The_Dude

so, you are saying that we should use a different word to please religious and moral groups?

or am i getting you wrong again? if so, sry.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

4thTimeLucky

Here I may seem to be a contradictory in my beliefs.
roothorick came up with the following great statement about me....
... but I do think that the government should intervene to prevent discrimination.
Maybe this is philosophically inconsistent. I hope its not, but its a tricky issue.

My belief is that the government should try and protect the freedoms of everyone, so that everyone is able to lead a happy and worthwhile life.

In the veiled driving licence case I felt that no one would be harmed by the government giving her a little slack, so they should.

In the "businessman refuses to employ black people/gays/disabled people" case I think that that the businessman is contributing to an atmosphere of racist prejudice. As such an atmosphere does hinder people living "happy and worthwhile lives" - in fact in can end in lynchings and race riots - so I think that the government has the right to intervene.

The government should create a level playingfield for everyone.
@ That means that the Muslim lady should be as equally able to drive (provided she is not a hazard to other motorists and pedestrians) as anyone else.
@ That means that the black/gay/disabled person should be as equally able to find employment (provided they are able to do the functions of the job) as anyone else.
@ That means that two homosexual people should be equally able to marry (provided they are willing to commit to the marriage vows) as anyone else.

__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

DEI37

Whoa...I think I missed something. What's this about the drivers' license thread...and stereotypes that I meet/pass? And, yes...I am serious. When it comes to serious matters, I know not how to goof off.

__________________
Generally speaking, if you were to get what you really deserve, you might be unpleasantly surprised.

Daval

Well said! I concur.

__________________
"It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it."
Winston Churchill

The_Dude

it's another thread about a muslim woman's right to put a viel on for the driver's license photo.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Minx

OMG...please say you aren't really serious???

I'm sorry...while I appreciate that everyone can have their own opinion I can't help but comment on this. Who are you to say that all men are made to want women. Obviously this is not the case.
Just because you disagree with their lifestyle, what gives you the right to deny them marriage? Are they personally harming you in the process? Is it hurting your job, your relationships with other people, your health? I think not.
Do not put your own personal views, ideals and morals upon other people. Just because you do not think it is right....doesn't mean that is the case. They have just as many rights (as HUMAN BEINGS) as anyone else.

__________________
You've been a naughty boy....go to my room!

gibber71

This is causing a big stir up here in Ontario.My feelings are that gays are equal citizens with everyone else and not subordinate,inferior or diseased.I think alot of people think that though.Such ignorance.And then the nerve of the Catholic church to continually condemn and chastise gays for their lifestyle choices,yet then ignore and cover up thousands of priests fucking little boys.Very nice not to mention the blind eye put forth by the Vatican.But I digress.

This is todays ed-op in the Ottawa Sun


Marriage

The Ontario Court of Appeal wasn't stating a preference in ruling in favour of gay marriage. It was merely acknowledging an obvious fact : That under our Constitution all Canadians, no matter what their sexual persuasion, have the same rights, and that therefore government has a responsibility to recognize gay marriages in the same manner it recognizes heterosexual marriages.

Frankly, we're not sure why government even remains in the marriage business. Why should Big Brother be the one to pass judgment on the legitimacy of a relationship between two individuals? And, come to think of it, why should government or anyone have a say on how others choose to live and love?

To us, this isn't a "gay" issue at all. It's an issue of individual liberty.

We are free people -- all of us. We are free to live and to love. We are free to choose how to lead our lives and whom to live our lives with, so long as we don't intrude on the rights and freedoms of others.

Frankly, the furor triggered by this week's court ruling baffles us. Gays have been living in openly gay relationships for years. They enjoy spousal benefits, they exchange birthday gifts, they celebrate anniversaries together and pay the utility bills. They worry when one is late getting home from work, they fret over who does the groceries and they plan their retirements together. Sound familiar?

Who cares if two gay individuals choose to have their commitment to each other legally recognized by the state?

No doubt, the notion offends some Canadians, although we find it somewhat odd that, in this day and age, it can generate any serious opposition. It's simple, folks: Your neighbours have no business telling you how to live, so stop having an opinion on their lifestyle choices.

The Chretien government finds itself torn between accepting the verdict and appealing the decision to the Surpeme Court. There are even calls in some quarters, including the government of Alberta, to invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to block gay marriages.

It's time government got out of the marriage business entirely. Let individuals decide the legitimacy of their lifestyle choices. They're big boys and girls.

http://www.fyiottawa.com/ottsun.shtml

The_Dude

wouldnt that apply here too? or shouldnt it?


arent they guarenteed equal protection under the law (14th), but i dont think has been incorporated, but i dont see the need and the pursuit of happiness?

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

BoCo

I agree almost completely! If you have the desire to have sex with the same sex, then go ahead but keep it to yourself. I don't want to see it, hear it, hear about it, know about it, or whatever. It goes against nature, God, and all that is right. If you don't agree, then something is wrong with you, not me. Furthermore, absolutely no same-sex marriages should be allowed or honored in any way. Personally, I refuse to recognize any same-sex marriage whether you like it or not. Two men or two women cannot be "married". They're simply disturbed and need emotional help, and society pretending that they're married is of no help to them at all.

The only thing I disagree with in DE137's post is that charges should be filed. People should be able to screw anyone they want in any way they want without the government getting involved.

If you think I'm kidding or trolling, then you don't know me very well. I'm completely serious.

__________________
Activism is a way for useless people to feel important.

The_Dude

people have said this before, you dont think it's right for them to do this, but just because you dont think something is right doesnt make it wrong.

we're talking about recognizing them legally, not religiously, so it doesnt really matter what god/pope/clergy/preist/whatever religious official thinks about this.

you said

who defined this nature?

according to you maybe.


just because 2 consensual adults do something that you dont like/understand doesnt make them "disturbed and need emotional help"

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Prophecy

And just because someone thinks something is right doesn't make it right.

A quick note, most politicians are religious. Look at the President, one of the things he did during 9/11 and the aftermath was call on God to help America. At one point he even called this war a crusade. Separating politics from religion is very, very hard. If it wasn't we wouldn't be having the problem presented in this thread, the driver’s license thread or others.
Example: Senator A gets voted into office because he's a good man and his views are the same as the people who put him in office. It just so happens that the views that got him into office are Christian. Odds are if Senator A wants to stay in office he's going to vote the way of the people who put in office want him to. Also this guy is never going to vote to recognize homosexuals legally if he doesn't in his religion.

Again this is the grand United States of America and sometimes you can't talk law with religion. Lobbyists hold lots of sway.


That's another problem; some people don't consider homosexuals as human beings. Same thing was true with lepers hundreds of years ago. Also, mentally retarded people don't always have rights depending on how bad the retardation is.

__________________
La Disciplina È La Mia Spada,
La Fede È Il Mio Schermo,
Non salti Ciecamente In Incertezza,
E Potete Raccogliere Le Ricompense.

Minx

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gibber71
[B]
We are free people -- all of us. We are free to live and to love. We are free to choose how to lead our lives and whom to live our lives with, so long as we don't intrude on the rights and freedoms of others.

Frankly, the furor triggered by this week's court ruling baffles us. Gays have been living in openly gay relationships for years. They enjoy spousal benefits, they exchange birthday gifts, they celebrate anniversaries together and pay the utility bills. They worry when one is late getting home from work, they fret over who does the groceries and they plan their retirements together. Sound familiar?

No doubt, the notion offends some Canadians, although we find it somewhat odd that, in this day and age, it can generate any serious opposition. It's simple, folks: Your neighbours have no business telling you how to live, so stop having an opinion on their lifestyle choices.


Clap clap clap clap clap. I agree wholeheartedly.

__________________
You've been a naughty boy....go to my room!

Big Julie

I sorta get a chuckle outta the "It says in the bible..." arguments. If you can look me in the eye, and with a straight face tell me you have never, ever broken one of the Ten Commandments, no ambiguity whatsoever, I will listen to you. Otherwise, fix yerself, before you impose your belief on someone else.

I think the real importance of this is the stricly legal one. You work and pay your taxes like everyone else, you deserve the same rights, privileges, and protections as everyone else.

Prophecy

The Christian faith isn't based on the fact that you never break the laws laid out by God, it’s based on the fact that you can repent and make amends for "sins" once you stop committing them. Also the faith does say you should love everyone and treat them fair, but at the same time teach them the error of their ways. As for imposing your beliefs on others, the Christian faith also says you should try to convert other people to Christianity.

Thus all Christians are supposed to help their follow man. And in the eyes of Christian that believes homosexuality is a sin, then letting them "marry" wouldn't do anything to help them "reform". I think that was similar to what BoCo was saying...

Again, till you remove Christians from public office I doubt same sex marriages will be legal in the US or Canada.

__________________
La Disciplina È La Mia Spada,
La Fede È Il Mio Schermo,
Non salti Ciecamente In Incertezza,
E Potete Raccogliere Le Ricompense.

The_Dude

i'm not saying there is a "right answer" to this.

people should be treated fairly under the law, and this is not treating them fairly

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

suviko

We haven't removed them from offices in Europe, yet many (protestant) countries have changed the laws in recent years. I think the change is coming. Like with women's right to vote, it might take some time to become a globally accepted part pf human rights.

sixate

Nature defined it dood. Nature made a dick to go into a pussy. End of discussion. It was made that way so life would continue. It sure as hell can't continue if only chics fuck each other and a bunch of hairy guys are bangin now can it?

My take on this topic. Marry whoever the fuck you want. I don't care. Same sex marriages should never be allowed to raise children. It takes a man and a woman to have a kid. I think it's a fucked up situation to put a kid in. 85% of heterosexuals shouldn't be having kids either so don't think I'm a gay basher.

Prophecy

Then we agree

Change may be coming but it will definitely be slower coming across the ocean. Europe for one has a much more relaxed public view of sex in general than America.
I'm just waiting for the KKK or some other hate group to burst on the scene again if this becomes law. Even after women, Hispanics, African Americans and other minorities received equal treatment under Federal law they weren't truly protected for a long time. And to a certain extent they aren't full protected today in some places. If homosexuals demand equal treatment and civil rights protection than well I can see another violent civil rights movement in the future. Maybe it won’t be as extreme as the ones in the past but violent none the less. There are fewer homosexuals then there were woman, blacks, etc. And look at the stuff they had to go through to get where they are today. It’s not just a race of people against another or men against women, its a nation of people against a minority.

Of course maybe I'm just the token pessimist

__________________
La Disciplina È La Mia Spada,
La Fede È Il Mio Schermo,
Non salti Ciecamente In Incertezza,
E Potete Raccogliere Le Ricompense.

~springrain

I am sad to see such mis-informed and prejudicial "crap" in this thread...

i really hoped that the majority of the TFP members were above such judgement and such narrow mindedness...

there is so much pain in this world... if two people want to love one another... who are we to judge?

The_Dude

the whole world has not gone gay!.
only a small percentage of the population is gay, so there are more than enough heterosexuals to keep the world going.

and since you wanted to mention about nature continuing, how about if homosexuality is a way to control population? i know it sounds stupid, but i had to throw it in.

bad parents doesnt necessarily mean bad kids. i have friends that have parents and they lead a good life.

as for gay adoptions, if i was ever put in a situation where i could have no parents or 2 parents of the same sex, i know what i'd choose.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

suviko

If you argue the purpose of nature is the only way to go, we can stop kissing and hugging each other all together. How is anal sex different from those? And anyway, talking about nature and what is natural is kinda silly when it comes to humans. Everything we do has to do with culture and the norms of human civilisation that make us think kissing is somehow more natural than anal sex. It's just the moral codes that make it seem so.

spectre

Here's my take on it. I don't give a shit who marries who. If two people want to get married, I don't care, let 'em.

__________________
"Fuck these chains
No goddamn slave
I will be different" ~ Machine Head

SecretMethod70

Here's my take on this. Don't tell someone that they're wrong for thinking something is wrong, otherwise you're just as bad as you say they are. If a person is morally against gay marriages then it's just plain ignorant to expect them to sit by and not care what other people do. I'm morally against stealing and killing, so if I see those in progress or someone who does those things, I will do what I can to effect the situation in the way I see morally fit. Likewise, if I think same sex marriages are morally wrong, I have an obligation to my beliefs (religious or non) to stand up for them. Of course, if they're not politically correct, liberal beliefs, apparently people don't have the right to stand up for them.

I think it all comes down to wanting to cheer for the underdog to be perfectly honest. Gay pride parades occur and no one makes a big deal out of it, but if a bunch of Christians or any other religion that is against homosexuality decided to have a parade expressing their belief that homosexuality is a sin, it's a terrible thing and they're terrible people. That's pretty hypocritical if you ask me.

You say to people who are against gay marriages that just because they think something is so doesn't make it so, well look in the mirror. Last time I checked none of us was Supreme Ruler of the Human Race (TM) and therefore your opinion of the rightness of gay marriages is no more definitely right or wrong than sixates, or BoCo's, or suviko's, or anyones.

If you support gay marriages, great. Do what you can to support them then.

If you're against gay marriages, that's fine too! Do what you can to prevent them.

And neither group has the right to complain about the other being pompous because that is the nature of truly believing in something. If you're not pompous about something you hold true, then you have no right to call it a belief of yours.

My opinion on the matter has been left out. I'll vote for politicians who suport it and that's all that matters. Whether people who disagree with me know my opinion doesn't matter to me because it does nothing to promote the result which I would like to see.


EDIT: heh. Spec and I started our posts the same way

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

spectre

Neener neener neeener...I said it first.

__________________
"Fuck these chains
No goddamn slave
I will be different" ~ Machine Head

VirFighter

4thtimelucky:

I agree that government intervention in cases of discrimination are very tricky. On one side of it, you've got a business owner with malicous intent towards one group that morall should not be allowed. On the other side of things you've got a businessman with no malicous intent being sued because he choose a person of one group over another simply because he personally felt one was more qualified than the other.

I feel for both sides of the issue. I just hate the idea of government forcing someone to do something. Allowing private businesses to hire whomever they wish to hire seems like the least amount of forcing from the government.

This is a real grey area though. I mean people defend a gay person's right to be with other gays as a personal preference yet people do not defend a person's personal preference when it comes to hatred/discrimination. Like you said it is a tricky issue.

Everyone has the right to life, libery, and happiness. I will defend these rights to the end, even if I don't agree with the method personally as long as it doesn't infringe upon another person's same rights. So, does discrimination at the job level really affect someone's right to happiness? I really can't say.

__________________
"The South is gonna boogie again"
- Disco Stu

Tirian

I'd like to comment on Ralph being level headed....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/features/klei..._timeline.html

contains the following amongst others...

Dec. 12, 2001: Klein visits a homeless shelter at one a.m. and gets into a shouting match with one of the residents about why he didn't have a job. Shelter staff says Klein threw money on the floor before his driver escorted him out.

Dec 18, 2001: Klein admits to having an alcohol problem and says he hopes to stop drinking.

Then I hear him on the Radio couple of weeks ago wondering if someone who had voiced an opinion differeing from his own drank too much. I had a great laugh over that one since Ralph has been such a great example of handling alcohol for us Albertans for so long now.

As for the marraige thing.....

Call it whatever you want...any two poeple who are sharing everything in a relationship should be entitled to equal status as any other two people regardless of gender.

BoCo

God did.

By the way, I've already said before that I have nothing against gay people, I just have a problem with homosexuality in general because it isn't right. What defines it as "right" you ask? Both God and nature, which are one in the same. Things were made to work in a certain way, and anything outside those rules is wrong. Now go ahead and stick it in some dude's ass, but don't give me a speach about how I--the straight guy who's never experimented with homosexuality, drugs, alcohol, etc.--am somehow the wrong one. My brain isn't screwed up (although many choose to throw "narrow minded" at me as a cheap shot) so when I have an opinion, it's about as pure an opinion as you're going to find around here. I suppose I could dope myself up for a few years and perhaps my opinions would be skewed afterwards in the same direction as yours, but for the time being I am right and you are wrong. Oh, yeah.... and gay marriage is also wrong. It's just one more attempt by the devil to destroy humanity. Hmpf.

__________________
Activism is a way for useless people to feel important.

Molly Moon

Everyone that posted in this thread is absolutely correct.

And every single one of you that posted in this thread is completely and utterly wrong.

Confused? You shouldn't be.

This is one of those topics that rides a very dangerous line. The longer it goes on, the closer we get to flaming each other. And when we flame, intentional or not, we hurt each other.

I stand by what I posted earler. That is what the Truth is to me. However, its mine and mine alone. Your truth is different in a variety of ways even if you think you agree with me.

So what's the solution then? We are the world after all, we should be able to make this right somehow, shouldn't we?

Maybe the best solution is to do away with marriage as a legal state all together. Live with as many people as you want, leave when you want and put the divorce lawyers out of business. Have all children bear their mother's last name instead of their fathers, so paternity is never a question.

But tthat's not the answer either is it?

The truth is that there is never one answer that will make everyone happy. If BoCo's god made the laws, I would be miserable. If my gods made the laws, he would be. THere just isn't a happy medium.

__________________
"You spend twenty years learning the spell that makes nude virgins appear in your bedroom, and then you’re so poisoned by quicksilver fumes and half-blind from reading old grimoires that you can’t remember what happens next." (Terry Pratchett, The Colour Of Magic)

titsmurf

BoCo:

I don't care what the bible says. The bible doesn't mention dinosaurs, but they've existed. Same with homosexuality. It doesn't matter what the bible says, it's here to stay. And these people are every bit as much entitled to happiness as straight people are.

There are two options here:
- either you claim these people are inferior to you, and therefor have no right to be married, whereas you do. In this case, you are prejudiced. Shut up.
- you don't claim they are inferior to you, and therefor have every bit as much the right to marry as you do. In this case, you should have shut up, and never posted in this thread at all.

SecretMethod70

titsmurf:

Please don't tell users to shut up.

Anyway, again, let me point out how interesting I find it that you feel that you have the right to tell BoCo he is "wrong" and should "shut up," yet he, apparently, has no right to express his belief that you are "wrong."

As BoCo points out, people call him "narrow minded," yet what's so different about his "narrow mindedness" in believing that homosexuality is definitely wrong and your "narrow mindedness" in believing that homosexuality is definitely OK?

Once again (and I don't know why this is such a hard thing to grasp), no one here is the final authority on any subject matter. We all have our beliefs and we all have our reasons for those beliefs. The fact that some of us are in the majority and others are in the minority does not make any one more "prejudiced" than the other. You can say BoCo is prejudiced against homosexuals, and he can say you're prejudiced towards homosexuals. Both apply. So, if prejudice is a reason that people should "shut up" perhaps we should all heed your advice, including yourself, and not even discuss the matter?

Live your life according to your ideals and do what you can to support those ideals rather than just try to knock down people who disagree with you.

Should you think that you're right and people who disagree with you are wrong? Absolutely! Should you tell them to "shut up" because you think that? Absolutely not. They are no more required to shut up on the subject than you are.

I find it particularly humorous that some people who would be so quick to tell someone like BoCo to shut up because he disagrees with them are the same people who would cry foul if they were told to shut up when criticizing something like the US's actions on the world stage. Free speech and free opinion goes both ways.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

cheese

IM cheese and im here to say being gay is Otay!

titsmurf

True. I'm sorry, BoCo. I disagree with your opinion, but I should have shown more respect for it. Live and learn.

I'm not used to dealing with extreme opinions, and I guess I got carried away. In my country, homosexual marriage has been legalised without any real opposition at all. The only on-going debate over here is on whether or not they should be allowed to adopt children.

4thTimeLucky

virFighter

Thanks for a good post.
I think the tricky part comes down to the fact that (a) any action to protect the life, liberty and happiness of one person will affect the life, liberty and happiness of another, and (b) libertarians such as myself believe in a being tolerant, but as the condundrum goes: should the totally tolerant person be tolerant of intolerance?

titsmurf
I think you'll need to sharpen up those posts a bit to have an impact around here (especially on this thread!).

You: I don't care what the bible says
Me: You should care, because religion and the bible is central to this thread and being ignorant of what it says won't help you.

You: The bible doesn't mention dinosaurs, but they've existed. Same with homosexuality.
Me: How the same? The bible doesn't mention homosexuals, buy they still existed? In fact the Bible mentions homosexuals a few times - and not in a very positive light - hence the presence of Christianity in this debate.

//EDIT// Thanks Antagony, I had indeed misinterpreted it.

You: And these people are every bit as much entitled to happiness as straight people are.
Me: Goodness, I think we finally agree on something. Of course, others might not. If homosexuality is a sin then why should sinners be entitled to happiness?

You: either you claim these people are inferior to you... in this case you are prejudiced.... or you don't claim they are inferior to you
Me: Two points here.
Firstly, you will have to convince the other side of why thinking someone is inferior is prejudice. Prejudice is an unfair bias against someone. The other side is arguing that it is perfectly fair to think that sinners (i.e. murderers, thieves, rapists, practicing homosexuals) have done something that makes them (morally) inferior.
Secondly, the issue may not be about inferiority and so those are not really the two main options. The issue could well be: homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal but different. And so the other side might argue that this difference should be reflected in the fact that homosexuals cannot get married. Another example: A person with poor eyesight and a person with 20/20 vision are equal but different. One of them should be allowed to become a jet fighter pilot, the other should not.

When the only option you lay open to the other side is to "shut up", you can be pretty sure that you have missed something and that it is you who are now verging on the unreasonably intolerant.

EDIT:> This post took me a while. SecretMethod got in there before me. Great minds... erm whatever.

By the way Secret, did you notice your quote up there on the list of shame?

__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

Antagony

4thTimeLucky

In reference to your 3rd response to titsmurf, I just wanted to save titsmurf the effort and mention that I'm sure that he meant homosexuality was here to stay.

__________________
On the outside I'm jazz, but my soul is rock and roll.

Sleep is a waste of time. Join the Insomniac Club.
"GYOH GWAH-DAH GREH BLAAA! SROH WIH DIH FLIH RYOHH!!" - The Locust

Halx

Marriages are recognized by the state, not just the church. Now, since the two are supposed to be separate entities, Christianity should not even come into the conversation when it comes to the STATE legalizing gay marriages. That said, the state has no right to say right or wrong - a marriage is a vow between two people and if they want to sign papers that says their incomes are now combined, so be it.

I think the states should be all for it in fact, because they get more tax money from it all.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Antagony

Hal wins. We should close this thread now.

__________________
On the outside I'm jazz, but my soul is rock and roll.

Sleep is a waste of time. Join the Insomniac Club.
"GYOH GWAH-DAH GREH BLAAA! SROH WIH DIH FLIH RYOHH!!" - The Locust

SecretMethod70

Wait...so I'm not a great mind?...or is it you?...now I'm confused

heh yeah, and it actually still applies here. Note that one must obtain a "marriage license" to be married just like they must obtain a "driver's license" to drive. Driver's licenses are just much harder to get because it's a greater risk to the community at large to allow just anyone to drive. Still, it is perfectly within the government's right to deny a marriage license to a couple - hetero OR homosexual. It just doesn't really ever happen - at least on the heterosexual side.

Frankly, I wouldn't be opposed to seeing that change. Let's get some requirements for marriage licenses - mandatory pre-marriage counseling and such. It'd help the divorce rate a ton.

Of course, I also think that something should be done so that people aren't allowed to vote unless they can show knowledge of at least 3 of the major candidates in a race and some of the main issues which are being debated. Not discrimination based on race, sex, or creed - just discrimination based on ignorance. Ignorant people should not be voting in political matters, they should be voting on the next M&M color.

Whether I agree with homosexual marriage or not, we have a representative democracy in place which allows for the majority, in most cases, to vote the people in office that represent their beliefs. If the majority believes that homosexual marriages are wrong, then so be it. If I disagree I'll keep voting for someone who believes they're right and will work to change that in hopes more people will do the same.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Antagony

No way, BIRTHING LICENSES are much further ahead on the list than this.

Seriously though, I think that idea would be counter-productive. Not only are you slapping more rules onto people and reducing their freedom, but people will likely just avoid marriage. Have children outside of marriages and get "divorced" outside of marriages.

__________________
On the outside I'm jazz, but my soul is rock and roll.

Sleep is a waste of time. Join the Insomniac Club.
"GYOH GWAH-DAH GREH BLAAA! SROH WIH DIH FLIH RYOHH!!" - The Locust

Halx

SM, required marriage counseling is a whole other monster completely...

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

titsmurf

I'm not ignorant of what it says. I just don't consider what the bible says to be relevant in this issue. If you wish to argue with me on this, prove to me that what the bible says is relevant. I consider this discussion to be highly opinionated.

I was trying to give an example of how the bible is no authority on everything. It goes back to me not considering what it says relevant in this debate.

I indeed meanth that homosexuality, sin or no sin, exists. There are those who feel they don't deserve to live. I disagree with them. There is no way to 'straighten out' homosexuals.

Everybody is entitled to happiness. Personal opinion. Let god punish those who have sinned up in heaven. Let the law punish those who have broken the law down here. And let the two stick to their area of expertise. Personal opinion, again.

Homosexuality is not a crime. Murder, thefth, rape, are. I don't think it's at good thing to consider them all equally wrong. As I said, if homosexuality is a sin - let God punish them up in heaven.

Very well. To me, legal marriage has nothing to do with God. And as being homosexual is not against the law, these people should be allowed to do so. I can understand why the church would not allow homosexuals to be married in a church.

I am not intolerant. My words were. I hadn't thought them through.