 |
| |
|
|
vovan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mapfi
I, however, see marriage as a legal institution for a psychological bond between people. Most people strive for a partner, few want to be alone. Therefore the state should provide some form of acknowledging that fact, after all the state's there to serve people. There's no need to make opposite sex a requirement. |
Well, I suppose it all goes down to the definition of homosexuality and that "psychological bond" you are talking about. I give that psychological bond the name of love. You may give a different meaning to the word, but that's what I am talking about when I say "marriage should be done by love."
As for the opposite sex requirement for the official recogniotion of that "psychological bond," I think, like I said, that it should stay. It is still the case in our society that a lot of people see homosexuality as morally wrong, and, however sad it may be, as a psychological disease. I can't judge whether it is a disease or not, since I've never been gay, nor do I have the expertise of a biologist or a psychologist, but like I stated before, I do see it as a sort of unnatural deviation from the norm, and while I don't oppose homosexuality as such, I don't think it should be encouraged through official recognition.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by vovansim
I can't judge whether it is a disease or not, since I've never been gay, nor do I have the expertise of a biologist or a psychologist, but like I stated before, I do see it as a sort of unnatural deviation from the norm, and while I don't oppose homosexuality as such, I don't think it should be encouraged through official recognition. |
It's interesting you feel qualified to somehow dismiss the feelings of homosexuals towards one another as not being "love," but then you admit that, not being gay nor a psychologist, you basically have nothing to stand on here. Since nobody--not even scientists--knows how "love" works, to deny gays a legal right ot marry based on such a notion is ludicrous.
As for encouraging it...since homosexuals aren't "made," why would encouraging homosexuals to form lasting, stable and monogamous relationships be a bad thing? It wouldn't encourage those who weren't gay to become homosexual by magic, would it? What negative impact could encouraging gays to be married have?
And I don't mean those BS arguments from some that it "cheapens" marriage. If your marriage is cheapened by two other people getting married, then I'd wonder how strong your marriage was in the first place.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozz
|
|
Canada
Mar 2002
time: 05:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zkribbler
I thing the real reason for the parades is as an antidote for all this verbal poison which has been poured on them. |
Those "parades" do almost as much damage in reinforcing sterotypes as "meeting places" in public washrooms.
Marriage is a procedure for creating, protecting and supporting children, or its supposed to be that.
Anything else is just a taxes and job benefits grab.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozz
|
|
Canada
Mar 2002
time: 05:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Osweld
It is not unatural, or a deviation from the norm. It can be found in many different species of animals on this planet, and especially those that are considered "higher lifeforms" such as primates, dolphins, and octopi |
Those animals are usually savaged by the rest of the
herd. Ask any hog farmer.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vovan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Osweld
It is not unatural, or a deviation from the norm. It can be found in many different species of animals on this planet, and especially those that are considered "higher lifeforms" such as primates, dolphins, and octopi |
Yeah, yeah, I remember that one article about lesbian japanese macaques.
quote:
It's interesting you feel qualified to somehow dismiss the feelings of homosexuals towards one another as not being "love," but then you admit that, not being gay nor a psychologist, you basically have nothing to stand on here. |
If you read my post more carefully, I don't dismiss the feelings as not being love. I dismiss them as a deviation from the norm. As for me being qualified, I specifically stated that I am not. Thus, I am simply expressing my opinion. Unqualified as it may be. Just like you can't judge about straight love, I can't judge about gay love objectively. It is all subjective in this world.
quote:
As for encouraging it...since homosexuals aren't "made," why would encouraging homosexuals to form lasting, stable and monogamous relationships be a bad thing? |
Statistics, Boris, statistics. In places where homosexual marriages are allowed, the children adopted by same-sex couples turn out homosexual more often than not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by vovansim
If you read my post more carefully, I don't dismiss the feelings as not being love. I dismiss them as a deviation from the norm. As for me being qualified, I specifically stated that I am not. Thus, I am simply expressing my opinion. Unqualified as it may be. Just like you can't judge about straight love, I can't judge about gay love objectively. It is all subjective in this world. |
Deviation from the norm doesnt mean anything. Interracial couples are a deviation from the norm. Should those be prohibited as well?
As you say, even the "norm" is subjective.
quote:
Statistics, Boris, statistics. In places where homosexual marriages are allowed, the children adopted by same-sex couples turn out homosexual more often than not. |
Oh, and would you care to cite these statistics and a source? It didn't come from some organization like the Family Research Council, did it?
Since gay marriage is only legal in the Netherlands, and was made so only recently, I have a hard time believing there would be any reliable statistics on the matter. And if you think real hard about it, you'd realize why obtaining such statistics is impossible.
Last edited by Boris Godunov on 17-03-2003 at 23:27
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozz
|
|
Canada
Mar 2002
time: 05:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by St Leo
Ozz, ask any primatologist. |
What? That hog behavior differs from primates behavior?
Seems Humans and Hogs have more in common than apes in many cases. They are both aggressive meat
eaters.
Anyways I don't think the "nature" argument holds water in regards to Humans, we're supposed be
"reasoning" creatures not just creatures of instinct.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ozz
Those "acts" were committed by members of the person's own family and have nothing to do with marriage, they are homophilia by their own family
( @ St Leo Which relates to my hog post)
|
What are you talking about? You do realize that, legally, a hospital is under no obligation to allow visitation of a gay partner, and if the blood family requests the partner be barred, the hospital will do so. Marriage confers over 1100 rights on couples that non-married couples do not have, and among the most fundamental is the legal right to have access to the partner in case of hospitalization, to act on the partner's behalf in terms of such situations and in funeral planning, and in being a legitimate beneficiary of their life insurance and last will and testament. One of the key foci of the drive for gay marriage is for obtaining these rights, since there are countless situations when partners have been denied such things.
How would you feel if you couldn't spend the last moments of your partner's life with them?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozz
|
|
Canada
Mar 2002
time: 05:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
What are you talking about?
the blood family requests the partner be barred |
You answered our own question.
Write a will, grant power of attoney and legally disown
the "blood relatives".
Voila.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozz
|
|
Canada
Mar 2002
time: 05:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Yeah, that's so easy and efficient, as well as inexpensive...
Such measures are not failsafe, anyway. The blood relatives often challenge wills and are successful, since courts tend to hold gay partnerships in the same disregard as many people do. |
Pen and paper sign and witness, don't need no stinkin'
lawyer unless big bucks are at stake.
When money is at stake, no will is failsafe, gay or no.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozz
|
|
Canada
Mar 2002
time: 05:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
But the simple fact is that being a legally married spouse of someone will infer with the courts much greater leverage than, say, domestic partners who went through the pain of individually obtaining every sort of right that is automatically granted by a single marriage ceremony. |
That is true, and that is unfair, but since when have
the courts been fair?.
Good point though. I've never believed marriage to be
fair though, since when do a childless couple deserve
a tax break cause their married?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozz
|
|
Canada
Mar 2002
time: 05:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Wait, what's all the talk from the right about the "marriage penalty"? |
Not in Canada, i believe that is particlar to the US in
that your taxes can go up by getting married.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozz
|
|
Canada
Mar 2002
time: 05:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre
In many muslim countries, polygamy is legal and gay marriage is punished by death, I suppose. |
You got to show financially you can afford the extra wives to the government, not for everyone.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:26
|
|
Cinch:
Christ makes a big deal about marriage, much more so than we do today.
Reading from Matthew 19:3-6.
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked,
"Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[1]and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[2] ? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Now what scripture is Christ quoting here? This passage comes from
Genesis 1:27:
"So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them."
This passage is one of the most important in Christianity, affirming the value of human persons, in that they are made in the image of God.
God intended to create two genders, differing from each other.
But how did God do this?
Jesus' second allusion is to Gen 2:24, in context:
Gen 2:21-24
But for Adam [8] no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs [9] and closed up the place with flesh.Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [10] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, [11] '
for she was taken out of man."
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
Now that leaves the question of why. Why would God create a helper for Adam?
Gen 2:18
The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
Here we see that Adam needed companionship,
And from, Gen 1:28:
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
We see that God desires procreation, that man should increase and subdue the Earth. Adam and Eve before the fall are considered the model of a Christian marriage, by Christ, as we have seen from Matt 19:3-5
But we are not yet finished here. What is Christ's answer to the Pharisees?
Matt: 19:7-12
"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[3] because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
Marriage is not meant for everyone, where the ideal is a union between one man and one women, where the two will become one flesh. Christians are not required to marry, but those who can accept, should do so.
Some other passages, not from Christ, but from Paul also serve to round out the Christian definition of Marriage:
Ephesians 5:22-29
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing[2] her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- for we are members of his body.
This is Paul's analogy between marriage and the church. One must understand the responsibilities on both sides. Paul insists that a husband must love his wife as he would his own body- that to hurt his wife is to hurt himself. A man will be expected to give his life for his wife, as Christ did for his church, while a woman is expected to submit and to trust her husband.
Ephesians 5:30-33
"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[3] This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church.However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Again, we see the repetition of the two will become one flesh.
Together both of these main passages should sum up how Christians see marriage. I hope this helps, cinch.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-03-2003 22:25
|