Gays can't marry in Cali or whatever.

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Because metal music does not defile the purity and sacredness of traditional music.

edit: to nick

 

[cookiecutter]

I think a lot of pornogrind bands would beg to differ

 

[genocide roach]

you guys talk too much
~gR~

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

That may be true, but then again, that would be fueling the fire against metal (and pornogrind I guess).

 

[cookiecutter]

Despite that I doubt Ack would say it's reasonable to ban it now would he

 

[genocide roach]

i should play my xxx maniak cd
~gR~

 

[AchrisK]

I know you guys think my views are only based on religion, but they aren't. I believe that my views are supported by history and biology and evolution and by civilization. Yes, they also happen to line up with my religious views. It has been mentioned that I am trying to dictate who a person can love, but love being the basis for marriage is a relatively new concept. The family, as initiated by marriage between a man and a woman, is the best model available to build and maintain a strong society. I will step back and acknowledge, or clarify, that "family" is not the issue. I agree that a family can and does consist of those who love each other, and is not limited to any group. But marriage is the basis for MOST families, and the essence of marriage is a man and a woman in a committed relationship. I feel it is worth maintaining that definition. I feel it is worth encouraging.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

You seem to imply that homosexual marriage is some kind of threat to the family model, but you give no reason for that. You also do not explain what makes the family model worth encouraging, or what we are in danger of if we do not encourage it.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Also: what is it about history, biology, etc. that you think supports a heterosexual definition of marriage? History can be used to support things like religious persecution and slavery, and biology shows that homosexuality is natural among many/most types of animals. You need to clarify what you mean by those statements.

 

[AchrisK]

You seem to imply that homosexual marriage is some kind of threat to the family model, but you give no reason for that. You also do not explain what makes the family model worth encouraging, or what we are in danger of if we do not encourage it.

Points have been made that allowing homosexual marriage will do nothing to endanger the traditional family model. I can see that. But I still see no need to redefine marriage. There is no law against homosexual relationships.

I think it's pretty obvious the important role that families play in society. Maybe they would appear less important as you approach a communistic society, where there is minimal personal responsibility and the government takes care of everyone the same. But in our society and in most throughout the world and history, the family is the first line of care and support. A family has the ability to take care of its own children and elderly, placing less burden on the rest of society and government.

 

[Burning In Hell]

Yeah dude...My male dog face fucks my other male dog all the time....Fucking fag...

 

[AchrisK]

Also: what is it about history, biology, etc. that you think supports a heterosexual definition of marriage? History can be used to support things like religious persecution and slavery, and biology shows that homosexuality is natural among many/most types of animals. You need to clarify what you mean by those statements.

Do I really? I mean, you can't see those connections?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Points have been made that allowing homosexual marriage will do nothing to endanger the traditional family model. I can see that. But I still see no need to redefine marriage. There is no law against homosexual relationships.

There is a need to redefine marriage because the legal benefits associated with it are discriminatory. I really don't care whether "marriage" applies only to heterosexual couples, but if it does it should be made into a purely religious institution, because the motivation for keeping it heterosexual is primarily religious.

I think it's pretty obvious the important role that families play in society. Maybe they would appear less important as you approach a communistic society, where there is minimal personal responsibility and the government takes care of everyone the same. But in our society and in most throughout the world and history, the family is the first line of care and support. A family has the ability to take care of its own children and elderly, placing less burden on the rest of society and government.

Yes, but once again you have not explained how homosexual marriage is a threat to this. Homosexual couples can raise kids just like anyone else. It really looks like you're just dancing around this point.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Do I really? I mean, you can't see those connections?

Yes, you do. I just pointed out how history can be used to support injustices, and I believe you're doing the same. I also don't see how biology does anything but support the notion that homosexuality is natural and something which there is no reason to marginalise in our society.

 

[AchrisK]

Okay, first off: you assume that there is a single universal definition of marriage. Marriage is performed by churches, and various churches have differing views on homosexuality. If you redefine marriage as only between a man and a woman, you are essentially mandating the religious views of all churches.

It is already defined as between a man and woman. It is not redefining it to clarify that. Especially in a day and age when the essence of marriage is under attack.

And of course that's not the only problem. The other is that marriage is tied in with legal benefits when those benefits should really not be a matter of religion at all. I have yet to see you explain why a religious institution like marriage should be conflated with these legal benefits, because as far as I can tell that violates separation of church and state.

The traditional family is the building block of a strong society. It's not a religious issue.

Okay seriously, how can you honestly say this and not realise how utterly false it is? People are taking away the right for homosexuals to have the legal benefits of marriage. We have made that clear by now, haven't we?

False. They do not now have, and never have had, the right to marry their same sex partner. Nothing is being taken away.

This part I don't really feel a need to respond to, because it's mostly your religious ideology speaking and you have presented no evidence for any of these claims of yours. Why on earth should a family be considered "sacred"? How do you know that allowing gays to marry threatens this "sacredness" in any way? What makes you think most gay couples don't have kids, and why does that even matter?

I didn't say sacred.

But if you are talking purely from a religious perspective, you can see how many would feel that the marriage vow is a sacred thing taken before God. If you're trying to change something they call sacred by including something they feel is against that very God, then you can see why they would have a problem.

It has been clarified to me that an estimated 26,000 gay couples are raising kids. It's a very small percentage, but that doesn't mean it has no bearing.

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

The traditional family is the building block of a strong society. It's not a religious issue.

We should probably go ahead and ban divorce then, huh?

 

[AchrisK]

There is a need to redefine marriage because the legal benefits associated with it are discriminatory. I really don't care whether "marriage" applies only to heterosexual couples, but if it does it should be made into a purely religious institution, because the motivation for keeping it heterosexual is primarily religious.

No it's not.

Yes, but once again you have not explained how homosexual marriage is a threat to this. Homosexual couples can raise kids just like anyone else. It really looks like you're just dancing around this point.

No, I have acknowledged it. I have also clarified that "family" is not an exclusive term. Nobody should be excluded from it.

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

[Orion Crystal Ice]

yawn @ this thread


From a personal standpoint I am not against gays having rights whatsoever. It's how those rights are defined as which would be my problem and I think is the root of many people's problem, despite the ravings of the anti-"judeo" Christian this and that crowd. There are millions of Christian crackpots out there, without question, but most people who are "against" gay marriage - no matter if it has anything to do with any 'faith' or not - are against the implications of the term and title rather than aggressively for keeping a foot on the head of the gay citizen. In other words, why not let them have the same rights under the state, but simply call it and educate it as something different, which it very clearly is? That specific burden of why lies on the shoulders of the activists and in my estimation will never clearly be answered.


From a legal standpoint, let me also remind of the fact that nobody is entitled to any kind of marriage-anything under the Constitution, it's a privilege, that's why you go through the state and get a license. Speaking of the state, when one goes further down the list, one sees that it is also according to each state constitution what said privileges are. In other words, no, marriage of any kind is not a "right", under law, and therefore cannot be argued in the context of the law on either side of the fence. Within this issue, The majority amended this twice and they may or may not again in the future. but things just need to be put into perspective concerning all of that. Going back to my personal opinion, I simply think they need to have a different way of going about it. No mix nor seperation of church and state has anything to do with the idea that gay & straight unions still contain differences, such as the fact that....one is homosexual and one is heterosexual, for example. What has been happening is many loud-mouthed facets of the movement have been trying to cut that fact out entirely and that is a major root of what many people have a problem with....the same people who make up the populace that vote for their rights and views the same as gays vote for their rights and views.

Democracy?


Nah, let's keep bashing our heads against the wall, it's more fun that way.

 

[Burning In Hell]

Let it go man.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

It is already defined as between a man and woman. It is not redefining it to clarify that. Especially in a day and age when the essence of marriage is under attack.

Who defines it that way? Can you honestly assert that every single religious institution in the country has a heterosexual definition of marriage? Even universalist churches? What you're talking about certainly goes against some religion's concept of marriage.

The traditional family is the building block of a strong society. It's not a religious issue.

And once again, there's nothing to suggest that homosexual marriage is a threat to that. Please stop ignoring that point.

False. They do not now have, and never have had, the right to marry their same sex partner. Nothing is being taken away.

In that case, the point that nothing is being taken away has no bearing on our debate, since we've been discussion whether the rights they already have are sufficient.

I didn't say sacred.

But if you are talking purely from a religious perspective, you can see how many would feel that the marriage vow is a sacred thing taken before God. If you're trying to change something they call sacred by including something they feel is against that very God, then you can see why they would have a problem.

So? There are also religious believers who consider white people to be sacred, and that all other races should be marginalised because they're "against God". You can consider whatever you want sacred, but requiring that everyone else view that thing as sacred as well is imposing your religion on others.

It has been clarified to me that an estimated 26,000 gay couples are raising kids. It's a very small percentage, but that doesn't mean it has no bearing.

Not sure what your point is here. I don't see how the percentage of gay couples with kids has anything to do with whether they should be allowed to marry or not.