[Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by filcher:

Now tell me, In what way does same sex marriage threaten straight couples who are married, or the institution of marriage itself?

"In what way does calling apples oranges threaten oranges?"...

You are throwing up straw-men. I never said it threatened married couples and I never said it threatened the institution of marriage. They are your own invention.

Quote:

Your whole position is that same sex marriage is somehow inferior and should not be allowed to be called marriage. No other logical conclusion can be reached.

If you scroll down a little bit and read what I say, my position is that civil union is the equal of marriage and gay activists should stop saying it isn't. I guess that logical conclusion evaded you.

"Then perhaps they should stop going around telling each other it is less than equal?

Essentially this is a case of "civil union is not equal, *because we say so*"

Originally Posted by Gottadammerung:

'Imaginary friend' ? Stop saying that. You're hurting my feelings.

Truth hurts? It is a more accurate description though.

Quote:

Does God dislike gays if there is a lot of them? No he doesn't. God dislikes gay behaviour when there is a lot of them.

So Mr I. Friend is okay with gays as long as they don't do any of the things that define them as gay? Kind of like blacks are okay as long as they act white?

No contradictions there then...

[Gotterdammerung]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:

So Mr I. Friend

You're no fun VoR.

Quote:

is okay with gays as long as they don't do any of the things that define them as gay?

You can be gay so long as you recognise your place in society.

If you push gay pride too far God will not be pleased, because the majority of people have been made to reproduce in straight relationships.

Yes, it is possible to make a society more 'gay' over time.

[Voice of Reason]

Quote:

You're no fun VoR.

Aaaaah... you must be an iFriend fanatic then.

Quote:

You can be gay so long as you recognise your place in society.

As in, ride at the back of the bus?

Quote:

Yes, it is possible to make a society more 'gay' over time.

Only if you don't accept the idea of a homosexual continuum, or that the concept of homosexuality as an identity is required to provide a contrast to heterosexual identity. How could people glorify in their straightness if there were no gays?

[Gotterdammerung]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:

As in, ride at the back of the bus?

No, not really.

[Voice of Reason]

I don't really see the connection between sexuality and place in society. Are you going say what a gay's place in society is, then? According to iFriend of course...

[filcher]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:

"In what way does calling apples oranges threaten oranges?"...

You are throwing up straw-men. I never said it threatened married couples and I never said it threatened the institution of marriage. They are your own invention.

So what is the problem in calling it marriage?

Quote:

If you scroll down a little bit and read what I say, my position is that civil union is the equal of marriage and gay activists should stop saying it isn't. I guess that logical conclusion evaded you.

Socially, it is not equal, though. Straight couples seldom tell people they are in a civil union, and not married. Even those in a common law relationship do not consider themselves less than married. What you want is an exclusionary word describing gay marriage, which is discriminatory.

Quote:

"Then perhaps they should stop going around telling each other it is less than equal?

Essentially this is a case of "civil union is not equal, *because we say so*"

Actually activists are saying that society says a civil union is inferior to marriage, and the available evidence would suggest they are right. There is evidence that gay couples do have more barriers to rights that are automatically granted to heterosexual couples.

[Saint Sinner]

hoooly shit have I missed a good debate, but its been fun reading

So much to respond to ...


VoR: You're wrong about the UDHR when you stated that

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:

if they bothered to read article 16 of the UNDHR that grants a human right to marriage, it specifically states marriage between men and women.

I dont mean a little wrong, but way wrong. If this document wanted to purposely exclude homosexuals it would have began with "A man and a woman.." it would also have said "have the right to marry and to have a family."
Granted that last part might seem to be a small change but there's a reason, I'll let everyone figure it out.
While it may not have been specifically designed for it, it does allow for the inclusion of gay marriage.

Quote:

It would require a sentence with conflicting ideas, as founding a family and men marrying men contradict.

In human context, a family is a group of people affiliated by consanguinity, affinity, or co-residence.
In most societies it is the principal institution for the socialization of children.
Extended from the human "family unit" by biological-cultural affinity, marriage, economy, culture, tradition, honour, and friendship are concepts of family that are physical and metaphorical, or that grow increasingly inclusive extending to community, village, city, region, nationhood, global village and humanism.
What you are thinking of is a nuclear family consisting of a father, mother and their children.

Basically your whole argument on this comes from incorrect information and assumption.
So no, it does not specifically state that marriage is between a woman and a man.

Originally Posted by filcher:

All studies and reports suggest that the earth is overpopulated at the moment, so we should be trying to reduce population.

This is true. At our present speed of reproduction we will see serious effects of overpopulation in our life time.
Wars will be fought over food.

Being gay is good for the planet.

Quote:

Why would god let the weather interrupt this speech by the Pope?

Because God doesnt control the weather for one man to make a speech.
Especially one who represents an organization that has such a colorful history of violence, intolerance, deceit, and the list just goes on for frickin ever.
God isnt against anyone, regardless of what you want to think.

Now then .. that being my 2¢

Get on topic ... I believe we have a thread on the subject of gay marraige ... use it


This thread was suppose to be about God hatin on the pope ... next OT post gets warned and the thread gets shut down

[Gotterdammerung]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:

I don't really see the connection between sexuality and place in society. Are you going say what a gay's place in society is, then?

Nope, I have no interest in telling anyone what to do, only in telling people not to go overboard with their agenda. This is perfectly fair and reasonable.

'Knowing your place in society' was a fairly liberal statement, not prejudicial. Except perhaps when things do get out of hand, then prejudice is necessary.

Liberal freedom is always the ideal, afterall God loves everyone. But there certainly is a backup plan in place to make sure God's creation functions as intended.

Quote:

According to iFriend of course...

Of course, This is Religious Discussions.

[Gotterdammerung]

Originally Posted by Saint Sinner:

Being gay is good for the planet.

Gay people have their role, certainly. But birthrates in the West are at historical lows, at least, the White middle-class is at historical lows. I fit into that category, and personally that statement is disturbing to me.

Naturally, Christians want to give birth to future generations of Christians. Gay people fit into the overall picture in their own way, but generally what is good for the planet, for Christians, is more Christians.

So this depends on your perspectice. Muslims want more Muslims, Jews more Jews, etc. etc. Do gay people want more gays? Interesting question. I suppose this is certainly why they find themselves as a community always butting their head against the establishment, because there is no 'tradition' of homosexuality being reinforced over the generations. It is impossible for the gay community to get a foothold in society, as each generation has to fight the battle for acceptance all over again. Momentum is the only strategy gays have. The rules of the game mean that there can be no final, enduring victory for homosexuality. It's a perpetual uphill struggle, and always will be.

God made it that way. Does God hate homosexuals? No, he doesn't. But there are measures in place that mean that society will die out before it is allowed to be overly gay. Therefore homosexuality will always, always be on the fringes. If it isn't, then society will decline, cease to exist, or be taken over by other reproducing people.

This is not me saying homsexuality is wrong. I'm saying that for society to continue effectively homosexuals must always be a minority. And a part of enforcing this may be small pockets of resistance to the gay community in general. It would, at least, be impossible to existinguish these elements (for reasons mentioned above), just like it would be impossible nor desireable to existinguish gay people.

We have to just live with each other 'knowing our own place in society' and not overstep that mark. What mark? The mark inherent to the system God created. The necessary and inevitable parts that allow society to continue and dare I say, prosper.

[Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by Gottadammerung:

I have no interest in telling anyone what to do, only in telling people not to go overboard with their agenda. This is perfectly fair and reasonable.

It would be, if gay was an agenda.

Quote:

birthrates in the West are at historical lows, at least, the White middle-class is at historical lows. I fit into that category, and personally that statement is disturbing to me

I am not really sure wether to be disturbed or not, but regardless of that the low birthrate has a lot to do with cost of living and little to do with gays.

Quote:

there is no 'tradition' of homosexuality being reinforced over the generations

That depends how you view homosexual. Homosexual as a sexual act has a long tradition, but homosexual as an identity with a lifestyle and claiming rights is a modern thing. It is also a cultural construction; go back a hundred years or so and the whole notion of a sexual act claiming rights would have been laughed at.

Quote:

God made it that way. Does God hate homosexuals? No, he doesn't.

It is quite a big assumption that iFriend God has any human feelings at all...

Quote:

We have to just live with each other 'knowing our own place in society' and not overstep that mark. What mark? The mark inherent to the system God created.

As for most of human history there have been no homosexuals, only a homosexual act, perhaps that is what iFriend God intended it to be and homosexual as identity is overstepping the mark?

Originally Posted by Saint Sinner:

If this document wanted to purposely exclude homosexuals it would have began with "A man and a woman.."

That would be grammatically wrong. Statements of general truth are plural, not singular. Cats (plural) climb trees. Aeroplanes (plural) go fast. Birds (plural) sing. And men (plural) have a right to marry women (plural).

Quote:

it would also have said "have the right to marry and to have a family."

Have = possess. Found = create or start. Work it out.

Quote:

What you are thinking of is a nuclear family consisting of a father, mother and their children.

Explain how you can *found* any other sort. I would really like to hear how you expect a woman to give birth to her niece.

[DHoffryn]

Quote:

Reliance on technology is not a smart move.

God is a primitivist. Back to basics, the way he made them. That's what he likes

Sure it is. And in case we manage to find god we cna use our science to kill him so it would be irreleavant what he wants

Quote:

As in, ride at the back of the bus?

This coming from you VoR? You essentially want to give gyas the equivalent of black bathrooms while claiming it's ok because it's the same thing.For clarification sake are you for seperate bathrooms for black and whites? With your logic you never know.

Quote:

If you push gay pride too far God will not be pleased, because the majority of people have been made to reproduce in straight relationships.

In a straight way yes in realtionships? I wouldn't bet on that.

Quote:

Wars will be fought over food.

Food is easy. Now water. There are your wars

Quote:

Because God doesnt control the weather for one man to make a speech.

But if we go by the assumption that God controls everything becuase he is all powerful then the entire world even the smallest things like the weather changes could be interperted as a reflection of his will

Quote:

Especially one who represents an organization that has such a colorful history of violence, intolerance, deceit, and the list just goes on for frickin ever

Well so does god but since god makes the rules therfore one could argue they don't apply to him or his chosen ones

Quote:

This thread was suppose to be about God hatin on the pope ... next OT post gets warned and the thread gets shut down

Actually it's about whether god currently approves or not of homophobes. The pope was just an example

Quote:

Gay people have their role, certainly. But birthrates in the West are at historical lows, at least, the White middle-class is at historical lows. I fit into that category, and personally that statement is disturbing to me.

Why?

Quote:

The rules of the game mean that there can be no final, enduring victory for homosexuality. It's a perpetual uphill struggle, and always will be.

Nature and therefore god says otherwhise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico_whiptail

[filcher]

Quote:

It would be, if gay was an agenda.

There is no agenda, just a desire for the same right as other people. Despite your assertions there is no inequality between civil union and marriage, the fact you and others are opposed to gays using the term marriage, suggests there is a social stigma attached.

Quote:

And in case we manage to find god we cna use our science to kill him so it would be irreleavant what he wants

Which would, in my opinion be a useless act, as we are not controlled by God in our religious beliefs, but by thousands of religious leaders, who almost to a man, preach love and acceptance while supporting hatred and bigotry. There is no evidence of what God wants beyond these religious tracts, all of which have been written by men, for others of like mind, and edited to reflect the beliefs our societies are based upon, which is what the religious leaders also desire.

Religions are some of the greatest ideological teachers there are.

Quote:

But if we go by the assumption that God controls everything becuase he is all powerful then the entire world even the smallest things like the weather changes could be interperted as a reflection of his will

I am sure the Holy See has an explanation for the weather. I am not so sure Pat Robertson has.

Quote:

Actually it's about whether god currently approves or not of homophobes. The pope was just an example

I cannot envision God as depicted in the Old Testament, having a sexuality.

[Saint Sinner]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:

That would be grammatically wrong. Statements of general truth are plural, not singular. Cats (plural) climb trees. Aeroplanes (plural) go fast. Birds (plural) sing. And men (plural) have a right to marry women (plural).

No, its not grammatically wrong.
Statements of general truth do not need to be plural.
A cat can climb a tree. An airplane can go fast. A man has the right to marry a woman.
I was going to use your bird example but its wrong, not all birds can sing.
but I do have one more example of a statement of general truth that is not plural ..The Earth revolves around the Sun.

Quote:

Have = possess. Found = create or start. Work it out.

Have also = to hold, include, or contain as a part of a whole; to acquire or get possession of; Bear (as in "have a baby")
Have doesnt just = possess.

Quote:

Explain how you can *found* any other sort.

One example

Its not about the individual words themselves, but about how they come together

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

vs

2. A man and woman of full age, without limitations to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to have a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

My version, though not being completely specific, gives the impression that marriage is between a man and woman while still being general in its assertions. The use of the word 'have' in place of 'found' also lends to this impression by the use of association.

Originally Posted by DHoffryn:

Food is easy. Now water. There are your wars

Didnt think of that, but water should be easier to come by with a little knowledge. Guess we will just wait and see.

Quote:

Actually it's about whether god currently approves or not of homophobes. The pope was just an example

You have a point

[Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by Saint Sinner:

A cat can climb a tree. An airplane can go fast. A man has the right to marry a woman.

They are not statements of general truth. They are statements of individual ability.

Quote:

I do have one more example of a statement of general truth that is not plural ..The Earth revolves around the Sun

You cannot make a general statement about unique objects. By definition.

Quote:

My version, though not being completely specific, gives the impression that marriage is between a man and woman

"*A* man and *a* woman..." Very good, but which man and which woman?

The UNDHR applies to *all* men and *all* women because they *all* have the right, which is why it is phrased as a general truth and not an individual ability. 'All' is plural. By definition.

Quote:

The use of the word 'have' in place of 'found' also lends to this impression by the use of association.

If the married couple have parents or siblings they already *have* a family, which is why the writers of the UNDHR used 'found', to make it clear that they mean the married couple producing children.

Quote:

Didnt think of that, but water should be easier to come by with a little knowledge. Guess we will just wait and see.

Water is easy to come by. There are oceans of the stuff, but most of it is undrinkable.

It is not a knowledge issue. We all know where the water is, and have the ability to purify salt water. The problem is that is is hugely expensive to do that, which would turn water into an expensive commodity.

Fresh water is much cheaper and easier to clean, and the conflict will come where rivers are used as borders, or flow through more than one country. Consider China's occupation of Tibet in that light.

Originally Posted by filcher:

the fact you and others are opposed to gays using the term marriage, suggests there is a social stigma attached.

Read what I say instead of forming your own self-serving conclusions and then pretending it is what I think. The people saying there is a social stigma are the activists, who say that because it serves their agenda.

Quote:

all of which have been written by men, for others of like mind, and edited to reflect the beliefs our societies are based upon,

You could say the same thing about just about everything on TV. Why do you pick on religion?

Quote:

Religions are some of the greatest ideological teachers there are.

Religion is the ideology, not the teacher. You may be able to blame war and conflict on the teachers, but you cannot blame the religion. Crusades where not caused by the Bible. terrorism is not caused by the Q'ran. Both are caused by people using religion as a tool.

To clarify before you start leaping to your convenient conclusions, I draw a distinction between God (doesn't exist), religion (a culture like any other), and church (an organisation). You appear to be lumping everything together in one incoherent lump.

Quote:

I cannot envision God as depicted in the Old Testament, having a sexuality.

He loves everybody. Bisexual?

[Gotterdammerung]

Gays don't have an agenda? Whatever. Even my dog has an agenda.

[Voice of Reason]

People have an agenda. Some of them might be gay. Gay as a concept or a sexual act has no mind, and therefore no agenda.

[filcher]

Quote:

Read what I say instead of forming your own self-serving conclusions and then pretending it is what I think

It is not hard VoR. Gays want to call their unions marriage. Straight people oppose this, but can still call their civil unions marriage. The conclusion is that marriage has an implied status within society that is more acceptable than civil union; and this status is being denied the gays. Civil unions are not equal to marriage.

Quote:

Why do you pick on religion?

Sctroll up and look at the top of the page. If it read political Discussions I would be talking about political parties.

Quote:

Religion is the ideology, not the teacher. You may be able to blame war and conflict on the teachers, but you cannot blame the religion. Crusades where not caused by the Bible. terrorism is not caused by the Q'ran. Both are caused by people using religion as a tool.

I would say that to most people, the religious leaders do define the religion. Yes, I should have phrased the response as religious leaders, but I would think that is plain, as a religion can not teach, but an advocate of that religion can.

Quote:

He loves everybody. Bisexual?

It is actually a serious question. Does God have a physical body, which would imply he does experience sensory impulses of some sort, so love and hate and even sex may be experienced by him, or is he simply a spirit without a physical form.

[Voice of Reason]

Quote:

Gays want to call their unions marriage. Straight people oppose this, but can still call their civil unions marriage. The conclusion is that marriage has an implied status within society that is more acceptable than civil union

The conclusion is that the word 'marriage' is already in use and same-sex arrangements will have to find a word of their own. Civil union perhaps? You are basically demanding that the entire English speaking world change their language to suit a minority of activists.

Quote:

If it read political Discussions I would be talking about political parties.

Same-sex marriage is religion, is it?

Quote:

I would say that to most people, the religious leaders do define the religion.

I would say that to most people, their holy book defines the religion.

Quote:

Yes, I should have phrased the response as religious leaders, but I would think that is plain, as a religion can not teach, but an advocate of that religion can.

You are still missing the point. The teachers who use religion as a tool do not have to be religious leaders. They can be political leaders or community leaders or just plain old activists, the Glenn Becks and Sarah Palins of their world.

Quote:

Does God have a physical body, which would imply he does experience sensory impulses of some sort, so love and hate and even sex may be experienced by him, or is he simply a spirit without a physical form.

He doesn't exist.

[Saint Sinner]

Quote:

They are not statements of general truth. They are statements of individual ability.

Well thats not correct, maybe if I had said "THAT cat..", but I didnt .. so its not a statement of individual ability

Quote:

"*A* man and *a* woman..." Very good, but which man and which woman?

I wasnt being specific, only general in the assertion that a man and a woman have the right to marry. It could be applied to any man and any woman.

Quote:

If the married couple have parents or siblings they already *have* a family, which is why the writers of the UNDHR used 'found', to make it clear that they mean the married couple producing children.

Well thats inaccurate and assumptive. If a married couple already have a family then they cant found a family, they can only add to an existing family, unless we are talking about a crime family, then they could certainly do that.

Quote:

You cannot make a general statement about unique objects. By definition.

Yeah, um, I have a two-part question.

A, are you kidding me?
And B, seriously, are you freaking kidding me?


The earth revolves around the sun.

Its statement as evidenced by the use of a period at the end.
Its general ... doesnt give specific information about how or why the Earth revolves around the Sun.
Its true ... as in its frickin true.

Thus .. a statement of general truth

Lets apply it else where ..

A man has a penis.

Again ..
Statement (see the period?)
General (doesnt give specifics on the man or the penis, and can be applied to nearly every man and/or penis)
Truth (Barring outside forces this is generally true of every man)


A cat can climb a tree.
yet again..
Statement(we know why by now)
General(Doesnt give specifics on the cat, the tree, or even how it was climbed and can be applied to nearly any cat and/or tree)
Truth (Google 'cat climbing tree')

[Voice of Reason]

This is getting tiresome. I really should know better than to start arguing grammar with amateurs...

Quote:

Well thats not correct

Grab a dictionary. Look up the word 'can'. You will find it has something to do with ability.

Quote:

It could be applied to any man and any woman.

While you are in that dictionary, look for the article 'a/an'. You will find that it is *one* of a group; a cat is one cat. One is specific. One is not general. By definition.

Quote:

The earth revolves around the sun.
[..]
Its general ...

Now look for 'the'. It is another article. It also refers to one. The Earth is one. The Sun is one. One is specific. One is not general. By definition.


I suggest you now look for the word 'general', as you seem to be having a lot of trouble with it. OED says:

"Including, participated in by, involving, or affecting, all, or nearly all, the parts of a specified whole, or the persons or things to which there is an implied reference; completely or approximately universal within implied limits; opposed to partial or particular."

All is not one. A general truth does not and cannot refer to one, *by definition*.