StarGateWars Forums

xDaku wrote: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.

Creating a new word to justify or condem is not the answer..we see that from science all of the time..

xDaku wrote: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.

The legal differences vary from state-to-state. Some states don't even have Civil Unions, and those that do have different rights and benefits from other states. Federally, only a marriage can give you any federal benefits, such as social security, survivorship benefits, any recognition as the spouse of military personnel, joint tax filing, etc.

Julietta Putina wrote:I am so sad that no one saw my Civil War joke.

Ah, that answers my curiosity about what you meant!
Silly me...

Julietta Putina wrote:I am so sad that no one saw my Civil War joke.

I did, and I lul'd

Julietta Putina wrote:I am so sad that no one saw my Civil War joke.

I knew what you meant.


Heres a kiss ...dont feel sad no more.

Jedi~Tank wrote:

xDaku wrote: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.

Creating a new word to justify or condem is not the answer..we see that from science all of the time..

It is the answer to the religious aspect of it. The other big argument - kids - well...with a little bit of a laugh and keeping in mind the simpleness of the arguments provided so far...

http://youtu.be/nWaiWcUlZTQ

http://bit.ly/beIGI3

Not exactly the best sources to cite, but in the humor of all this...

Removed

Kit-Fox wrote:As such there is no evidence based or logical reasoning to deny the term marriage to any legally recognised coupling, if that is what they want

I disagree, obviously if we track back milleniums ago, we will find many things existed before religions appeared, but that doesn't mean the marriage as we know in the Western cultures isn't based on the union between a male and a female. It is the influence of our history, I don't see it as a "progress" to try to create controversy by turning marriage into something else than it is. It would be much less controversy and provocative if civil union was the picked choice (which is already in many countries), because people still hold values, and yes neo conformists don't like long lasting values and want to change them all in the name of "progress". Not everyone agrees with that view of things (liberals view), and it doesn't mean those like me are all ultraconservatives like Rick Santorum, we just want to keep a set of values to keep our identity and our marks, but as people can see those like me aren't narrow minded like those who reject any kind of change.

Kit-Fox wrote:Again for those that might have missed it in other places;

What we now call marriage is simply a social construct.

It has no basis in religion at all, in fact there is a fair bit of archeological evidence to show that bond pairs in humanity existed a fair way before any of the current crop of religions were even created, hell there is even evidence to show it beat the previous crop of religions too.

Now yes the evidence usually shows a bonded *mating* pair of male & female, but considering the time scale and the fragility of the human race at the time that isnt all that shocking, as the societal pressures would have been to biased towards what we now call hetreo couples.

Religion simply adopted the construct, and just like it had stolen it from what had ceom before so it was stolen from religion by the state to allow for legal recognition.

As such there is no evidence based or logical reasoning to deny the term marriage to any legally recognised coupling, if that is what they want

As true as that might be, in the case of the States, marriage does have a religious background. Religion is not something that the government or its people can just ignore, while marriage is on the table. It has a long history in the States, and as such, should be put into regard.

Marriage as a word in the states does bring up religion, so a different word would get rid of that interaction altogether - helpful for some homosexuals atleast.

Civil Union has different benefits for different sex couples as well? Fine, a new word, as federal law, for the same sexes. Give it the same power as a marriage on the basis of right, without interfering with its religious background in the country.

Kit-Fox wrote:As such there is no evidence based or logical reasoning to deny the term marriage to any legally recognised coupling, if that is what they want

Try telling an etymologist that.

I believe that in the general sense of the word marriage is a religious ceremony and as a point blank statement homosexuals should not be allowed to be married in the general sense of the word.

I believe that it's an insult to religious people and it shouldn't be a case of tit for tat. Homosexual marriage in the eyes of the law is a different thing.. and they should be allowed the same civil rights (all but one) as a couple but the actual name, ceremony and the rest are religious things and the rights of peoples religions to practise as they want within reason (and I think restricted ceremonies is within reason) should be respected equally as the homosexuals that desire equality.

It is more about semantics than anything but in this world semantics go very far and in a situation where both parties can be satisfied by a more than reasonable middle ground I don't see the need for further debate really. Homo's get Civvy P's and Hetero's get Marrie's!

Despite it's shadowy history the term and ceremony have been long adapted by religion and religious marriage has become it's own institution with that word being cardinal representation in varying classes of language.

[spoiler]I am however strongly against homosexuals adopting children as I can see that being an avenue for psychological issues from likely, but not inevitable bullying at school, potential sexual confusion (which in itself can be psychologically and socially damaging) and unbalanced developmental role models.[/spoiler]

The idea that religion owns a trademark for marriage is laughable. Even if marriage was at one point in time trademarked, it would be ruled a general term and the trademark would be revoked today.

Semper wrote:I believe that in the general sense of the word marriage is a religious ceremony and as a point blank statement homosexuals should not be allowed to be married in the general sense of the word.

I believe that it's an insult to religious people and it shouldn't be a case of tit for tat. Homosexual marriage in the eyes of the law is a different thing.. and they should be allowed the same civil rights (all but one) as a couple but the actual name, ceremony and the rest are religious things and the rights of peoples religions to practise as they want within reason (and I think restricted ceremonies is within reason) should be respected equally as the homosexuals that desire equality.

It is more about semantics than anything but in this world semantics go very far and in a situation where both parties can be satisfied by a more than reasonable middle ground I don't see the need for further debate really. Homo's get Civvy P's and Hetero's get Marrie's!

Despite it's shadowy history the term and ceremony have been long adapted by religion and religious marriage has become it's own institution with that word being cardinal representation in varying classes of language.

[spoiler]I am however strongly against homosexuals adopting children as I can see that being an avenue for psychological issues from likely, but not inevitable bullying at school, potential sexual confusion (which in itself can be psychologically and socially damaging) and unbalanced developmental role models.[/spoiler]

You, sir, are a bigot. Additionally, your argument is trivial and circular.

Allowing homosexuals to adopt children will improve the welfare of those children. Of course, fat white kids should not be adopted by anyone, but rather sent to the uranium mines in the Kongo. Rather allow eighteen of mister Deepak Halalali's twenty children to die of hard labour, one to flourish in their native habitat, and one to flourish in the undeniably better environment of Steve and Adam. Uh-yeah.

There are literally hundreds of different churches in Western Christianity already. I call the Mormons to the stand, testifying in favour of polygamy. Since polygamy is similarly a 'hot topic', it stands to reason that regarding homosexuality, there is no such thing as 'christian doctrine' on the subject. The argument that the religious aspect of marriage is exclusive, is comical at best.



So yeah. Bigot. Buh-bye.

This word "bigot" I see rising up every time this subject is brought in, looks to me to be one of those words overused at every situation, mostly wrongly, just like "racism", "communism" and "fascism".
Semper didn't sound "bigot" at all, at least to me. He didn't state that homosexuals don't have any right to get unions like a bigot would have. However, sorry to say that, but Avenger sounds to be a bigot regarding homosexuality subject. A hardcore one might I add.

Legendary Apophis wrote:This word "bigot" I see rising up every time this subject is brought in, looks to me to be one of those words overused at every situation, mostly wrongly, just like "racism", "communism" and "fascism".
Semper didn't sound "bigot" at all, at least to me. However, sorry to say that, but Avenger sounds to be a bigot regarding homosexuality subject. A hardcore one might I add.

You seem not to understand the concept of bigotry.

Stating your intent to kill all homosexuals is absolutely the opposite of bigotry. Bigotry would be saying "oh, we are all equal" and then snort derisively while you poke fun at homosexuals for their being funny.


Indeed.