Poll

Are you for or against gay marriage?

For
27 (67.5%)
Against
13 (32.5%)

Total Members Voted: 40

Print

Author Topic: For or Against?  (Read 56921 times)

Hirocon

  • June 14-16, every year
« Reply #60 on: August 11, 2006, 04:56:20 PM »
Wow, I leave for three days and I sure miss a lot...

I believe (though not unshakably) in two principles:

1) freedom of religion
2) separation of church and state

In accordance with "freedom of religion", I believe that gay marraige, polygamy, and various other deviant marital arrangements as purely religious constructs should be legal.  I do not condone marital arrangements in which one or more parties are incapable of consent, e.g. marraige with animals or children, or marital arrangements which are likely to lead to material harm to innocents, e.g. incest, but I don't see how gay marraige between consenting adults causes any material harm.

In accordance with "separation of church and state", I believe that laws governing legally recognized marraiges should not be affected by religious beliefs.  This raises the question of why we need legally recognized marraiges at all.  The supreme court of my state (Washington) has ruled that marraige is a legal institution created to encourage procreation, and therefor marraige can be restricted, for reasons not related to religion, to marraige between a man and a woman.  Personally I think the world is grossly overpopulated, and I don't think we should be encouraging procreation at all.  I'm all for encouraging child raising, e.g. through adoption, but I don't want to encourage child creation.  I have yet to see credible evidence indicating that gay couples are less effective at raising children than are straight couples.  So I am in favor of gay marraige.

Koopaslaya

  • Kansas
« Reply #61 on: August 11, 2006, 06:37:23 PM »
If you believe all of this, the I'm going to make a religion in which we kill people. Will that be ok for you?
Εὐθύνατε τὴν ὁδὸν Κυρίου

« Reply #62 on: August 11, 2006, 07:49:21 PM »
So I can't have a child with a woman?
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

« Reply #63 on: August 11, 2006, 07:57:14 PM »
Wow. 
If people continue to be so accepting to everyones' beliefs, and everyones' choices, and disregard the Bible because it tries to make limits, what will said people have left to stand on?  Doubt?   
« Last Edit: August 11, 2006, 09:59:50 PM by The Blue Toad »
Maybe there is more to me than there is to me...

TEM

  • THE SOVIET'S MOST DANGEROUS PUZZLE.
« Reply #64 on: August 11, 2006, 08:05:47 PM »
I want to read a valid, nonhomophobic, nonreligious excuse to not allow gay marriage.
0000

Insane Steve

  • Professional Cynic
« Reply #65 on: August 11, 2006, 08:30:23 PM »
Wow. 
If people continue to be so accepting to everyones' beliefs, and everyones' choices, and disregard the Bible because it tries to make limits, what will said people have left ot stand on?  Doubt?   

So you're saying we should only be accepting to SOME people's choices? And who is so much more morally righteous than the rest of humanity to determine who deserves to have beliefs and who doesn't? The way I read your statement, you imply that believing in the Bible's messages is a REQUISITE for having any set of morals at all. This is perhaps the single most ignorant statement to come from someone's mouth in the eyes of an atheist; it's a shame how frequently the message comes up, though. It really is.

I second TEM's request for an argument against gay marraige that isn't "The Bible said so."
« Last Edit: August 11, 2006, 08:33:07 PM by Insane Steve »
~I.S.~

Luigison

  • Old Person™
« Reply #66 on: August 11, 2006, 08:37:36 PM »
Hmmm.  I didn't realize that The Blue Toad's post could have been serious until Insane Steves reply.  I'd taken it as sarcasm.
“Evolution has shaped us with perceptions that allow us to survive. But part of that involves hiding from us the stuff we don’t need to know."

Hirocon

  • June 14-16, every year
« Reply #67 on: August 11, 2006, 08:51:29 PM »
If you believe all of this, the I'm going to make a religion in which we kill people. Will that be ok for you?

No.  As I said I do not believe unshakably in freedom of religion.  I also care about protecting innocent people, which is why, as I stated, I am opposed to incest, and to marraige with minors.  I don't see how consentual gay marraige harms any innocent people.

So I can't have a child with a woman?

Go right ahead.  It hasn't come to the point where we need to discourage people from intentional procreation (though this is current policy in China), but neither do I think that the government should encourage procreation.  The supreme court of Washington state justified the ban on gay marraige by arguing that the purpose of legally recognized marraiges is to encourage procreation.  I do not believe this argument; I believe that marraige laws came into being as a formal recognition of religious practices, not as a practical means of encouraging procreation.  But, if you do accept the supreme court's argument, then I question the policy itself.  Why should we encourage procreation at all?  There's really no shortage of people.

Insane Steve

  • Professional Cynic
« Reply #68 on: August 11, 2006, 08:52:20 PM »
After reading cantthinkofaname's comment, taking The Blue Toad's comment seriously isn't too much of a stretch.

Although, if it is sarcasm, which it looks like now that you mention it, I retract my comment.
~I.S.~

Luigison

  • Old Person™
« Reply #69 on: August 11, 2006, 09:07:40 PM »
On topic:  After going back and rereading The Blue Toad's other comments here, I think the most recent one probably was meant to be serious.

Off topic:  I think the govt. should encourage procreation, but in a very different why than it do now.  The current system encourages procreation of low socio-economic single parent inner city households.  This procreation further expands that dependent population.  On the other hand, highly educated high earning professionals aren't procreating nearly as much.  These trends suggest to me that the average IQ is going down and that the US could look more like a third world country in the future. 

Back on topic:  Since I have nothing against gay marriage since it doesn't effect me I guess you could count me as a "for" since I would not vote against it.

Off topic again:  I am against abortion in all but extreme cases, but since I am not a woman I don't feel I have the right to say the abortion should be illegal.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2006, 09:34:36 PM by Luigison »
“Evolution has shaped us with perceptions that allow us to survive. But part of that involves hiding from us the stuff we don’t need to know."

Chupperson Weird

  • Not interested.
« Reply #70 on: August 11, 2006, 10:36:18 PM »
Well, the people with higher IQ are *probably* going to be thinking about things besides the act of procreation more often, whereas the lower-class people are, well, low class for one thing, but also are easily swayed by the media's messages of sex and beer being the most important things.
That was a joke.

Insane Steve

  • Professional Cynic
« Reply #71 on: August 11, 2006, 10:42:05 PM »
See, I always thought the reason lower-class people have more children, on average, is because they have nothing better to do with themselves. They find themselves out of work more often, which basically gives them more time to procreate or something. Which is why I believe in a very drastic welfare reform which will never happen because society is too afraid of change... but I digress.
~I.S.~

« Reply #72 on: August 11, 2006, 10:56:44 PM »
As I did not mean for my most recent post to really offend any of you, of which I will humbly refuse to back up, and for the fact that I cannot state a good reason gay marriage ought to be illegal that stretches beyond my own religion, I'll remain silenced.
Maybe there is more to me than there is to me...

Suffix

  • Steamed
« Reply #73 on: August 12, 2006, 12:32:12 AM »
*gears crank*

Say, isn't marriage a function that came through religion? My apologies if this has been brought up already.

Chupperson Weird

  • Not interested.
« Reply #74 on: August 12, 2006, 01:15:41 AM »
In some societies, I think so. It may have been instated in some places to charge taxes and stuff like that.
Also, Steve may be right. It kind of goes with my thought that the theoretically more intelligent people are going to have other, perhaps better things to do with themselves.
That was a joke.

Print