practice. Kinda defeats the whole church and state thing, doens't it?

You seem to defent the church and state separation, yet support marrage as a religious institution being part of the government?

I don't know... not clear on what's your point exactly. It seems like a contradiction to me.

As some other have said, if religions want to keep marriages 'sacred' the government should simply rename marriages as civil unions and allow for the same benefits for everyone.

 

[Goreomedy]

Not sure what side you stand for, but I was talking about the church... not GAFers

I stand on the side of knowing what I have, in my 6 year monogamous relationship with another man, should not be reduced to genital activity and is every bit as committed, meaningful, and challenging as any heterosexual relationship. I deserve equal rights under the law. And, if rejected, I deserve a better explanation than "God says so."

I don't give a fuck if the the Jeccs of the world are "sick of all the bitching". You can't be more wrong about the people you condemn. If you'd take the time to really get to know some of us, you'd recognize that.

 

[OmniGamer]

Seperation of church and state doesn't apply only to politicians. The people voting also need to exercise this restraint as well, otherwise, what's the point. As a result, you shouldn't be using your religion as a basis for determining what's really a human rights issue here for gay marriage. Are there reasons other than homophobia that makes a marriage ban necessary? If not, why vote for it? I could go on and on about how flawed and hokey the Bible and its teachings are. A lot of bullshit has been passed off in the name of religion in the past. I think it should stay as far away from RATIONAL discussions as possible. Religion is the epitomy of irrational. When your justification is the word of a manufactured god, it makes it totally worthless IMO. That's the problem with religious morality IMO. People don't seek further explanations for their decisions b/c they trust to damn much in the "Word of God." I don't really care if that offends anyone, b/c it's true. It's about damn time people woke up to what religion is/was really about, control. PEACE.

My thoughts exactly.

I'm really annoyed at the fact that everytime these type of discussions come up, and a bible-thumper says this and that, and is completely owned by simple rational counterpoints, they never try to counter back...a month goes by, maybe two, another topic comes up, and they resort to the same arguments that have already been dismissed. I guess that's what happens when instead of trying to do something dynamic like, oh, i don't know, THINKING, you spout the same crap because you're bound to something static and outmoded(and very contradictory). DIE SHRIMP EATERS DIE!!!

 

[jecclr2003]

I'm not refusing anything.

I just find it odd that I seem to be thos ONLY PERSON on this board who doesn't support gay marriage. Technically because IT ISN'T MARRIAGE.

Lets refer to the Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition shall we?

MARRIAGE

socially sanctioned union that reproduces the family. In all societies the choice of partners is generally guided by rules of exogamy (the obligation to marry outside a group); some societies also have rules of endogamy (the obligation to marry within a group). These rules may be prescriptive or, as in the case of the incest taboo, proscriptive; they generally apply to kinship groups such as clan or lineage; residential groups; and social groups such as the ethnic group, caste, or class. 1
Marriage is usually heterosexual and entails exclusive rights and duties of sexual performance, but there are instructive exceptions. For example, Nayar women of India would ritually marry men of a superior caste, have numerous lovers, and bear legitimate children. Among the Dahomey of West Africa, one woman could marry another; the first woman would be the legal “father” of the children (by other men) of the second. These examples highlight the functions of marriage to reproduce both a domestic division of labor and social relationships between different groups. Such functions are served even by the more common type of marriage, the union of one or more men with one or more women. 2
In most societies men and women are valued for their different roles in the household economy. Marriage therefore often occasions other economic exchanges. If a woman’s labor is highly valued, a man may be required to offer valuable goods (bride-price) or his own labor (bride-service) to his wife’s family. If a man’s labor is more highly valued, the bride’s family may offer goods (dowry) to the husband or his family.

Although marriage tends to be regarded in many places as a permanent tie, divorce is allowed in most modern societies. The causes of divorce vary, but adultery, desertion, infertility, failure to provide the necessities of life, mistreatment, and incompatibility are the most common. Civil unions are now permitted in Western countries, but for nearly a thousand years marriage in the Western world was a religious contract. The Christian church undertook its supervision in the 9th cent., when newlywed couples instituted the practice of coming to the church door to have their union blessed by the priest. Eventually the church regulated marriage through canon law. In contemporary N Europe marriage has lost some of importance, especially as social legislation has emphasized assuring equal financial benefits and legal standing to children born to unwed parents.

Like I was saying, marriage itself is a religous matter in todays context and has been for about 1000 years.

Once again people fail to see I'm pretty indifferent to the whole situaion, just providing different viewpoints, mainly because those who are truly against it don't seem to want to come forward and post their feelings or reasons as to why. As for rights/benefits, I've said numerous times now I dont care, since marriage itself is viewed in the religous sense by our own governments. Meaning a MAN AND A WOMAN. Perhaps we need to eliminate that since it does contradict this country's edict fo seperation of church and state. I'd be all for that.

The only thing I refuse, is to be chastised for saying what a majorty of people in this country feel and have voiced. And sorry but this little corner of the internet is not the majority. And a majority of people (at least that I have spoken to) don't approve of gay marriage. Why? Due to it being religious/moral issue.

If you chose to consider that being a bigot, so be it. I could care less. I don't approve of it. Plain and simple. You don't like that, so be it. I've stated why I don't apporve of it, tired of repeating myself.

 

[Mercury Fred]

I'm not refusing anything.

I just find it odd that I seem to be thos ONLY PERSON on this board who doesn't support gay marriage. Technically because IT ISN'T MARRIAGE.

Lets refer to the Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition shall we?

MARRIAGE

socially sanctioned union that reproduces the family. In all societies the choice of partners is generally guided by rules of exogamy (the obligation to marry outside a group); some societies also have rules of endogamy (the obligation to marry within a group). These rules may be prescriptive or, as in the case of the incest taboo, proscriptive; they generally apply to kinship groups such as clan or lineage; residential groups; and social groups such as the ethnic group, caste, or class. 1
Marriage is usually heterosexual and entails exclusive rights and duties of sexual performance, but there are instructive exceptions. For example, Nayar women of India would ritually marry men of a superior caste, have numerous lovers, and bear legitimate children. Among the Dahomey of West Africa, one woman could marry another; the first woman would be the legal “father” of the children (by other men) of the second. These examples highlight the functions of marriage to reproduce both a domestic division of labor and social relationships between different groups. Such functions are served even by the more common type of marriage, the union of one or more men with one or more women. 2
In most societies men and women are valued for their different roles in the household economy. Marriage therefore often occasions other economic exchanges. If a woman’s labor is highly valued, a man may be required to offer valuable goods (bride-price) or his own labor (bride-service) to his wife’s family. If a man’s labor is more highly valued, the bride’s family may offer goods (dowry) to the husband or his family.

Although marriage tends to be regarded in many places as a permanent tie, divorce is allowed in most modern societies. The causes of divorce vary, but adultery, desertion, infertility, failure to provide the necessities of life, mistreatment, and incompatibility are the most common. Civil unions are now permitted in Western countries, but for nearly a thousand years marriage in the Western world was a religious contract. The Christian church undertook its supervision in the 9th cent., when newlywed couples instituted the practice of coming to the church door to have their union blessed by the priest. Eventually the church regulated marriage through canon law. In contemporary N Europe marriage has lost some of importance, especially as social legislation has emphasized assuring equal financial benefits and legal standing to children born to unwed parents.

Like I was saying, marriage itself is a religous matter in todays context and has been for about 1000 years.

Once again people fail to see I'm pretty indifferent to the whole situaion, just providing different viewpoints, mainly because those who are truly against it don't seem to want to come forward and post their feelings or reasons as to why. As for rights/benefits, I've said numerous times now I dont care, since marriage itself is viewed in the religous sense by our own governments. Meaning a MAN AND A WOMAN. Perhaps we need to eliminate that since it does contradict this country's edict fo seperation of church and state. I'd be all for that.

The only thing I refuse, is to be chastised for saying what a majorty of people in this country feel and have voiced. And sorry but this little corner of the internet is not the majority. And a majority of people (at least that I have spoken to) don't approve of gay marriage. Why? Due to it being religious/moral issue.

If you chose to consider that being a bigot, so be it. I could care less. I don't approve of it. Plain and simple. You don't like that, so be it. I've stated why I don't apporve of it, tired of repeating myself.

ban?

 

[Goreomedy]

I'm not refusing anything.

I just find it odd that I seem to be thos ONLY PERSON on this board who doesn't support gay marriage. Technically because IT ISN'T MARRIAGE.

Lets refer to the Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition shall we?

MARRIAGE

socially sanctioned union that reproduces the family. In all societies the choice of partners is generally guided by rules of exogamy (the obligation to marry outside a group); some societies also have rules of endogamy (the obligation to marry within a group). These rules may be prescriptive or, as in the case of the incest taboo, proscriptive; they generally apply to kinship groups such as clan or lineage; residential groups; and social groups such as the ethnic group, caste, or class. 1
Marriage is usually heterosexual and entails exclusive rights and duties of sexual performance, but there are instructive exceptions. For example, Nayar women of India would ritually marry men of a superior caste, have numerous lovers, and bear legitimate children. Among the Dahomey of West Africa, one woman could marry another; the first woman would be the legal “father” of the children (by other men) of the second. These examples highlight the functions of marriage to reproduce both a domestic division of labor and social relationships between different groups. Such functions are served even by the more common type of marriage, the union of one or more men with one or more women. 2
In most societies men and women are valued for their different roles in the household economy. Marriage therefore often occasions other economic exchanges. If a woman’s labor is highly valued, a man may be required to offer valuable goods (bride-price) or his own labor (bride-service) to his wife’s family. If a man’s labor is more highly valued, the bride’s family may offer goods (dowry) to the husband or his family.

Although marriage tends to be regarded in many places as a permanent tie, divorce is allowed in most modern societies. The causes of divorce vary, but adultery, desertion, infertility, failure to provide the necessities of life, mistreatment, and incompatibility are the most common. Civil unions are now permitted in Western countries, but for nearly a thousand years marriage in the Western world was a religious contract. The Christian church undertook its supervision in the 9th cent., when newlywed couples instituted the practice of coming to the church door to have their union blessed by the priest. Eventually the church regulated marriage through canon law. In contemporary N Europe marriage has lost some of importance, especially as social legislation has emphasized assuring equal financial benefits and legal standing to children born to unwed parents.

Like I was saying, marriage itself is a religous matter in todays context and has been for about 1000 years.

Once again people fail to see I'm pretty indifferent to the whole situaion, just providing different viewpoints, mainly because those who are truly against it don't seem to want to come forward and post their feelings or reasons as to why. As for rights/benefits, I've said numerous times now I dont care, since marriage itself is viewed in the religous sense by our own governments. Meaning a MAN AND A WOMAN. Perhaps we need to eliminate that since it does contradict this country's edict fo seperation of church and state. I'd be all for that.

The only thing I refuse, is to be chastised for saying what a majorty of people in this country feel and have voiced. And sorry but this little corner of the internet is not the majority. And a mojority of people (at least that I have spoken to) don't approve of gay marriage. Why? Due to it being religious/moral issue.

The most offensive thing I've ever heard out of Christian's mouth about this issue wasn't a typical "Adam and Steve" catchphrase, or even the F-bomb. It was "I wish it were different, but that's what the Bible says."

Why must you people point to the bible, or to a dictionary, and shrug your fucking shoulders? Why can't you explain, in specifics, why you believe homosexuality and gay marriage are immoral? What about it hurts society? And then after you've given me that explanation, provide examples, anything of substance to back up those anxieties.

 

[Vennt]

The most offensive thing I've ever heard out of Christian's mouth about this issue wasn't a typical "Adam and Steve" catchphrase, or even the F-bomb. It was "I wish it were different, but that's what the Bible says."

Why must you people point to the bible, or to a dictionary, and shrug your fucking shoulders? Why can't you explain, in specifics, why you believe homosexuality and gay marriage are immoral? What about it hurts society? And then after you've given me that explanation, provide examples, anything of substance to back up those anxieties.

A man with no legs tends to fall over when you take his crutches off him

 

[WordofGod]

New Testament:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God" 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NKJV

Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, abusers, and swindlers--none of these will have a share in the Kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NLT

 

[levious]

T
Why must you people point to the bible, or to a dictionary, and shrug your fucking shoulders? Why can't you explain, in specifics, why you believe homosexuality and gay marriage are immoral? What about it hurts society? And then after you've given me that explanation, provide examples, anything of substance to back up those anxieties.

I fully agree, I've said this before, but dictionary's that were written a mere generation ago defined a homosexual as a man who was only truly fulfilled sexually by orally pleasing a heterosexual man. Shit gets outdated quick.

 

[DJ Demon J]

A man with no legs tends to fall over when you take his crutches off him

And as many enlightened individuals that have been born, lived, died and will be born in the future know and will know, religion is a crutch for the weak-minded to ease their fragile minds about the uncomfortable realities of life and the unexplainable forces of the universe.

 

[Matlock]

Whoa whoa whoa, what's the amendment process in Ohio? Surely you don't just need a majority popular vote, right? What else did that have to go through?

I wish I could tell you, to be honest... :-\

shoplifter this has no chance of passing. Not one. It will be lucky if it even hits a ballot and isn't thrown out.

But if it does pass I'd be right there with ya.

and for the record yes I do believe in evolution.

It's there, and it'll more than likely pass by a 5-10% margin.

 

[Goreomedy]

New Testament:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God" 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NKJV

Male prositutes and their Johns hardly represent homosexual couples.

Please share with us when the word Homosexual was inserted into that scripture. Thanks in advance for the reply, Word.

 

[OmniGamer]

New Testament:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God" 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NKJV

Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, abusers, and swindlers--none of these will have a share in the Kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NLT

Ignoring the obvious futility of the quoted post above, i'll simply say, why not propose a marriage ban on criminals and alcoholics?

 

[Che]

Civil marriage and all the rights, privileges, and associated penalties as well is not religious. I have no problem if a church doesn't want to recognize a marriage between two men or two women - let the pope bitch all he wants, I don't give a crap. But if the government gets involved in granting privileges and responsibilites based on such unions then the government's role is not religious and therefore must adhere to equality and non-discriminatory tests.

First of all, once again I feel totally disgusted by the words of a christian that I want to throw up (or beat him up). Second teiresias is completely right. Who cares what some christians say? And as long as the state is supposed to be separate from church, gay marriage should be allowed.

 

[jecclr2003]

Mercury, Ban for what? For stating a different viewpoint than yours? Sorry, I'm not you.

I've stated why I don't approve of it perosnally. But on the other side of the coin, (as I repeeat myself once AGAIN), I don't care what goes on in whomevers bedroom. I'm not going to judge you or call you out on it, your business is your business.


But I DON'T APPROVE OF IT!
I DON'T ENDORSE IT, IT MAY BE FINE FOR YOU RIGHT NOW, BUT NOT FOR EVERYONE ELSE!
BUT, I'm not going to be the type of person that tries to make a crusade out of it.

In case you didnt here me the first time, your business is your business.

But thats what makes the world great, we have have differing opinions.

RIGHT?


Apparantly not.

 

[Goreomedy]

Mercury, Ban for what? For stating a different viewpoint than yours? Sorry, I'm not you.

I've stated why I don't approve of it perosnally. But on the other side of the coin, (as I repeeat myself once AGAIN), I don't care what goes on in whomevers bedroom. I'm not going to judge you or call you out on it, your business is your business.


But I DON'T APPROVE OF IT!
I DON'T ENDORSE IT, IT MAY BE FINE FOR YOU RIGHT NOW, BUT NOT FOR EVERYONE ELSE!
BUT, I'm not going to be the type of person that tries to make a crusade out of it.

In case you didnt here me the first time, your business is your business.

But thats what makes the world great, we have have differing opinions.

RIGHT?


Apparantly not.

Can you see how "I don't approve it" and "I don't care what goes on in whomevers bedroom" conflicts here, Jecc?

 

[RevenantKioku]

Ignoring the obvious futility of the quoted post above, i'll simply say, why not propose a marriage ban on criminals and alcoholics?

Because there's not necessarily a penis up the butt?

 

[levious]

BUT, I'm not going to be the type of person that tries to make a crusade out of it.

In case you didnt here me the first time, your business is your business.

That's a smart thing to do, that way in thirty years when the rest of society has passed you by you can claim that "yeah, I was never really THAT against it." Kind of like how it's real hard to find a 60 or 70 year old white person who will own up to being a racist before the civil rights movement. Not saying everyone was, but damn, where'd they all go?

 

[Goreomedy]

You know what would just blow my mind?

Why would I challenge my beliefs when I'm comfortable with them? I'm disgusted by gay sex acts. Homosexuality is not something I can or want to ever understand. And I like that, with every right we deny you, we reinforce our superiority. Would you give that up voluntarily?

That kind of honesty would be so refreshing...

 

[RevenantKioku]

That's a smart thing to do, that way in thirty years when the rest of society has passed you by you can claim that "yeah, I was never really THAT against it." Kind of like how it's real hard to find a 60 or 70 year old white person who will own up to being a racist before the civil rights movement. Not saying everyone was, but damn, where'd they all go?

Its called being closet-whatever.
Some people may still dislike certain races or sexual orientations, but bringing it up in conversation with certain people just causes them unnecessarily trouble. Then they can go back to their families and say "Damn those X's we should have never done Y" and continue on their way. Everyone is relatively happy.

 

[OmniGamer]

Because there's not necessarily a penis up the butt?

Females have assholes too *shock*...but that's beside the point...wrong is wrong, and a sin is a sin right?

 

[RevenantKioku]

Females have assholes too *shock*...but that's beside the point...wrong is wrong, and a sin is a sin right?

Eh, something just gives me a vibe that its more anti-gay than anti-lesbian. Not to say they're not against both....

 

[jecclr2003]

I find it odd that I have to justify my definition of what I feel is right or wrong.

How about you define to me why you enjoy a homosexual relationship as oppesed to a heterosexual relationship?

Oh, that's right, IT'S NONE OF MY BUSINESS!

I'm not going to go into some long spiel about how I feel homosexuality (in MY opinion) is immoral or wrong. It's my belief, leave it as such.

But I will give you the short of it, I can not understand the appeal of being with another man, I find the thought repulsive. But, whats good for me isn't neccisarily whats right for you. And I'm completely fine with that. As long as you are happy with who your with, fantastic. Good for you, as long as you don't make it a point to try and force your sexual preference down the worlds collective throat.

Now to me, anyone that questions why one doesn't approve of something of that nature seem to me like they are just looking to be confrontational. I don't question your beliefs, don't question mine.

 

[Goreomedy]

I find it odd that I have to justify my definition of what I feel is right or wrong.

How about you define to me why you enjoy a homosexual relationship as oppesed to a heterosexual relationship?

Oh, that's right, IT'S NONE OF MY BUSINESS!

I'm not going to go into some long spiel about how I feel homosexuality (in MY opinion) is immoral or wrong. It's my belief, leave it as such.

But I will give you the short of it, I can not understand the appeal of being with another man, I find the thought repulsive. But, whats good for me isn't neccisarily whats right for you. And I'm completely fine with that. As long as you are happy with who your with, fantastic. Good for you, as long as you don't make it a point to try and force your sexual preference down the worlds collective throat.

Now to me, anyone that questions why one doesn't approve of something of that nature seem to me like they are just looking to be confrontational. I don't question your beliefs, don't question mine.

First, thanks for the honesty.

But here's the difference, Jecc. My homosexual relationship is a personal, intimate thing that significantly effects no one outside of that coupling.

The condemnation of homosexuals has fostered an environment of fear and hostility. It has lead to murder. It has created a suicide rate among gay teens that is inexcusable. It forces men and women to live their lives in shadow, encouraging anonymous sex and promiscuity.

You should be able to believe what you want, yes. But despite all your claims of supporting the seperation of Church and State, you've made it clear that you want your comfort protected over the rights of homosexuals. THAT's what you have to justify...

 

[Mega Man's Electric Sheep]

What I don't get is why in all the discussions on this topic, people talk as if all gay people are male. Is it that people find the thought of two guys together grosser than two females, and that is the real problem, that they are disgusted by the thought of two men together? Imagine your parents having sex. Disgusting thought, right? Quick, ban their marriage! Not the best standard for banning. This is usually what I hear people saying about gay people though. If it's not religious reasons, it's "gross". It's almost always a guy who finds it gross though. Girls seem unfazed.

 

[RevenantKioku]

But here's the difference, Jecc. My homosexual relationship is a personal, intimate thing that significantly effects no one outside of that coupling.

That's just false.
Whether its heterosexual, homosexual, heteroracial, homoracial, similar ages, different ages, a relationship will most likely affect someone outside of it. Who cares if its right or not, we don't have the time on this planet to argue about such little details. It will happen.
You can't go clamoring for rights, and then when opposition comes tell them "Well you shouldn't care." They're going to care whether you like it or not. Maybe it comes down to just being your best as a human, or maybe you can do more, I don't know.
But hiding behind "They shouldn't care what we do." is almost as bad as them caring so much.

 

[jecclr2003]

I've stated no such thing, but i am sorry you misconstrued what I have typed as such.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

As for the church/state subject. The definition of marriage in the government sense is dervied from the biblical meaning of a man and woman. Therefore making that itself a statement of relgion and not leaving what they deem as marriage open for interpritation.

I don't feel any more or less comfortabe if a gay or lesibian is married or not. Thats for them, not me. I DO understand what that the gay population is misunderstood, abused, and considered by the society at whole as taboo. Well, I'm not the society at large. I refuse to participate in anything like that, considering I wouldn't ant to be treated like that. I also believe in the golden rule of do unto others and do my best to treat all, be they black, white, red, gay, straight doesnt matter to me. Still a person.

Like I also mentioned, I have worked and socialized with gays and lesbians in my own workplace. I work in advertising, and we attract every spectrum here. Not once has their sexuality came up, it was an understood thing that none of us brought up. Mainly because they don't want to hear mine and I don't want to hear theirs.

Oh, Mega not true, my wife finds the concept uneasy as well. Be it male on male or female on female. We both feel the same way. Just isn't our beliefs, sorry.

Like I've stated, what you do is your business. And while I don't support gay marriage, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be an option if you want it. But the definition would be changed forever. I'd be perfectly fine with changing the language of a marriage to a civil-union, leaving it nice and vague to include everyone and remove the religious implications in the process. It wouldn't really afect me in any way shape or form. As long as you'd get the benefits associated with your union, fantastic.

And for once I am embarrased to be from Ohio, knowing that this ACTUALLY made the ballot and could pass. I'll vote against it, even though I don't support it, as I feel it isn't the governments place to be in your bedroom.

 

[AfroLuffy]

. But I do agree, many of the old views that aren't exactly enlightened will hopefully fall away.

Normally, I would agree, but i'm not so optimistic, especially with the current religious climate in this country. Moreso, I'm worried becasue christian ministers and churches have employed a policy in recent years to attract the younger generation.

Usually, they'll organize fun activities for teenagers, bringing the youth minister along for the sermonizing. I don't t hink there's any doubt that this new approach is working.

Personally, i know several friends who've been successfully "saved". One friend started attending a youth group to spend time with a hot girl he liked; now, he's on his way becoming a fulltime minister.

Unfortunately, it goes all the way to the top. The President of our country is a devout christian, elected largely by his constituents simply because he is a man of faith. He even established a presidential prayer team: over three million members supporting him with prayer. Is this a joke? Should our presidential leader, our highest elected authority, to be seen and recognized worldwide, be nothing more than a common man? Remember, we're giving this man a position of authority, putting our very lives in his hands; and yet we pull one out from the common stock simply because he looks more photogenic, he shares similar religious beliefs, or he'd be more fun to have a beer with. For fuck's sake America, give me a philsopher-king not some overgrown monkey pandering to your basest commonalities.

Perhaps, my environment is unfairly skewing my reality. At my home here in the bible belt, I drive to work some four miles down the road and see four churches alongside the road; or I open the phone book and check the yellow pages to find EIGHT full pages of church listings for a small population of 100,000 or so. Amazing!

Since the 1700s this country has been divided: a dichotomy between intellectual and religious lines of thought. Subscribers to the former group, avowing newtonian/lockian ideas and ideals, framed our constitution, modeled the network of our nation. Members of the other line of thought--of deep spiritual inclinations--populated our borders, colonized our nation. I understand this relationship and acknowledge the implications of it , but, now, in the 21st century, i always assumed we'd leaning more and more towards reason not religion.

Beg my pardon, I've been rooting for enlightened ideas for a while now. Always, naively assuming that with education the old systems/institutions would lose their lustre; that people and individuals would finally be able to grasp and appreciate the benefits of this new era forged by intellect. With history we can learn from our mistakes; with math and science we can send men to the moon; with advancements in medicine we can cure new diseases; have we not had great success by placing our trust in man and man's abilities, not in some crude diety, superstitions, or faith? It is all the evidence I require at least.

Maybe, America is everyday becoming more enlightened, not sliding backwards to religion, common thought, prejudices, and slave-morality. It's hardly evident from my surroundings here in florida or from the news and reading articles like these. Do certain models of government(and modernly our media frenzy) engender and encourage certain lines of thought-- a mob mentality? If that's the case, is our form of democracy the wrong system for our times? I can't be certain, maybe that's another topic. Frankly, i'm alarmed that in our day in age, in our society/country where the prosperity of progress is bountiful, so many remain ignorant: swayed by religion, citizens of group-think, and/or at odds with notions/ideas consistent with those that gave them the very rights they now hold and take for granted. A great philosopher once proclaimed "God is dead"--Americans are still baffled.

Afroluffy, singing "America. FUCK YEAH!"

Edit: punctuation

 

[Escape Goat]

Whether its heterosexual, homosexual, heteroracial, homoracial, similar ages, different ages, a relationship will most likely affect someone outside of it

Say what?

 

[Meier]

W . . . T . . . F . . . ??!!!!

This is what the right wants to turn America into. This is what George Bush wants to be the American doctrine of morality. This is the hate-mongering fascist hate-state the current right-wing hijacked Republican party wants to mold this country into. The founding fathers, wigs and all, are rolling in their graves.

Sorry dude but that's bullshit. This isnt about any political party or religious affiliation, this is about someone being outside of both of these and being an extremist. Just because many Republicans dont believe in gay marriage doesn't mean they automatically hate gays and want them to die or even believe that they chose to be gay.

 

[Goreomedy]

That's just false.

The difference is in the significance. A word which you seem to have completely ignored in my post.

 

[impirius]

Hey, this thread was supposed to be a train wreck... what happened?

jecclr2003, could you or another Ohio native explain to me where this is in the amendment process? Has it gone through the Legislature yet?

 

[Nerevar]

Since the 1700s this country has been divided: a dichotomy between intellectual and religious lines of thought. Subscribers to the former group, avowing newtonian/lockian ideas and ideals, framed our constitution, modeled the network of our nation. Members of the other line of thought--of deep spiritual inclinations--populated our borders, colonized our nation.

I hate to burst your bubble, but most of the nation's founders were men with profound and devout spiritual beliefs. The difference was they were able to reconcile their rational, empirical beliefs with their own spirituality - something most modern Christians in America are pathetically incapable of doing.

 

[DJ Demon J]

Normally, I would agree,

*snip*

Afroluffy, singing "America. FUCK YEAH!"

Edit: punctuation

WOW, I think this is one of the best posts I've ever read, and easily the best post from a junior member.

Also, I love how when forced to answer what about homosexuality (defined as ANY same-sex sexual prefence) that bothers him, jecc immediately rattles off cocksucking as his reason. Yet lesbians are OK. Oh how funny would it be if some theologist found evidence of Jesus being gay? :lol

 

[Drensch]

jecclr2003, could you or another Ohio native explain to me where this is in the amendment process? Has it gone through the Legislature yet?

This is on the ballot for the November 2nd election.

 

[jecclr2003]

impirius as far ask I know, this ludacris bill actually will make the Nov 2 ballot. This thread is the first I've heard of it actually getting to that point.

Usually Ohio makes it a point to stay away from such hot button issues. Not this time I guess, just add this to the reasons no one stays here after they graduate.