What's so scary about same sex marriage?

[Jon]

I believe in God. But I don't believe that mythology that explained creation to those who lived prior to scientific method. The same way I do not adhere to dietary laws laid out in the Bible. Why? Because I am not a desert wandering nomad and I have refrigeration. and yet the dietary laws are (or should be) just as important as a Biblical edict against the rights of man vis-a-vis homosexuality.

I do not believe that God it in for homosexuals. I believe that earth bound bigots do, but not God.

You confuse the Bible with religion.

 

[Nosmo King]

No... social conservatives who are largely Christians see homosexuality as a perversion, a mental illness, a disgusting sexual act, and traditional marriage being that of a man and a woman wed in the eyes of God in holy matrimony, should not be soiled by such a disgusting sexual perversion.

It's just that simple.

In spite of psychological studies to the contrary, there are folks who eschew science and still think in terms of perversion and mental illness.

Weird.

I guess there still are folks who think the world is flat, too.

Science refutes what the most fundamental religious people believe. What a pity! Imagine if mumbo jumbo was replace by clarity and reason! What a wonderful world we could enjoy. We would not only have a greater understanding of the natural world, but we could practically eliminate prejudice and blind bigotry.

And God has nothing to do with state law. We are not governed by the Taliban.

Well... sorry I touched that nerve, but what I spoke of was the opinion of the vast majority of the world. Men shouldn't stick their pee pees up each other ass. That's not the way they were built. That's a perverted sex act, and not natural or normal, and the vast majority of the people on earth believe that way, and no matter how sugary you want to dress up homos, it will never the majority think men pumping each others brown eye is anything but perverted and disgusting. You're in a dream world if you think that's going to happen. The BIGOTRY is all on your part against normal people having a normal reaction to a sexual perversion.

God calls homosexuality an abomination, and that a man that lies with another man as a woman shall surely die, his blood shall be upon them. Why should the church sanctify that?

Homosexuality is prevalent in all cultures during all recorded history. It is neither an abomination nor a perversion.

And God has nothing to do with contract law. No one is asking for a marriage to be sanctified by the person issuing the marriage license.

And you are projecting, if I may borrow a psychological term. The bigotry is from one who neither understands, nor has the capacity to understand things that are not familiar to him.

 

[007]

Science refutes what the most fundamental religious people believe.

That's a different argument, and irrelevant to the question. In addition, it's completely false.

Then explain why psychiatrists do not agree that homosexuality is a perversion. Explain why Fundamentalists would rather eschew evolution for mythology.

The APA and Homosexuality

Via Kathy Shaidle, Sally Satel’s review of The Loss of Sadness: How Psychiatry Transformed Normal Sorrow Into Depressive Disorder contains an interesting tidbit about the APA’s decision to eliminate homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders:

In the early 1970s, annual meetings of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) were home to angry showdowns between the gay rights lobby and organized psychiatry. Activists picketed convention sites, shouted down speakers, and waged ad hominem attacks on psychiatrists who sincerely believed that homosexuality was a sickness. The goal of their flamboyant campaign against the APA — an impressive display of “guerrilla theater,” as one psychiatrist put it — was to force the association to take homosexuality out of its official handbook, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, second edition, popularly known as the DSM-II.

In December 1973, they won. A decisive majority of the APA board of trustees voted to remove homosexuality from the professional nomenclature.”Doctors Rule Homosexuals Not Abnormal,” read the headline in the next day’s Washington Post. It was a major victory both for gay people and for the enlightened wing of the psychiatric establishment. But rather than calm the critics of psychiatry, the APA’s acknowledgment that homosexuality was not a mental illness only inflamed them. They took this as further evidence that the profession was a sham, and asked in outrage how psychiatry could claim to be a legitimate, scientific branch of medicine if its members determined the very existence of an illness by vote.

The APA and Homosexuality « Vox Nova

 

[007]

Why should the church sanctify that?

It shouldn't. But that has nothing to do with marriage. Marriage is a legal contract. Period.

No, a legal contract would be a civil union. Marriage is much, much more, period.

 

[Ringel05]

I don't really understand it, either. Traditional marriages are already a sham, and I don't see how allowing gay marriage will change that, for the better or worse.

I don't really see the religious side of the argument, either. The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. Not allowing gays to marry isn't stopping them from being gay, so it's not as if these people are preventing sin. Furthermore, one is not a sinner for allowing sin to happen.

So yeah, I don't get it. But whatever. It's the least important of the issues this country is dealing with right now.

You may have hit upon the root problem. The desire among Christians is to fix this issue and they view same sex marriage as exacerbating the problem, not solving it. The traditional marriage was to unite a man and a woman in a supposed permanent union, essentially for two reasons, to help and complete each other in daily life and to procreate.

 

[Jon]

No, a legal contract would be a civil union. Marriage is much, much more, period.

In this country, it is not. It's a contract. It binds a man and a woman together as one unit in the eyes of the government. Not God. If you want God involved in your marriage, that's your decision.

Do you also argue that atheist should enter into civil unions instead of marriage, since you think marriage involves God?

 

[007]

Homosexuality is prevalent in all cultures during all recorded history.

That certainly doesn't make it right, or normal.

It is neither an abomination nor a perversion.

Phht... aaahh, yeah, it is, and the vast majority of people on earth all believe that.

And God has nothing to do with contract law.

No, but our society does, and the majority of our society believe homosexuality to be perverted and a sin.

No one is asking for a marriage to be sanctified by the person issuing the marriage license.

That's not even an issue.

And you are projecting, if I may borrow a psychological term. The bigotry is from one who neither understands, nor has the capacity to understand things that are not familiar to him.

A bigot is a person that is unwilling to accept what another believes or thinks. Pretty much what you are doing to me. Clearly, when two people disagree, and both are unwilling to accept each others beliefs, there is bigotry. So if I'm one, then so are you.

 

[Nosmo King]

Why should the church sanctify that?

It shouldn't. But that has nothing to do with marriage. Marriage is a legal contract. Period.

No, a legal contract would be a civil union. Marriage is much, much more, period.

No, marriage is contract law. That's the issue. That's what states can adjudicate.

The sanctification of marriage, the sacrament of marriage is something that is the province of the church.

Two separate entities, one has nothing to do with the legal issue, the other has nothing to do with a "deeper meaning" of marriage.

 

[007]

No, a legal contract would be a civil union. Marriage is much, much more, period.

In this country, it is not. It's a contract. It binds a man and a woman together as one unit in the eyes of the government. Not God. If you want God involved in your marriage, that's your decision.

Do you also argue that atheist should enter into civil unions instead of marriage, since you think marriage involves God?

Whatever... believe what you want. I'll believe what I want. These threads always turn into shouting matches and insult fests, and it just isn't worth it. I've been in these discussions here on this board more times than I really cared to have been at this point. It's an exercise in futility.

I won't change your mind, and you won't change mine, so I beg your pardon Jon, but I'm bowing out if this one. I've said my piece, I'm done.

 

[Nosmo King]

I don't really understand it, either. Traditional marriages are already a sham, and I don't see how allowing gay marriage will change that, for the better or worse.

I don't really see the religious side of the argument, either. The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. Not allowing gays to marry isn't stopping them from being gay, so it's not as if these people are preventing sin. Furthermore, one is not a sinner for allowing sin to happen.

So yeah, I don't get it. But whatever. It's the least important of the issues this country is dealing with right now.

You may have hit upon the root problem. The desire among Christians is to fix this issue and they view same sex marriage as exacerbating the problem, not solving it. The traditional marriage was to unite a man and a woman in a supposed permanent union, essentially for two reasons, to help and complete each other in daily life and to procreate.

So...marriage is out of the question for my widowed 75 year old mother? Her days of procreation are long gone.

 

[KittenKoder]

Why not?

Because it is the government dictating which religious beliefs are valid and which are not. Many religions do not agree with that stance, and some do not agree with marriage in laws at all.

Well if you all believe that, then why is it so important for homos to marry? Why can't they be satisfied with a Civil Union when they get all the same benefits?

Truthfully, I don't care about if someone should or should not be allowed to "get married" ...I actually believe that there should be no legal connection at all, none. "Civil Unions" for all by the law, since the word marriage has been perverted to mean something only resembling what it really means in the first place. Marriage is a union of two objects, applying that to living things, anything can be married to anything.

 

[Jon]

No, a legal contract would be a civil union. Marriage is much, much more, period.

In this country, it is not. It's a contract. It binds a man and a woman together as one unit in the eyes of the government. Not God. If you want God involved in your marriage, that's your decision.

Do you also argue that atheist should enter into civil unions instead of marriage, since you think marriage involves God?

Whatever... believe what you want. I'll believe what I want. These threads always turn into shouting matches and insult fests, and it just isn't worth it. I've been in these discussions here on this board more times than I really cared to have been at this point. It's an exercise in futility.

I won't change your mind, and you won't change mine, so I beg your pardon Jon, but I'm bowing out if this one. I've said my piece, I'm done.

I'm not asking you to believe anything, nor telling you what I believe. I'm just stating a fact. A marriage license is issued by the government, and it does not involve God. The issue at hand is allowing these licenses to be issued to same-sex couples. Your argument is that God does not permit homosexuality. My argument is that God has nothing to do with a marriage license.

 

[Ringel05]

Because it is the government dictating which religious beliefs are valid and which are not. Many religions do not agree with that stance, and some do not agree with marriage in laws at all.

Well if you all believe that, then why is it so important for homos to marry? Why can't they be satisfied with a Civil Union when they get all the same benefits?

Truthfully, I don't care about if someone should or should not be allowed to "get married" ...I actually believe that there should be no legal connection at all, none. "Civil Unions" for all by the law, since the word marriage has been perverted to mean something only resembling what it really means in the first place. Marriage is a union of two objects, applying that to living things, anything can be married to anything.

The other perceived challenge with opening up the flood gates, so to speak.

 

[Nosmo King]

Truthfully, I don't care about if someone should or should not be allowed to "get married" ...I actually believe that there should be no legal connection at all, none. "Civil Unions" for all by the law, since the word marriage has been perverted to mean something only resembling what it really means in the first place. Marriage is a union of two objects, applying that to living things, anything can be married to anything.

No one has advocated changing marriage from a contract between two consenting adults to anything else.

A straw-man built by opponents to human rights, marriage between children and adults, between adults and animals, between more than two adults, between adults and inanimate object.

It's a ridiculous notion, of course. But when this straw-man is in the road, everyone must slow down to swerve around it.

 

[Ringel05]

Truthfully, I don't care about if someone should or should not be allowed to "get married" ...I actually believe that there should be no legal connection at all, none. "Civil Unions" for all by the law, since the word marriage has been perverted to mean something only resembling what it really means in the first place. Marriage is a union of two objects, applying that to living things, anything can be married to anything.

No one has advocated changing marriage from a contract between two consenting adults to anything else.

A straw-man built by opponents to human rights, marriage between children and adults, between adults and animals, between more than two adults, between adults and inanimate object.

It's a ridiculous notion, of course. But when this straw-man is in the road, everyone must slow down to swerve around it.

Let's take a look at that. At one time homosexuality was legally considered a mental illness, now it is not because many accept homosexuals are born not made. Let's apply that reasoning to all forms of "deviant" sexual behavior.
Note: I am not arguing for or against, just presenting potential extrapolations.

 

[Nosmo King]

Truthfully, I don't care about if someone should or should not be allowed to "get married" ...I actually believe that there should be no legal connection at all, none. "Civil Unions" for all by the law, since the word marriage has been perverted to mean something only resembling what it really means in the first place. Marriage is a union of two objects, applying that to living things, anything can be married to anything.

No one has advocated changing marriage from a contract between two consenting adults to anything else.

A straw-man built by opponents to human rights, marriage between children and adults, between adults and animals, between more than two adults, between adults and inanimate object.

It's a ridiculous notion, of course. But when this straw-man is in the road, everyone must slow down to swerve around it.

Let's take a look at that. At one time homosexuality was legally considered a mental illness, now it is not because many accept homosexuals are born not made. Let's apply that reasoning to all forms of "deviant" sexual behavior.
Note: I am not arguing for or against, just presenting potential extrapolations.

When two consenting homosexual adults enter a monogamous relationship, are any laws broken?

Is the same true for deviant behavior like pedophilia, bestiality, etc.?

 

[Contumacious]

Please explain why particularly Social Conservatives find same sex marriage so damn scary??

I firmly subscribe to the motto: "If the good Lord made something better than pussy he kept it for himself".

But unfortunately our nation is populated by individuals who feel compelled to regulate their neighbors' behavior.

.

 

[JD_2B]

No one has advocated changing marriage from a contract between two consenting adults to anything else.

A straw-man built by opponents to human rights, marriage between children and adults, between adults and animals, between more than two adults, between adults and inanimate object.

It's a ridiculous notion, of course. But when this straw-man is in the road, everyone must slow down to swerve around it.

Let's take a look at that. At one time homosexuality was legally considered a mental illness, now it is not because many accept homosexuals are born not made. Let's apply that reasoning to all forms of "deviant" sexual behavior.
Note: I am not arguing for or against, just presenting potential extrapolations.

When two consenting homosexual adults enter a monogamous relationship, are any laws broken?

Is the same true for deviant behavior like pedophilia, bestiality, etc.?

Comparing two consenting adults with an adult-child relationship, or an adult-animal relationship, or even an adult-dead person relationship, is comparing apples and oranges.

Two consenting adults are two consenting adults. There is no way to gauge whether animals can consent, and it is widely recognized that children are not emotionally mature enough to give informed consent, either. I am also sure that the dead can't consent, either.

I am pro gay marriage, though.. just pointing out that your comparison sucks for the purposes of this discussion.

 

[Nosmo King]

Let's take a look at that. At one time homosexuality was legally considered a mental illness, now it is not because many accept homosexuals are born not made. Let's apply that reasoning to all forms of "deviant" sexual behavior.
Note: I am not arguing for or against, just presenting potential extrapolations.

When two consenting homosexual adults enter a monogamous relationship, are any laws broken?

Is the same true for deviant behavior like pedophilia, bestiality, etc.?

Comparing two consenting adults with an adult-child relationship, or an adult-animal relationship, or even an adult-dead person relationship, is comparing apples and oranges.

Two consenting adults are two consenting adults. There is no way to gauge whether animals can consent, and it is widely recognized that children are not emotionally mature enough to give informed consent, either. I am also sure that the dead can't consent, either.

I am pro gay marriage, though.. just pointing out that your comparison sucks for the purposes of this discussion.

I know it sucks. But I was responding to Ringel about the legality of homosexuality and its adaptation into social mores.

 

[immto]

Truthfully, I don't care about if someone should or should not be allowed to "get married" ...I actually believe that there should be no legal connection at all, none. "Civil Unions" for all by the law, since the word marriage has been perverted to mean something only resembling what it really means in the first place. Marriage is a union of two objects, applying that to living things, anything can be married to anything.

No one has advocated changing marriage from a contract between two consenting adults to anything else.

A straw-man built by opponents to human rights, marriage between children and adults, between adults and animals, between more than two adults, between adults and inanimate object.

It's a ridiculous notion, of course. But when this straw-man is in the road, everyone must slow down to swerve around it.

What about the gay rights people who simply want "marriage" so they use it as ammo against the church.