(October 2, 2011 at 4:14 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: (October 2, 2011 at 3:48 pm)frankiej Wrote: I think what it comes down to is, people should mind their own fucking business.
True..and most ESPECIALLY if it isnt hurting you physically. This man has no argument to make him look less than an oppressive ass.
I wonder how he would feel if his rules were to be applied to him. I bet he would be screaming "OPPRESSION..UNFAIR!"
Well, since I don't even live in the USA, my opinion generally does not reflect any of the common parties that are on the each end of it.
I'm trying to find a middle ground which could work for everybody.
In my own country, we do not have this problem, since the LGBT people here do not come to the state with such demands, nor do they have any political weight, or any parties whatsoever to support them, maybe in the far left, which is far too weak to make a difference.
Quote:I think what it comes down to is, people should mind their own fucking business.
I think they do, since the USA is THE most open country about homosexuality, I believe, not even Sweden is this gay friendly(at least speaking for the public), even though they give them whatever rights they wish for, without them even asking for it.
Quote:I wouldn't feel so inclined to be a jackass on the guy if he'd of made in introduction. Him not doing so just makes me think he's a troll. Especially with some of his posts.
I come from another atheist forum. That one was a bit too slow lately, so I thought I'll switch channels.
I'm not a troll, however, I'm just here to express my opinions as an alternate view to whatever the general view here is on things.
Quote:Yeah, but I guess it's okay for that part of the 'tradition' to change. But cock on cock? fanny on fanny? OH NOES! Why can't they just be honest and say they think it's disgusting or something? Trying to argue against same sex marraige on the grounds of 'tradition' is just plain retarded.
I think that whatever argument that I could come up with, you'll just come and tell me that it's retarded. And I think that stepping on the true purpose and nature of marriage on the ground that you want to, or simply, because you can, is retarded. Also, love is no excuse for anything.
Quote:..doubtless though..he is obviously ignorant to the world history of marriage and tradition. He is spouting off what Barry golwater made popular of "tradition", which only goes back to the 50's.
Before then, men and women really didnt have a say so in who they married..marriages were coerced ("arranged" by those who wish to sound "non-oppressive" like the possible troll up there) for the men and women.
Well, it's not really a matter if they had a say or not. And not all marriages were forced, although all were arranged by the families. People did meet and get to know eachother before the concept of dating entered our minds.
The obvious purpose, was, however, to conceive children into a formally formed couple, which is what we call the traditional family today.
This allowed the child to grow up having both a father and a mother unless something tragic happened to any of them, or one of them left due to any reasons. However, people did have a lot more time to get to know eachother during marriage, as an old Turkish saying states, "Nikahta keramet vardır", meaning, "There is a blessing in marriage", which I can say, is mostly true, if one or the other spouse is not a complete jackass, it generally goes well. It went well for all my elderly relatives, and nearly all of them got married in the arranged marriage fashion.
Not to say that the current, dating and marrying is bad, flawed or whatever, but if the people feel too liberated in their life's choices, like, they may simply say, damn, I don't have to go through with this, I'm kinda bored with this, and I want a divorce. This is generally true for marriages of lower or people that also go through monetary problems or higher class people, who don't have to care about anything, which applies mostly to celebrities, who may be simply doing this to generate publicity.
But all in all, for middle class people, marriage symbolizes the cornerstone of the family, just as it does for richer people, who also get married for practical purposes, and these marriages do hold, generally, and actually carry out their original purpose; providing society with a child, that was properly raised, has at least some opinion on what's going on with the world, is able to control him/herself, and will, for the most part, receive a higher education.
Even though marriages do hold for each social class in my country, the most beneficial, and the less problematic marriages generally exist in middle class families.
Their children too, adhere to traditional family values aswell, after they get married, even though they might have been wild before they got married, children born out of wedlock, or teen pregnancies are very rare in my country.
Quote:I would if I could.
Well, if you can't, maybe you should try to adapt, if you haven't done so already.
Quote:If you dont like my personal views on how you should live your life, then leave." or "It's my way or the highway.
If you lived here, it wouldn't be up to me to say that. You'd already find yourself out of the social system if you'd try to go against it, meaning, you'd drive yourself out without knowing it.
However, you live there, and I'm not telling you to hit the highway, but others may.
Quote:You, sir, are an ignorant moron. You seem to be rather narrow minded.
You really think 2 men can't raise a child well together?
As I said, it does not take simply money to raise a child. I think that a child need both maternal and paternal affection, as it takes a male and a female to conceive a child. It simply goes against nature.
Besides, it's socially very, very problematic for the child.
But if you want to present me with a future where gays can go to some sort of a clinic and choose from women on display, who will carry the child that is the offspring of one of the spouses' sperm, like with case of (sir)Elton John, who payed a woman to carry his child within her womb, to raise it with his partner, I think that's the only society in which the idea of gays raising children will be acceptable in it's own right.
Quote:true, and therefore Gay marriage is legitimate according to your own argument, seeing as gay marriage is legal in several states and countries in europe.
However, it does not constitute a marriage, it just retains the legality.
It does not have the capability of producing children, nor raising a family.This is the reason why I oppose it.
Quote:Nope. It shows that the concept of marriage is a dying tradition. Divorce rates have hit over 50%. If you are actually telling the truth and suggesting that your opposition to gay marriage is secular and not religious, then these two facts:
And the death of it is caused factors that come with the facts that people have actually forgotten the meaning of marriage. Settling down, having a family. Overcoming obstacles. People aren't even trying to make things right anymore. They figure, hey, I can simply get divorced, and get half of the property, even if I didn't add anything of value to it, not saying that all divorce cases are like that. People even hire lawyers to that specifically deal with destroying marriages for profit, since a real problematic marriage won't even need a damn lawyer to bring about a divorce.
Here, you just need one witness from each partner in court that will testify that this marriage is beyond repair, and it's done. But it generally just comes down to one partner now. He/she decides that he/she doesn't like the person anymore, or sees something that he/she doesn't like about him, and never even tries to make things right anymore. They simply get divorced, and they hire lawyers to do so.
The modern times that we live in, and the concept of marriage, that is being hollowed from inside out, will bring about social collapse.
Unless people start thinking about what marriage is truly all about.
Quote:then you must admit that gay marriage is legitimate and traditional marriage is losing popularity among the majority of citizens.
My argument is not based on any religious laws or tenets. In fact, it's much more easy to get divorced in islamic law, than it is to get married. You simply have to utter "you're divorced" three times to absolve yourself from the marriage, with the two of you not being able to get married again unless the woman gets married to someone else, and divorced once more.
Even before our country adapted a western law system, the concept and bond of marriage was strong in my country, as it is today.
I've written down a couple of opinions on which I think might be causing the decline of marriage in your country.
Another question. If the institution of marriage is being worn down, why actually strive for the supposed right of gays getting married? It probably serves no real practical purpose than just to oppose traditional values and customs, as you people probably do things simply because you can.
Quote:then you would recognize that marriage is something that is ultimately not needed, that children can be born and families can be formed without a marriage certificate
No, it is needed. I don't even want to think of a world where people have children out of wedlock, without anything that holds people together to form a family, something that is official, and sanctified by the public, something that people strive to make it work. People will probably just conceive a child from someone, be interested in it for a time being and perhaps move on to another partner, like an open relationship. It really is some sort of a doomsday scenario, one that can only occur if we would somehow bomb ourselves back beyond the stone age.
Quote: A secular view of marriage also admits that marriage is very much a way for religious and traditional authorities to control relationships and families, among other things and reasons.
Well, marriage holds a religious point of view in your country, but here, it's only performed by civil servants. No imam or priest or haham involved in the process. You can have a religious marriage if you want to, but it won't yield any legal results, whereas some people won't even recognize it as a marriage unless it was done by a civil servant that makes it official.
You sound more and more like an anarchist.
Quote:your use of the word "always" shows that you are ignorant to the history of marriage in the world. If you want to argue the traditional role of marriage, then you would know that the mass majority of marriages world wide throughout history were coerced and polygamist favoring one husband and several wives. this is secular based facts. Your arguments do not sound either traditional or secular. Unless you consider "traditional" to be less than 50 years old and based only in certain parts of America, as Utah was traditionally (and still wants to be) polygamistic.
Well, coerced or not. I've already said my opinion on arranged marriages, and provided a few examples of how they work.
Even for marriages involving several wives, it's still the male and female getting married, not the females getting married to eachother. It's was always between a man and a woman.
Yes, I consider traditional to be less than 50 years old. Even though the ways to marriage have changed, the concept and beligerents have not.
Quote:This is VERY untrue and manipulative of you. Family is not necesarily written into a persons subconscious.
And please explain to me why most people have children within marriage, and not before. It simply gives you no real sense of responsibility on the child. And those who have children outside of marriage, and want to look after the child usually get married to the woman from whom they fathered the child.
Quote:Sex isnt even necessarily written into a persons subconscious because Asexual people do in fact exist.
And a few deviants are supposed to change the verdict?
Quote:Am I to be considered "faulty" because I do not accept your views of marriage while you suggest that it is "written" in peoples subconscious?
You are entitled to your opinion, so am I.
Still, I can tell you that if you consider having children, I'm sure you'll consider it within marriage.
Quote:How far away are you from that made up, unscientific view from actually considering that gay people have mental problems, or that I have a mental problem, because we disagree with you on marriage?
I've made no such comment.
Quote:In reality sex is natural (wether by straights or gays) and marriage is the unnatural (man made) equation here. Marriage is completely unnecessary in reality, but those who wish to control peoples lives and thoughts are the ones who manipulate these man made institutions the most.
And deny something called social evolution?
Perhaps you should just burn all your clothes, and wear only a set of furs during the winter to warm yourself, since clothes are obviously completely unnecessary in reality, something that was invented by someone who wanted to control peoples lives by strapping some fabrics on their skin.
Quote:Sure you are. You are most definitely trying to force yourself upon them. Why else would you suggest your views are " in our subconsciousness. " Furthermore, gays were allowed to marry at many times during the past. then people, like you, came forward and demanded that it be stopped. You obviously have not put much research into this topic. Your ignorance is glaring.
Well, gays have just earned this level of social acceptance in the west,as to actually push forward to more. They couldn't possibly ask for the rights for marriage without being socially accepted, as they are now.
What kind of research would you really suggest, I might add? Besides, I would speak out against this nonsense if I lived a 100 years or a 1000 years back in time.
Quote:nothing more than full equal status of marriage will be accepted and only accepted. What you are suggesting is "seperate but equal", which is a play on words to avoid saying "these people are not worthy of being like me." You may as well suggest that gays sit at the back of the bus as well. Why should they complain? They should know they are seperate from you..yet somehow "equal". When you say "they will never have children" should also suggest that you should be opposed to barren heterosexuals from also marrying. But something tells me that you will make an exception for them in your oppressive views. gays canvery much be able to adopt, but I suppose you are against that as well. Homosexuality is not a "subspecies". They are humans, just like you and I.
Stubbornness breeds only more stubbornnes. No side will actually take a step back, and since you pride yourself on your democracy, you can't step on the one side while raising the other, unless you start some sort of an armed revolution, or an unarmed revolution like hunger strikes, and deaths resulting from it. But I'm sure that none of you would actually go as far as that for a stupid matter like this. Well.
When I say, "they will never have children", I do not oppose "barren" heterosexuals from getting married. Those who choose not to have children, do still possess what it takes to bring about children, and even if, they still adhere to the core principle of marriage being between man and woman. Those who cannot have children due to biological reasons, can still adopt, and raise a family. And yes, I am against gays raising children, I've explained most of it at the beginning of my post.
I didn't say that homosexuals were a subspecies, but they still are not eligible to wed in my eyes. Besides, it's not about them, it's about marriage itself.
Quote:I also would like to see MAJOR citations coming from you that suggests that gays raise only gay children. Might i point out that 100% of gay people come from heterosexual sex. According to your view, then heterosexuals have failed in raising children in accordance to "normal ways".
Why? Have I implied in any of my posts that gays will only raise gay children? I've only pointed out that a family consisting of two fathers, or two mothers, is not healthy for a child. Even a single parent who is homosexual is acceptable, but a couple, no. They simply will confuse the child in ways that will leave a mark in the future life of the adopted child.
Quote:I completely expect you to dodge all of my points and adhere to your oppressive views still. Thats okay. As time goes by, more and more of people who think the way you do are dying off and being replaced by progressive and inclusive secular thinkers. Society is built upon people who are living at the time. At any moment they can change what "society" means, regardless of what you consider to be "normal" or "traditional" views of society.
If your views of social progress are bent on ignoring customs, traditions, and focal points of the cornerstone of human social life, you can very well keep your progress, thank you.
