 |
| |
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
I'm waiting for his full-blown "allowing gay marriages is such an affront to straight people that they will stop getting married and having children, eventually leading to the complete collapse of society" arguement. That's basically what he's been hinting at in this thread, but I want to see him take it to the next level.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ming
Marriage is commitment between two people who love each other... what other people do should have no impact on that. |
Just to play Devil's Advocate: Why limit marriage to only two people? Is there a reason I can't marry, say, all my roomates or the entire floor of my apartment? Would it be fair to sue my employer if they objected to providing insurance for all these people?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by gunkulator
Just to play Devil's Advocate: Why limit marriage to only two people? Is there a reason I can't marry, say, all my roomates or the entire floor of my apartment? Would it be fair to sue my employer if they objected to providing insurance for all these people? |
I do agree that the 2 ppl limit is about as arbitrary as the man/women limit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002
time: 17:33
|
|
Yeah but he won't admit that its the church's position that he is stating. He tries to state rational arguments and refuses to admit when people prove him wrong. In my book he is pig headed because he won't see reason at all.
I respect the church's position even if there is no real reason why. I've also seen BK argue effectively in other threads. Just never about this issue, he seems to get clouded by his religion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GhengisFarb
|
 |
I want my HAMBURGERS!!
May 2002
time: 23:33
|
|
I have tried to stay out of the discussion on Gay Marriages for several reasons.
First, I was raised in Oklahoma (the gaudy brass buckle of the Bible Belt) and so I have very conservative beliefs on religious issues. I realize that and I don't feel its anyone's place to force their beliefs on someone else. God directed Christitans to convert 'the heathens' but I believe he meant for us to do it with reason. If they are doing something because they are forced to do it against their true beliefs then I think that isn't accomplishing God's goal at all. Christians should get others to believe their viewpoint not force them to abide by it through laws.
Second, one of my first jobs after college (I went to a strict Conservative Christian college) had me working in a company with a large homosexual employee percentage. (Its also funny that while in college I worked for a museum conglomerate and I was one of only two heterosexual men in the company.) At this company I was joking referred to as the corporation's "token heterosexual male" that they had to hire to meet Equal Opportunity quotas. Which was a joke (a funny one) but I was the only heterosexual in Management. Anyway, I came to see issues and understand a lot more about that perception and viewpoint over the years so I don't just take the position of my "religious belief" in these matters anymore.
That said, I have long taken the position that while religiously I am against homosexuality and same sex marriage, politically I do not oppose it as I feel that all citizens should have the same rights and priviledges.
In the last week I have come to change my mind.
I have come to believe that the purpose of Marriage and the tax/legal benefits of such (Civil Union) are INTENDED to encourage the rearing of children. Most of the arguments and passion of this debate has centered on the legal/tax benefits and it has centered on the rights of life partner and their committment to one another.
Fine, but I don't think the reason for the tax/legal benefits of Marriage are to reward someone for enjoying sex. They are there to support and offset the cost of rearing and caring for offspring and to allow the couple to be able to raise the child(ren) with as much opportunity for success as possible.
Why would the government care if you have good sex? Why would they feel the need to build in a tax benefit for good sex? There really isn't a logical reason for it. Child rearing? A society needs a continuous supply of new members to continue to exist, these new members replace deceased ones and generate tax revenue. There is a reason for the government to support this as it generates a future benefit for their "investment" of tax credits/benefits.
Do all heterosexual marriages produce offspring? No, many are simply taking advantage of the tax breaks and benefits for those purposes. Many heterosexual marriages exist for the life partner communion that same sex couples also exist for and that is the argument that the proponents of legalizing same sex marriages are using and its a valid point.
But I do not believe that is the reason why the tax benefits and legal distinction exist. Perhaps if all tax/legal benefits were tied to the existence and cost of the offspring and childrearing and Marriage itself did not offer tax/legal benefits the issue wouldn't be fought for as hard.
Once again, I have no hatred or dislike toward homosexuals. I have many good friends who are homosexuals and I consider them some of my most trusted and loyal friendships. They are fully aware of my religious beliefs and we often discuss these issues during our Poker games. My religious belief is that Homosexuality is a sin but that doesn't mean I should treat those people as a pariah to be purged from society, they can contribute to our society too.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-02-2004 19:28
|