Marriage

[Quina Quen]

Answer this question scientifically..How can anything begin from nothing? Let alone willing itself to do so?

There is nothing in the Darwin's ideas of natural selection that ever suggest that living organisms ever will themselves to change - they are if anything the descendants of natural mutations that actually have useful properties based on the subjects current environment.

Take a child being born with Downs syndrome as a crude but obvious genetic 'malfunction' for example. On some other planet, in some other (unimaginable to my mind) universe it might actually be beneficial to be a suffer of Downs and the knock on effect is continuous eventual mass scale reproduction of the genetic change that has taken place.

I'm not even suggesting life evolved on this planet JT. For all I know it could have evolved trillions of years before our solar system even exist and we are here as nothing more than a product of abiogenesis. Some people find it far fetched to think that other beings put us here but yet quite ironically will put all their faith in a 'Supreme' being that they call God doing the very same job.

And if you question the logic of anything being able to begin from nothing, then how exactly do you suppose a God could defy the same logic?

[jedi~tank]

With the combination of certain gases you can create single celled organisms... We have... Then all you need is a few billion years and they do it themselves, I'm not trying to be mean but get with the times bro we've been able to "create" life for nearly 10 years now

Thats an answer Roket, but not to my question..the theories of evolution (and there are many now) are predicated on something evolving from something. But with the origins of the teaching something evolved from nothing..that kills the theory instantly...instead of accepting it, its renamed with one of the many fancy words that is still nothing more than theory..and always will be just a theory.

AT GR- I never mentioned GOD. I am merely stating an opinion on the evolution theory.

[Quina Quen]

I'm off to put my face in a bowl of porridge. It's a much more productive end to this entire 'debate'.

[Legendary Apophis]

Without state recognition, marriage is nothing more than a symbolic gesture written out on a piece of paper.

Failure to recognize one marriage, while recognizing another is discrimination, and discrimination based on sexuality is flatout wrong.

Furthermore, state recognition of marriage is not a right. The state either needs to recognize all marriage, or no marriage.

I for one, demand no more state discrimination based on sexuality. Bigotry has no place in the government.

OMG political correct liberal leftist neo conformist!

Seriously though, regarding homosexuals and uniting, I don't mind them to do civil unions (like the here apparently popular Ron Paul agrees with) as homosexuals aren't "second class citizens", but one must understand that marriage itself is NOT a just an official paper given to state the union of two people giving them rights coming out of this union. It disturbs me that people -conveniently- mix and mistakes the fact two people can unite (well after all why not let homosexuals have civil union) and the fact marriage is an institution for a man and a woman. The question, at least for me, isn't that homosexuals are "beasts" and that they should be "terminated/removed", I will leave that to the homophobic hypocritical neo nazi far-right and Islamist radicals who are apparently insecure about their heterosexuality and want to display a deep hate towards homos. The question is, that marriage is an institution, and asking for gay marriage is just like trying to cause controversy and kick that institution just for the sake of "change". Why? Because much less people agree that homosexuals are "second class citizens" (which is false) than people who would agree that marriage is a particular institution with a long history (as an history student and right wing person -nothing to do with Tea party or stuff like that lmao- I am very much caring about values, but I am also open minded) which is about a pact between a man and a woman.
Now all the political correctness warriors can scream homophobia and fascism in the name of the Unique Way (neo conformism "leagues" values defended throughout some medias) but it doesn't mean it's the case (except for the narrow minded political correctness warriors). With civil unions you would annoy less people than marriage, and you would get less opposition, because it would be more accurate and that it isn't trying to stir controversy, just stating the fact these people also have the right to unite, just that it cannot be for institution parameters, a marriage. But why would people care about it? Just to play the offended political correctness.
Of course political correctness warriors would also scream it reminds about segregation regarding African American and Europeans splits of rights for marriage back in past, but where the heck does it say in the original describing of marriage institution that marriage cannot be done between a black man/white woman or white man/black woman? Nowhere, just because groups of people due to their racist opinions decided to twist marriage limits in the US decades ago back when segregation was in place, doesn't mean it is among marriage values. One should find the difference between the values and the fake added values trying to radicalize something to fit few's opinion.

[Jack]

You sound like a politician there, advocating your own truth
Common sense is pretty much black and white, shed the religeous aspects and taboos, and your left with simple truths and peoples perception of it

You are confusing the false sense of morality with the incorrect meaning of common sense.

Morality is far from universal. For example, many Muslim's believe it is their moral obligation to murder their friends and family when they step out of line with whatever religious teachings they hold dear. Obviously not everyone is going to agree.

I disagree, its not bigotry, its freedom of choice and knowing whats right and wrong...discirimating against someone for nationality, eye color, language or lack thereof, and things like this is wrong...choosing to NOT go along, agree with or speak out against something that is unnatural and destructive is every persons right, just as it is the same with those in question to speak for those things...and also it applies to those that ridicule those that are not for those things..being labeled bigots and homophobes and all sorts of other haneous names...whats wrong is wrong and whats right is right and opinions vary but can never change this fact...which btw truth happens to be absolute, not relative

You have every right to be bigoted. That does not change the fact that it is bigotry. Nor does your right, as an individual, apply to the government. The government has no business sanctioning bigotry.

Do not want to be labeled a bigot? Do not espouse bigotry.

Homosexuality unnatural? Depends on your definition of natural. But even so, since when has something been evil simply because it is unnatural?

Homosexuality is destructive? Prove it.

OMG political correct liberal leftist neo conformist!

I'll shank you, froggy.

[xDaku]

If homosexuality was unnatural, then someone explain to me what those "imbalanced" chemicals are in our body, man-made?

There's a very simple solution to all this, create a separate words for a homosexual 'marriage' with the same legal rights as a 'regular' married couple. Tada.

[Juliette]

I believe the generally accepted word is "(civil) union"?

Also. Homosexuality is nature's way of putting the brakes on the near-infinite reproduction of humans. Think about it. Happens in rat colonies; too many rats while still enough food? New generations of rats are increasingly gay and refuse to procreate, providing a natural balancing mechanism to counter reproduction under cornucopian circumstances.
(Now take humans; they reproduce even when they do not have enough food. Much harder to effectively control the population. Homosexuality = nature's genius at work.)



Yeah. Just had to put that out there. Continue.

[xDaku]

Yea, but apparently civil union isn't a good enough word

[Juliette]

Yea, but apparently civil union isn't a good enough word

"**Filtered** with benefits"

[Legendary Apophis]

I believe the generally accepted word is "(civil) union"?

Yes. That exists for heterosexuals too, at least in France. At least 3/4 of civil unions (we call that the PACs) are of heterosexuals couples. Just so people get the facts straight that civil union isn't something specially made for homosexuals who couldn't marry due to no access to marriage. Which re-enforces my stance on the matter.

[Juliette]

I believe the generally accepted word is "(civil) union"?

Yes. That exists for heterosexuals too, at least in France. At least 3/4 of civil unions (we call that the PACs) are of heterosexuals couples. Just so people get the facts straight.

Bah. If I get married, I would shoot anyone who calls my marriage a civil union. Mine would be a civil confederacy.

[Legendary Apophis]

I believe the generally accepted word is "(civil) union"?

Yes. That exists for heterosexuals too, at least in France. At least 3/4 of civil unions (we call that the PACs) are of heterosexuals couples. Just so people get the facts straight.

Bah. If I get married, I would shoot anyone who calls my marriage a civil union. Mine would be a civil confederacy.

Well, civil unions aren't marriages. At least in France. Civil unions are practices by both heteros (majority) and homos (minority). Marriage however, is heteros-only.
Civil confederacy? I don't really get the representation/meaning, but well, that's original!

[Psyko]

There seems to be a lot of names being thrown back and forth on this issue, which isn't uncommon when personal beliefs and values get mixed up in politics, but that's not how I like to debate. Everyone is free to express their own opinion without someone else throwing a label onto them.

JT and KMA obviously value the family unit in its current state to such a high degree they are against homosexual marriages (or existence). While I may not agree that the family unit is as threatened as they believe it to be, I cannot fault them for their opinions and I do understand their perspective. I just don't agree with it.

OMG political correct liberal leftist neo conformist!

Seriously though, regarding homosexuals and uniting, I don't mind them to do civil unions (like the here apparently popular Ron Paul agrees with) as homosexuals aren't "second class citizens", but one must understand that marriage itself is NOT a just an official paper given to state the union of two people giving them rights coming out of this union. It disturbs me that people -conveniently- mix and mistakes the fact two people can unite (well after all why not let homosexuals have civil union) and the fact marriage is an institution for a man and a woman. The question, at least for me, isn't that homosexuals are "beasts" and that they should be "terminated/removed", I will leave that to the homophobic hypocritical neo nazi far-right and Islamist radicals who are apparently insecure about their heterosexuality and want to display a deep hate towards homos. The question is, that marriage is an institution, and asking for gay marriage is just like trying to cause controversy and kick that institution just for the sake of "change". Why? Because much less people agree that homosexuals are "second class citizens" (which is false) than people who would agree that marriage is a particular institution with a long history (as an history student and right wing person -nothing to do with Tea party or stuff like that lmao- I am very much caring about values, but I am also open minded) which is about a pact between a man and a woman.

There's a very simple solution to all this, create a separate words for a homosexual 'marriage' with the same legal rights as a 'regular' married couple. Tada.

I'll answer these together.

I do not confuse same-sex marriage with the "institution for a man and a woman" ideal of marriage. The institution is a religious union made before God in a church of a couple's peers. Same-sex marriage is a political plea for equality in our legal system. What you are confusing is that the legal document used in America for unions are different.

A fact many people do not know is that Civil Unions are for different-sex couples, too. That is, they are there for couples who wish to be in a legal union without certain benefits which come with a Marriage Certificate. The government does not wish to change the rights of a Civil Union to equal that of a Marriage because it would change everything for all of those who previously entered into an intentional Civil Union Commitment instead of a Marriage.

So many have the idea of simply getting rid of the term "marriage" and using a term like Certificate of Commitment for every marriage-equating union. But then those couples whom are already married will throw a fuss about the government not recognizing their religious institution called marriage. Gee, shoe's on the other foot now.

Which then leads to people suggesting we create a whole new term for same-sex unions which is not called marriage but gives them the same rights, responsibilities, and benefits of a legal marriage. Ah, but the rub is all of the Christian gay people (yes, they do exist, in high numbers) not being happy with the government not recognizing they entered in the Institution of Marriage at their local church, before their God, family, and friends, and are religiously considered "married". And all of the other same-sex couples who may not be religious crying out about there being inequality by having a separate union (I can hear the Separate but Equal screams now).

It is my belief that there will eventually be a same-sex marriage where the same legal document is used to certify same-sex and different-sex couples' unions. Right now, I simply have to wait it out and hope over a dozen of my LGBTQ friends don't plan on getting married anytime soon.

[xDaku]

Taking your example of the christian gay couple, that also becomes a matter of the church. Imagine if the state did give the exact same footing to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. The outcry from the church itself - not christians in the country - would be loud.

The church might and most likely would pronounce the american marriage a sin. Then we come to a point where no one's happy.

Now, while I did not know about the apparent differences - legally - that could exist between a civil union and a marriage, a separate word altogether (with the same rights) would atleast solve a part of the issue.

My whole point is, in the States, it should be federal. An outcry from christian gays, well, that sounds more like a Church issue to me.

[Juliette]

I am so sad that no one saw my Civil War joke.