Same Sex Marriage

[Back Door Skip]

Sorry, bro, but it aint as easy as you say. In a world where humans are very easily influenced, once you believe you are right or feel one way about something, you can continue doing something wrong without realizing it. Ever heard of partaking in a behavior in your early years that was frowned upon and later realized you probably shouldn't have done it? I used to smoke weed everyday thinking I was doing the right thing because I played sports and was a good person, but I didn't take into account how my parents would feel if they found out (I was using their money) and how lazy I was becoming.

In hindsight, I see what I was doing was wrong. And also, when I was a young kid I put my mouth on my bro's dick because of this stupid joke I fell for, and I wasn't grossed out at all. We are more a product of how we are influenced then how we come out of the womb. If I think there is nothing wrong with smoking weed, I can do it without feeling bad. Nowadays, I feel horrible when I do because I know I shouldn't be. Sucking a dick is no different.

Talk about repressed memories.

 

[Bobby]

That's my nominee for worst post of the year, I'm claiming it right now.

 

[Back Door Skip]

Not sure if worst or best. Either way, bravo

 

[MaSsiVe]

Beat me to it, Bobby
That was simultaneously hilarious and heartwrenching to read. Thank you SG, for moments like this.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

I think it's the best post of 2013. Might get nominated for both.

 

[Filipower]

I was going to say best.

Sucking a dick is no different than anything else.

This is gold.

 

[Bobby]

He gets repped for that. He'll enjoy it.

 

[Sir Calumn]

As the only one of us who has actually sucked a dick I now feel coolkid is the most qualified to talk about matters of homosexuality and I now defer to his opinion.

 

[Back Door Skip]

Yeah, the argument becomes null and void here. I hereby agree with anything he says regarding the subject.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

I now believe that coolkid has gone through ex-gay therapy.

 

[MaSsiVe]

 

[Keegan]

Naturally, as humans, we are meant to conceive by sticking the dong into the poon.

I am 100% in favour of sticking the dong into the poon.

 

[Alex]

Back to the real conversation, this is COMPLETELY different to not realising something is wrong. Half of the gay population grew up thinking homosexuality was wrong, and I have loads of friends who grew up trying to "make themselves" straight. They believed being attracted to boys was wrong, and tried to be attracted to girls. Even dated them for years in sine cases.

So your argument, is completely incorrect on this basis. It's not about not "knowing it's wrong", it's a legitimate feeling for part of the population. It is natural to them, and in most cases has nothing to do with upbringing.

 

[Keegan]

I beg to differ. The biblical definition is full of polygamy and handmaidens, not to mention the wife as property. I don't think churches should be forced to marry gays, but I think one can make a very convincing argument about them not being allowed to discriminate as long as they remain tax exempt (which is a whole other issue).

The Bible is pretty clear that holy matrimony should be between a man and a woman. The polygamy and handmaiden situations referred to still refer to dick and poon. Not Dick and Harry. The "wife as property" bit is also very Old Testament and really has no bearing on the topic at hand. Any social contract that creates a union between consenting couples of any gender is entirely their business. Trying to force the Church to conduct these ceremonies, however, is essentially wrong. Why would you want your union to be conducted in a place where they believe what you are doing is wrong anyway?

 

[#1 Stunna]

The Bible is pretty clear that holy matrimony should be between a man and a woman. The polygamy and handmaiden situations referred to still refer to dick and poon. Not Dick and Harry. The "wife as property" bit is also very Old Testament and really has no bearing on the topic at hand. Any social contract that creates a union between consenting couples of any gender is entirely their business. Trying to force the Church to conduct these ceremonies, however, is essentially wrong. Why would you want your union to be conducted in a place where they believe what you are doing is wrong anyway?

Churches get a tax exempt status because they're a church. Don't want to marry same sex individuals in your holy temple of kiddy fiddling? Pay taxes. Catholic here, btw.

 

[Alex]

I don't think any religious group should be forced to marry anyone. I think that's taking away their freedom of religion. So I don't expect churches to be conducting gay marriages. My concern is much more for gay marriages outside of the church. So many weddings aren't conducted in churches now anyway.

I definitely don't feel any government should make a religious group do something that contradicts what they believe the religion stands for. And if I was gay I wouldn't want to be married by such a religion anyway.

 

[Keegan]

That's exactly my point, Alex. There are also denominations where kiddy fiddling is frowned upon - Catholicism is only one denomination out of many.

 

[Alex]

That's exactly my point, Alex. There are also denominations where kiddy fiddling is frowned upon - Catholicism is only one denomination out of many.

Yeah, think we agree on the most part. I'm completely not Christian, but can understand that of it's not part of any religion they shouldn't be made to do it.

However on a government level, there should be no restriction on it at all

 

[ShiftyPowers]

The Bible is pretty clear that holy matrimony should be between a man and a woman. The polygamy and handmaiden situations referred to still refer to dick and poon. Not Dick and Harry. The "wife as property" bit is also very Old Testament and really has no bearing on the topic at hand. Any social contract that creates a union between consenting couples of any gender is entirely their business. Trying to force the Church to conduct these ceremonies, however, is essentially wrong. Why would you want your union to be conducted in a place where they believe what you are doing is wrong anyway?

You're just moving the ball. You say "oh sure marriage has changed a ton, but not in this one specific way!" That's a ridiculous argument. If the definition of marriage is fluid, then it isn't forced to stay exactly as was generally perceived in 1981. "Wife as property" isn't an Old Testament thing (although it is obviously there as well). In many nations women could not own property very recently or would lose all rights to their property when they got married. Arranged marriage is still common in many places. Further, the New Testament isn't exactly aglow with "FUCK YOU QUEERS" like the Old Testament, so being dismissive of the Old Testament is much more detrimental to your argument than it is good.

The other argument is that the Bible is 100% meaningless to the debate because most nations aren't governed by a church or even allowed to prefer one religion over another; many that are do not happen to be Christian.

The argument about forcing churches to marry gay couples is one that I do not find compelling myself, however as Paul expanded on, I do find it distasteful that churches can discriminate in such a way while being tax exempt and one could certainly make the argument in a sound and logical way.

 

[Alex]

You're just moving the ball. You say "oh sure marriage has changed a ton, but not in this one specific way!" That's a ridiculous argument. If the definition of marriage is fluid, then it isn't forced to stay exactly as was generally perceived in 1981. "Wife as property" isn't an Old Testament thing (although it is obviously there as well). In many nations women could not own property very recently or would lose all rights to their property when they got married. Arranged marriage is still common in many places. Further, the New Testament isn't exactly aglow with "FUCK YOU QUEERS" like the Old Testament, so being dismissive of the Old Testament is much more detrimental to your argument than it is good.

The other argument is that the Bible is 100% meaningless to the debate because most nations aren't governed by a church or even allowed to prefer one religion over another; many that are do not happen to be Christian.

The argument about forcing churches to marry gay couples is one that I do not find compelling myself, however as Paul expanded on, I do find it distasteful that churches can discriminate in such a way while being tax exempt and one could certainly make the argument in a sound and logical way.

The tax exemption part is the only part I'm not completely in agreeance with, and that's a US specific issue I guess.

I believe it goes against the whole purpose of a religion to have them do something they don't believe in.

So whilst same sex marriages should definitely be fine, I don't see that anybody (apart from civil servants qualified purely to marry people) should have to marry anyone else.

I see the issue is that the government doesn't recognise the union, much more than who does or doesn't marry the couple.

Tax exemption in Australia isn't just for the church though, it's for basically any non profit group. In that case, I don't see why a church should be treated any differently, regardless of who they do or don't marry.