Your opinion on Gay marriage?

If by "same" you mean "different", then I agree completely.

 

It's the same premise. An irrational and discriminatory rule that victimises certain people for reasons that are out of their control. People have as much control over what their parents name them as they do over their sexual orientation.

Sure you can go into things like how the Bible doesn't discriminate against names, how you can legally change your name, etc, etc, etc, etc, but then you'd seriously be looking into it way too deeply. It's a good analogy and shows how illogical it is.

 

Firstly, it's not yet been proven that sexual orientation is genetic. It's usually assumed these days because that is what people want to believe. It may not be their choice in many cases, however, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we should change the defenition of a word in order to give them something they already have.

Secondly, according to the statements of many homosexuals, it is in fact a choice. (Note that this doesn't mean it's the same for everyone).

And lastly, to reiterate my point from earlier. If we change the definition of marriage because it is discriminatory, then we should be changing words such as man, woman, brother, sister, father, mother, male, female, black, white, native, Asian, and even homosexual. All of these words are discriminatory.

 

Firstly, I never even suggested that it was genetic. For something to be out of your control, it doesn't have to be genetic.

Secondly, even if some homosexuals say they made a choice, it doesn't mean homosexuality's a choice. Chances are that said homosexuals are actually bisexuals, and, from there, have chosen to be with men.

Lastly, there's nothing discriminatory about any of those words. They're just names of groups of people, and there's a massive difference between that and excluding a certain group of people from being able to do something that everyone else is able to do, purely based on who they all are.

 

Fair enough. I apologize. I was going based on the standard argument that's often used in society that it is genetic. I just assumed that's what you meant.

That doesn't really prove anything. They're still choosing to be homosexual. Although I imagine that suggesting to the homosexual community that they can simply all choose to be with women rather than men will not make them very happy.

There is no difference. Marriage by definition is one man and one woman. That's simply what the word means. Changing a word because groups of people are excluded is no different than changing those other words. It might be noted here that California has in fact banned many of the words I used before from school textbooks because they were discriminatory. There was also a bill tabled (although I am unsure if it was passed) which would have allowed men to use women's washrooms and vice versa because to do otherwise was to discriminate against the gender-identity of a person, which is different from a person's sex.

Regardless, homosexuals have civil unions which are exactly the same as marriage in every way but the word. Which means this whole issue boils down to semantics.

 

erm, one man one woman? you do know that marriage originally was polygamic?

 

No, it's the bisexuals who would be choosing, and the homosexuals who're then inappropriately labelled by that, because it's not a choice for them. It's a choice for bisexuals.

Seriously, the only way it can be a choice is if you feel something for both genders. That's bisexuality. Now just as a heterosexual feels nothing for men, homosexuals feel nothing for women. It's not a choice for either of the two, it's just what they feel, so why would you label what homosexuals feel from the perspective of a bisexual?

jiff pretty much hit this one on the head. Polygamy basically means 'marriage to many', so how can marriage mean one man and one woman? Not only are there more than two spouses in a polygamous marriage, but by default there has to be at least two men or women. A marriage is a union under god. That's all it is. It's the Christian faith that's discriminating against homosexuals by excluding them, not the definition of marriage.

Seriously, if I were to start up something nowadays that everyone except homosexuals were allowed to do, it simply wouldn't be permitted, so why should they be permitted from this? The only reason would be if the Christian church was prejudice against homosexuals, which, at the moment, I tend to believe they are.

What were some of those words?

And single-sex washrooms and a completely different matter. It's not exclusion for privacy, not for discriminating reasons. Saying that men should be allowed in the women's bathroom and vice versa is like saying that everyone should be allowed in everyone else's changing rooms. It's privacy, not discrimination.

 

It is still marriage between 1 man and 1 women, you don't marry 10 women with a bunch of mates, you individually marry each person you want to be married to. Marriage is between one man and one women, having many marriage's is irrelevant.

If the church established marriage then the church gets to decide who can get married, its the mixing of church and state from the semi-theocratic times that have screwed up what marriage is.

Homosexuality is viewed as a sin, saying the church is prejudice against homosexuals is the same as saying it is prejudice against murderers, allowing homosexual marriage is in some ways endorsing it, which is to the church, a lifestyle choice and a sin.

 

Semantics. Can you actually prove that homosexuality is never a choice?

See the overmind response above.

I'm certain if you make use of the scroll bar, you can find them.

You seem to be a little bit confused. The choice to allow men to use women's washrooms and vice versa was done for precisely the reason I stated: it was deemed to be discriminatory to a person's gender identity (not to be confused with their sex) to not allow them to use whichever bathroom they felt to be appropriate. It is a bill that was tabled in California, and I am unsure whether it was actually passed. I hope not, as it would also allow male coaches to use female change rooms, and so on.

 

Can you prove that it is?

 

@ overmind. It's not at all still a marriage between one man and one woman, it's a marriage between, usually, one man and more than one woman. That's what polygamy is. Being married to more than one person.

And that's where the church is wrong. They're just assuming it's a choice, when there's nothing to even suggest that it is, so should not be likened to murder.

@ doozer. As Meee said, right back at you. How can you prove it's not? You can't really, but the same applies to proving that it is. There's no way of proving it, so you can't say that it is. Sure, you can't decisively say that it isn't, either, but you've got to give them the benefit of the doubt. Regardless, I don't even feel it needs to be proven if you look at it personally. Would you be able to have the same relationship with a man that you would with a woman? Or basically, did you choose whether to be straight or not?

If you're still referring to man, woman, black, white, Asian, etc, etc, etc, then I've already responded to that.

And yes, I get that, and as I said, that exclusion is based on privacy, not prejudice.

 

So you're all in favour of polygamy then?

I think you need to read the thread more closely. I already said that I believed it often isn't a choice. However, I gave some evidence that it is sometimes a choice. Can you give evidence that it is never a choice?

But I'm not sure why we should default to one side of a debate. Shouldn't the "I don't know" position be the default when lack of conclusive evidence exists?

No, I didn't choose to be attracted to women. But I am not arrogant enough to believe that my own experience is the same for every single human.

What I can choose, however, is whether to act on that attraction, and this is where there is sometimes a disconnect with the wording. When a Christian (or Muslim, Jew, Hindu, most Atheists, etc.) says homosexuality is wrong, they are referring to an action, not an attraction. The action is a choice. The attraction may or may not be, as we have discussed. This can lead to confusion.

Yes, privacy is the reason for the exclusion originally. But what I'm saying is that in the name of avoiding discrimination, they are trying to take away that privacy. I'm not saying it's good or it isn't. I'm saying what is.

 

Where was that evidence of yours? When you said that according to some of them they made one? If they feel attracted to both genders and chose to be with men, they're bi. If they're only attracted to members of the same gender, how is that choice?

 

Provided it's not only men that can have several spouses, and provided that all parties agree to being part of a polygamous marriage, yes. Regardless, that's not relevant to what was being said.

Yeah, you gave evidence that it's sometimes a choice, and as I said, in those cases, the people saying that would be bisexual, feeling attracted to both genders, not homosexual. Regardless, seeing as you can never prove that it's always a choice, there's no need to prove that it's never a choice. On top of that, you can get a fairly clear picture of what any sort of 'choice' would be like by looking at your own sexual orientation.

Yes, and lack of conclusive evidence does exist, so they should be given the benefit of the doubt. That's what the benefit of the doubt is. Similarly, innocent until proven guilty could also be applied to the situation.

Well from that you can seeing that sexual orientation is not simply a choice. If you're attracted to women, you're attracted to women. If you're attracted to men, you're attracted to men. If you're attracted to both then you're attracted to both. You don't choose what you're attracted to.

As for being arrogant, so, what? You instead believe that it isn't the same for every single human? Regardless you can see that it isn't always a choice, so seeing as they, themselves, have done nothing wrong, they should not be discriminated against because of it.

If anything that's even more discriminatory. Acknowledging that they are, but prohibiting them from being. All people should be able to act on the same feelings. Heterosexuals are able to act on feelings of intimacy, so homosexuals should be able to as well. Simple as that.

Yes, and as I've said, it's a completely different matter. It's for privacy, not discrimination. I, too, am saying what it is.

 

how did the church establish marriage? the synagogue had it before, as had a dozen other tfaiths

 

the church in that sense meant any religious institution, its just quicker to type.

 

I don't see that at all. Just look at the polygamous husband for example. How many wives does he have? More than one. Is that just one man and one woman? No.

Many marriages between one man and one woman would just be, well, exactly what they are; Many marriages. In other words, a whole group of men who're each married to their own wife, and vice versa. To simply have many marriages between a man and a woman, unlike a polygamous marriage where there's one man and many women, you'd need a whole lot of men or women who each have a wife or husband, if you get what I'm saying.

 

if that were the case, then wouldn't a divorce mean you'd have to divorce all your spouses at once? What if a man with three wives marries a fourth who already has a husband? wouldn't, if it was just one marriage, result in you marrying that dude and his wives while your wife has to marry all your wives and their husbands?

 

I can't see a reason why they shouldn't.

 

@ overmind. No, just in the same way that you don't have to marry all the spouses at once. Regardless, that man, or woman, has more than one spouse. That's polygamy. They're married, and it isn't just one man and one woman. When disowning a child you don't need to disown all your other children, does that mean they're not all part of the same multi-membered family? When you're firing an employee you don't have to fire every single employee, but does that mean that they're not all part of the same multi-membered company? Ok, they're not airtight analogies, but to break the union, you don't have to break everything down into its smallest possible parts.