RPGDot Network    
   

 
 
A Tale in the Desert
Display full image
Pic of the moment
More
pics from the gallery
 
 
Site Navigation

Main
   News
   Forums

Games
   Games Database
   Top 100
   Release List
   Support Files

Features
   Reviews
   Previews
   Interviews
   Editorials
   Diaries
   Misc

Download
   Gallery
   Music
   Screenshots
   Videos

Miscellaneous
   Staff Members
   Privacy Statement

FAQ
Members
Usergroups
Sexual Deviant Marraiges
  View previous topic :: View next topic
RPGDot Forums > Absolutely Off Topic

Author Thread
Patriot
Small Tiger
Small Tiger




Joined: 31 May 2004
Posts: 1421
Location: Athens,Greece
   

quote:
Originally posted by Myrthos
If it is acceptable for people who do not believe in God to get married (like myself), why is religion a basis for determining if gay people get married or not? I find it strange that on a scale of things that are acceptable, being unfaithful (for which there is no law), being allowed to raise kids (for which no license is required, regardless of how bad you ar in it) and a whole slew of other things is more acceptable than marrying two people that love eachother.
I fail to see how that would endanger the cornerstone of society while all the rest that are more acceptable doesn't or to a lesser extend.



So why don't believe to Him
Post Tue Jun 15, 2004 1:42 pm
 View user's profile
Myrthos
Spoiler of All Fun
Spoiler of All Fun




Joined: 07 Jul 2001
Posts: 1926
Location: Holland
   

quote:
Originally posted by patriot
So why don't believe to Him

I'm not sure what you mean... actually I'm clueless.
_________________
Kewl quotes:
I often have an odd sense of humor - Roach
Why quote somebody else, think of something yourself. - XeroX
...you won't have to unbookmark this site, we'll unbookmark you. - Val
Reports Myrthos for making me scared and humbled at the mere sight of his name - kayla
Post Tue Jun 15, 2004 3:33 pm
 View user's profile
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Most Exalted Highlord




Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
   

quote:
Originally posted by Myrthos
If it is acceptable for people who do not believe in God to get married (like myself), why is religion a basis for determining if gay people get married or not? I find it strange that on a scale of things that are acceptable, being unfaithful (for which there is no law), being allowed to raise kids (for which no license is required, regardless of how bad you ar in it) and a whole slew of other things is more acceptable than marrying two people that love eachother.
I fail to see how that would endanger the cornerstone of society while all the rest that are more acceptable doesn't or to a lesser extend.

Religion is the basis of this issue because gay people are attempting to get religion to accept their lifestyle.
By insisting that the union of two same-sex individuals be called marriage, proponents of this change are making a religious argument. Proponents of this issue are not satisfied with the term "civil union" which is an institution that would afford them all legal rights of married couples, they insist on redefining the religious meaning of marriage into something that accepts homosexuality. Since civil unions are an option, this is really a religious issue. Individual freedom has little to do with this issue.

The other things you mentioned do endanger the cornerstone of society as well and to a greater extent in my opinion. They are just much more difficult to regulate. It is inevitable that some people are going to be worse parents than others. Some people will commit adultery (which I think should be illegal, but that is another topic), but how do you prove someone had sex when there are no children or witnesses?
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole
Post Tue Jun 15, 2004 7:44 pm
 View user's profile
piln
High Emperor
High Emperor




Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK
   

quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
By insisting that the union of two same-sex individuals be called marriage, proponents of this change are making a religious argument.


Why? As Myrthos pointed out, it is possible for a man and woman to form a "civil union" without a religious ceremony, and indeed, without either of them following any religion or believing in any deity, and still (rightly) call it marriage. So why, when we are dealing with same-sex couples, does it become a religious issue?
Post Tue Jun 15, 2004 8:11 pm
 View user's profile
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Most Exalted Highlord




Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
   

What is at issue here is not the rights of the couple, but rather the use of a term that carries religious significance. Ask yourself, if a couple could form a "civil union" that carries all of the legal weight of a marriage, why would they fight to use the term "marriage" instead? They want the social acceptance that comes from being married. That acceptance is rooted in religion. That is why religious organizations are fighting this. The term "marriage" has religious meaning.

Marriage implies compliance with religious standards that religious doctrine holds all people to. The heterosexual couple may actually comply with those standards, even though they do not believe in God.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole
Post Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:12 pm
 View user's profile
Myrthos
Spoiler of All Fun
Spoiler of All Fun




Joined: 07 Jul 2001
Posts: 1926
Location: Holland
   

quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
Marriage implies compliance with religious standards that religious doctrine holds all people to. The heterosexual couple may actually comply with those standards, even though they do not believe in God.

Where I come from that's simply not true. When you are married in church you are not legally married. Getting married is a legal issue.
Then there are those who get married in church as well, because they are religious or for whatever other reason they have.

I'm not religious, I'm an atheist and am still married. My married state has nothing to do with a religious doctrine. The reason for getting married was because I love the woman I was marrying and we both wanted to make it a formal arrangement, beyond the concept of a "civil union". Religion had nothing to do with it.

Fortunately I live in a country where homosexual couples can get married.
_________________
Kewl quotes:
I often have an odd sense of humor - Roach
Why quote somebody else, think of something yourself. - XeroX
...you won't have to unbookmark this site, we'll unbookmark you. - Val
Reports Myrthos for making me scared and humbled at the mere sight of his name - kayla
Post Tue Jun 15, 2004 10:05 pm
 View user's profile
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Most Exalted Highlord




Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
   

I am not saying that you are deliberately seeking to comply with any religious standard or that you even care that they exist. What I meant when I wrote:
quote:
The heterosexual couple may actually comply with those standards, even though they do not believe in God.
was that it was possible (probably even likely) that you would comply with those standards not necessarily because you are religious, but because they are common behavior, whereas, compliance is impossible for a homosexual couple.

Where I am from, if you get married in church, you are married. A minister has the authority to perform a marriage anywhere he wants. Our countries differ in that respect.

I am curious about a comment you made:
quote:
Originally Posted by Myrthos
The reason for getting married was because I love the woman I was marrying and we both wanted to make it a formal arrangement, beyond the concept of a "civil union". Religion had nothing to do with it.

What benefit did you seek to get that was beyond a civil union? Are marriages and civil unions legally equal in your country?
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole
Post Wed Jun 16, 2004 12:09 am
 View user's profile
Myrthos
Spoiler of All Fun
Spoiler of All Fun




Joined: 07 Jul 2001
Posts: 1926
Location: Holland
   

Yes, they are equal. The difference is the emotional component that 'being married' has.
_________________
Kewl quotes:
I often have an odd sense of humor - Roach
Why quote somebody else, think of something yourself. - XeroX
...you won't have to unbookmark this site, we'll unbookmark you. - Val
Reports Myrthos for making me scared and humbled at the mere sight of his name - kayla
Post Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:26 am
 View user's profile
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Most Exalted Highlord




Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
   

I agree, marriage IS different because of the emotional component. So what ideas does a couple have that causes them to perceive an emotional component that is 'beyond the concept of a civil union?' Perhaps one or more of the following?

1. Knowing that you have done the right thing.
2. Knowing that your union is accepted by everyone.
3. Simply doing what you have been taught to do when you fall in love.
4. A sense of "going all the way" by getting a real marriage.
5. A feeling that your union is healthy and fruitful because you are married.

Ideas are handed down through generations in a society. Religion may not affect the person's decision to marry, but religion and a society's definition of marriage affect one another. There is an idea that sex (and other things) within a marriage is proper. Allowing homosexuals to 'marry' places a seal of approval on a clearly deviant and fruitless sexual behavior. If unchecked that idea could (and probably would) begun to be handed down like any other societal idea. Eventually these ideas will find their way into religion and any other aspect of life. It has already started to happen.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole
Post Wed Jun 16, 2004 8:16 pm
 View user's profile
Kendrik
Thin Blue Line
Thin Blue Line




Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 550
Location: England
   

quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
There is an idea that sex (and other things) within a marriage is proper. Allowing homosexuals to 'marry' places a seal of approval on a clearly deviant and fruitless sexual behavior. If unchecked that idea could (and probably would) begun to be handed down like any other societal idea. Eventually these ideas will find their way into religion and any other aspect of life. It has already started to happen.


WOAH there cowboy - I agree that if ultimatley gay couples are allowed to marry it will become socially acceptable (kinda the whole point) and I ask you what is wrong with that? I think the phrase you use of "clearly deviant" is an er.... interesting one - a clever wordsmith would suggest that it was used as any homosexual couple deviates from the accepted "norm" but I suspect that in this case it may have been used in a more judgemental way.

Now as some of you may now from previous dicsussions on these boards (many moons ago) I don't like to force my opinion on others - every person to his/her own beliefs but I really wish people would stop hiding behind the bible. My issue is not with a person's faith, who am I to say if there is a god or not? But most arguements usign the bible are incredibly selective and choose a few choice quotes which support their topic (if you look deep enough arguments can normally be found for both sides e.g Thou shalt not Kill v's Smite down thine enemies and the enemies of thy Lord etc,etc)

Ok where was I .... oh yes as the Big M (sorry Myrthos, couldn't resist )says people get married all the time for none religious reasons. Civil ceremonires still result in somethign called "a marriage" so if others can get married in a non relegious way, why can't gay couples do the same?
_________________
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true."
JAMES BRANCH CABELL
~Member of The Nonflamers' Guild~
~~Champion of the (Unofficial) RPGdot Text Signature Contest 2002~~
Post Wed Jun 16, 2004 8:31 pm
 View user's profile
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Most Exalted Highlord




Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
   

No, I did not mean that in a judgemental way. I meant it in a factual way. This is what I mean by 'clearly deviant and fruitless sexual behavior'.

Sexual activity that releases sexual tension in a way that does not satisfy the goal of sex (which is to get your genes into the next generation), not even as a form of foreplay.

The point here is that proponents of this issue are going out of their way to call their unions the same thing that religious people call their unions.

They don't want anyone to be able to tell the difference. If they did not care what religious people think, I would expect them to reach a conclusion like, "Religious folks call their unions marriage; gay people call their unions civil unions, they both have the same rights so who cares what religious people think" But, apparently they DO care. Proponents of gay marriage want to have churches perform their ceremonies, and call them marriages, and convince church congregations to endorse their lifestyle.

As far as 'hiding behind the Bible'... If you believe in the Bible you make your decisions based on your interpretation of it. When something is contrary to it you say that it is wrong; even if it is something that you, yourself did. To get upset with Christian people when they will not condone homosexuality is just not rational. The Bible clearly and unambiguously teaches against it.

However, I must say that homosexual marriage is not only against the Bible; it is against natural law. This is such a flawed concept that it is not necessary to invoke the Bible to see that it does not benefit society beyond the gratification it affords the two individuals.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole
Post Wed Jun 16, 2004 11:30 pm
 View user's profile
Kendrik
Thin Blue Line
Thin Blue Line




Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 550
Location: England
   

Thank you for clearing up the issue about the "clearly deviant" part of your post - I was kinda hoping thats what you meant

As for Homosexual sex not serving the Christian purpose of creating new life then many hetrosexual couples are guilty of this too. I was raised a Catholic so I understand the basic tenents of the faith being that every time you have sex you should accept that a child may be produced (resulting in the Catholic stance on birth control as wrong). However to condemn a homosexual relationship on this basis means that many hetrosexual couples must also be condemned as wether you want it or not a hell of a lot of sex takes place where babies are the last thing on anybodies mind.

I think the basic need for sex (i.e from the id) does originally stem from the need to reproduce but as humans have developed sex has also become a way of seeking comfort or to feel close to someone. Remember another fundamental human need is the need to feel safe - and often feeling close to someone is a way of achieving this.

Also remeber that the term Marriage has been around for a very long time (even before the birth of Christianity) so should the older religions such as the Jews be complaining that the Chrisitans have stolen their word for what should be a union of two Jews? I used the Jewsih faith simply as an illistrative point here but to suggest Christianity invented the concept of marriage seems somewhat wrong to me and therefore if gay people or non-religious people want to be Married then how can they be stopped. Marriage is not inherently a religious union it has simply been hijacked by the church in recent history.
_________________
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true."
JAMES BRANCH CABELL
~Member of The Nonflamers' Guild~
~~Champion of the (Unofficial) RPGdot Text Signature Contest 2002~~
Post Thu Jun 17, 2004 10:22 am
 View user's profile
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Most Exalted Highlord




Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
   

I am not Catholic, so I am unaware the logic they use when they condemn birth control. Personally, I have seen no reference to that issue in the Bible. I have seen have seen clear passages in the Bible telling people not to engage in homosexual sex. That is where my Biblical rationale comes from.

Sex being the used to create new life is not just a Christian purpose; it is the natural purpose.

I don't think I said that Christianity invented marriage. If I did, that is not what I meant to say. In ancient Judaism, which is the same as ancient Christianity, (according to Christians) religion was the state. Therefore, legal concepts like marriage were religious issues. Marriage is so basic it must be addressed by all religions. It has not been hijacked; it is too important to be left out.

My case without religious references
Pair bonding is the most effective way to ensure that both members of the couple meet their bottom line of all life which is to get your genes into the next generation. Formal marriage is simply the way for a society, no matter how small, to recognize who belongs to who; so that different pair bonds can live in the same area without constant fighting.

The formal marriage is really for the sake of those outside the bond. (Although, now we often use it to prove something to one another) A formal marriage is when the society recognizes the pair bond as legitimate. People will treat them like a family, give them presumption of paternity, ostracize people who violate them, etc. By not allowing homosexuals, to marry, a society is recognizing that it is impossible for two people of the same sex to create fruitful pair bond.- Which is obviously correct.

If two homosexuals want to be together, then be free and be together, but don't make society say that this is a healthy pair bond, because it is not. When you attempt to consider a union of two people of the same sex evolving into a family, you get all sorts of ridiculous scenarios. Here is one.

Two lesbians are married to one another. One of them gets pregnant and has a baby. No DNA test is done. Does her female spouse have a presumption of paternity? If they divorce must she pay child support? Does the biological mother have an advantage in a custody battle?

Here is another one.

Two heterosexual men have been roomates for 10 years. The more wealthy one is moving out. However because they have been roomates for 10 years the 'common law spouse' laws in that state say that they are common law spouses and that the wealthy one must pay alimony to the poorer one.

THIS IS LUNANCY! and it against the natural law.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole
Post Thu Jun 17, 2004 8:25 pm
 View user's profile
Myrthos
Spoiler of All Fun
Spoiler of All Fun




Joined: 07 Jul 2001
Posts: 1926
Location: Holland
   

quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
Pair bonding is the most effective way to ensure that both members of the couple meet their bottom line of all life which is to get your genes into the next generation. Formal marriage is simply the way for a society, no matter how small, to recognize who belongs to who; so that different pair bonds can live in the same area without constant fighting.

Does that exclude people who get married and have no intention whatsoever to get their genes into the next generation? Should that be disallowed? If not then why does it not apply to them but does apply to homosexuals?

quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
Two lesbians are married to one another. One of them gets pregnant and has a baby. No DNA test is done. Does her female spouse have a presumption of paternity? If they divorce must she pay child support? Does the biological mother have an advantage in a custody battle?

The same laws apply as to when a hetero couple gets married. She must pay child support. As to who is in advantage, that is left for a judge to decide if needed. Marriage is mariage, there are no different types of marriages.

quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
Two heterosexual men have been roomates for 10 years. The more wealthy one is moving out. However because they have been roomates for 10 years the 'common law spouse' laws in that state say that they are common law spouses and that the wealthy one must pay alimony to the poorer one.

I can't judge that as I don't think we have such a law in my country. But as far as I understand laws in my country, they are not supposed to be executed differently depending on the sex of the partners. So if we would have such a law I would suppose the answer to that is yes. The lady is blindfolded for a very good reason after all.
_________________
Kewl quotes:
I often have an odd sense of humor - Roach
Why quote somebody else, think of something yourself. - XeroX
...you won't have to unbookmark this site, we'll unbookmark you. - Val
Reports Myrthos for making me scared and humbled at the mere sight of his name - kayla
Post Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:43 pm
 View user's profile
Val
Risen From Ashes
Risen From Ashes




Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA
   

quote:
Originally posted by Myrthos
So if we would have such a law I would suppose the answer to that is yes.

So if you were a judge in such a case, you wouldn't laugh it out of court due to it's sheer ridiculousness? That's... disturbing.
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=
Post Fri Jun 18, 2004 7:12 pm
 View user's profile


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
All times are GMT.
The time now is Tue Apr 16, 2019 6:44 am



Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group
 
 
 
All original content of this site is copyrighted by RPGWatch. Copying or reproducing of any part of this site is strictly prohibited. Taking anything from this site without authorisation will be considered stealing and we'll be forced to visit you and jump on your legs until you give it back.