Gay Marriage

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[PonySlaystation]

Alpha, you are a terrible troll. 1/10.

[TheIcelandicManiac]

Homosexuality is a sin, Death sentance plox.

[Mysthalin]

@Alpha - seperation of church and state works both ways. The state makes no law that would benefit any specific religion (or group of religions), but it also does not interfere with the free expression of religion (unless it is something like a murder-suicide cult. Then there's a bit of a problem). If the religion actively forbids gay marriage, or eating cheese or whatever - then it's not the state's job to force the religion to change it's ways. The state needs to ascribe what is right within it's laws and to create ways to exercise these rights (in this case - the possibility of a civil marriage/legally married status for gay couples) and give freedom to the religious institutions to follow suite. If they chose not to - that's their problem. As far as I'm aware, though, there's plenty of churches in the USA by now that will marry a gay couple (in states that gay marriage has been legalised in). Without it being showed down the throats of the churches.

I like ick's post, even if it is contrary to what we believe. It sets out his opinion in a way that is actually based in a logical thought pattern (even if I think it is incorrect), rather than the standard "OMG it's disgusting and god said it's wrong!"

Ick, I understand your point on taxation and state pensions - but you are not taking into account the full story. Remember that a large proportion of benefits and tax deductions only come into place once a couple has a child - not before; hence a married homosexual couple would only be able to claim most of these benefits for themselves once they start raising children (adoption for a gay couple, artificial insemination for a lesbian couple). So either a gay(or bereaved, or simply infertile) couple is making up for getting their state pension without having children by having not claimed any benefits in child-rearing in the first place, or they still raise a child via adoption - rendering that particular argument moot.

Aggressively public gay flamboyancy. Yes, I don't like it. In fact, a lot of people don't like it. Gay pride parades are often simply a nuisance - just like any other sort of parade that promotes a certain group's rights - they block off traffic, they waste a lot of people's time that could be better spent doing other things (drinks at the pub for the gay community, catching actual criminals for the police force present to keep the peace). And the best way to get rid of these parades is actually fairly simple: give them the equal rights they want and then they can't pull the discrimination card and cause other problems. Much like how much of the parades and other actions involving women activists have mostly died out after women were given more or less equal rights. Or black people in America. Give people the equal rights they deserve and they generally stop getting in your face about not having equal rights.

Of course, how they continue to dress afterwards is entirely up to them. If they want to dress up like something from a fetish shop - good for them. I dress in a hoodie and jeans. If they don't go about telling me off for my crimes against fashion, I won't tell them off for their crimes to my eyes. Simple tolerance - mind your own business and carry on. That having been said - out of all the openly gay guys that I've met not a single one actually "dresses gay", unless they're doing it entirely as a joke for a night out. Something I've seen militantly straight guys do as well. Sure the gay pride parades don't help the stereotype, but people should still be smarter than to believe it is actually true.

P.S. Yes, seeing lust in a girl's eyes is one of the most amazing feelings a straight guy can feel. I really don't think gays being allowed to marry will ever change that for me, or for anyone else who shares this sentiment. And if gay guys are willing to pass it up... well, more for us.

[Spartan_Marine88]

I think Myst just summed it up best.

 I personally think that there might be a few members who need to deal with their personal hate issues and come out of the closet after reading this thread. Don't hate yourself if you want to have fun on a pole, give yourself a big old hug and go out and party.

[Heartmann]

Damn you alpha now I have to come across as an old dodgy religious nutter ;-P

No a religion is an institution, there are a business similarity in some parts but the church the real and pure Protestant Christian church, not any other of the other nonsense like them Catholics, has a beliefs system based on what today's modern ppl would call myths and superstitions.

Now I don't agree on forcing a majority of ideas and rules on a minority unless it is to help and/or save ppl in the minority who are beeing oppressed and/or exploited I.e. children In a catholic society or sane ppl in a cummunist collective.

And his should go for ppl with a belief in the other wordly and/or supernatural, a belief system should not be influenced by force from society (again as long as it is not hurting the people in its system, I.e. forced marriage or chastising women)

And the reason is that we are a multitude of ppl with different beliefs who are supposed to work together during work hours and everyday life, our personal beliefs and rites stay at him or at the temple, and as they should not change society overall based on religious  dogma, the same goes for society forcing change on them.

Ultimately the traditionalists and conservatives that don't change with the times will die out, natural way of things, but forcing change on ppl when it serves no other purpose than to inflict a supposed higher moral understanding without any legal basis found in society is wrong.

And gay marriage well I can get the idea of waning to be in church but at same time it's as if the women's rights movements want to hold meetings in a mosque.

[Mysthalin]

Alpha - as long as the religion is not actively trying to make the lives of somebody worse - it's fine. Much like how you wouldn't force an islamic branch in your nation to allow its followers to eat bacon - you can't force the churches to lead the marriage ceremonies of something the religion explicitly forbids. If you wish to be part of a religious sect - you have to follow it's dogma (I.E. why would you even chose to be catholic if you know that the religion condemns you to hell just for you being you?). That is why having state marriage as an institution is important.

[Heartmann]

If you wish to be part of a religious sect - you have to follow it's dogma (I.E. why would you even chose to be catholic if you know that the religion condemns you to hell just for you being you?). That is why having state marriage as an institution is important.

Agreed

[nikomas]

Agreed with above.

[Sachaztan]

The state doesn't force cheer-leading squads to accept handicapped people.

The state doesn't force white-supremacist groups to allow blacks into their ranks

The state doesn't force yacht-clubs to accept homeless people as members.

So why should it force religions to marry people that they don't want to marry? The separation of church and state goes both ways, and rightly so.

[Mysthalin]

You don't HAVE to follow it's dogma

Yes you do. That is the point of being part of a religious sect. To accept ignorance, prejudice and pre-determined thought patterns (what the religion calls "faith" and "beliefs", but what is really just self-deception) to feel more secure in life. You do not have to be part of a religion to follow some of it's base principles - especially if you want to reject the outdated mental gymnastics associated with being a religious person. But you do have to be, well, religious if you want to be part of the religious sect.

And if somebody has made the choice to believe in that kind of bullshit, to proscribe to outdated belief systems for no better reason than "people always used to do it" - then there is no point in trying to force them to get out of it, or act against it. Forcing them to give up their entire world view will be seen pretty much as a physical attack against them and the only thing that can come from this is civil strife. Nobody wants that. Pass laws that make sense, let people have their freedom and let the monstrous thinking patterns seen in religion die a natural death as people vote with their feet and leave of their own accord as they're exposed to more information.

If a gay couple can't comprehend the fact that they do not have to be part of a sect that despises them to still be able to hold some of the principles they hold dear close to heart - it is not the state's place to force the sect to internalize a new belief system that accomodates gays. No, it's the states job to allow the couple to allow them the opportunity to be together as they wish. If they take this opportunity - great. If not, if they decide to stay within their religion and not get married - it's a choice they made.

Unless, of course, the sect itself decides to update its dogma to stop being so batshit retarded and evil.

Marrying two people is a service, so it should be open to gays, not just straights.

Renting a bike is a service, so it should be open to people with no legs, not just people that have legs.

[brn4meplz]

Homosexuality should be confined in solitary confinement so that they can no longer spread their disease. Preferably through an institution of forced labor.

Just like with the Jews right?

[Sachaztan]

No, but if any of those groups provide a service then they have to provide the service for everyone, they can't pick and choose who they provide the service for without good reason.

Marrying two people is a service, so it should be open to gays, not just straights.

Well that's exactly what they can do. All private institutions that doesn't receive money from the government can pick and choose who they want to offer their services to and often they don't even need a good reason.

If your religion tells you that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry then that's a VERY good reason for them to not do it. Now if said religion was receiving money from the government then the story would be completely different...

[Spartan_Marine88]

Well its official, Pony is a Nazi. Guess he would like the homosexuals to wear pink triangles too?

[Sachaztan]

If you want to be a Roman Catholic then you have to accept all that other baggage it comes with, try to change it from within or leave it. And glhf changing it from within as a woman.

If they think homosexuals are abominations and that the use of contraceptives is evil then you just gotta roll with it.

[Sachaztan]

No you don't, religion does not work like that! It's not a group of people with all the same mindset! Everyone has their own beliefs within it!

Yep and they all have leaders making the rules that the rest has to follow. If the pope says that all women belong in the kitchen then you got to accept it, fight it (again, glhf with that) or leave the organization.

I don't see what's so difficult to understand about this?

[Sachaztan]

Cos you don't have to follow what the leaders tell you to do?

Then you can get kicked out, which is excommunication in this case.

And not following the rules set out is a way of fighting it, much like civil disobedience is fighting the government's laws. Besides, you wouldn't be a good catholic if you didn't obey everything the pope says.

[Mysthalin]

As a Roman Catholic i find that rather insulting (and no do not be surprised by that. Just because i hate their views on homosexuality doesn't mean i hate all their other views).

*shrug* Not surprising at all. I've met plenty of very pleasant, sensible self-declared Roman Catholics. Despite the fact they were really just progressively minded Christians that happen to like Mass. Anyone who is religious will find me to be insulting to them one time or another. You are welcome to have your views and I'm sure that in a lot of cases they give you comfort and happiness. Doesn't make me think you're not an idiot (or at the very least gullible and naive) for having them. Same way any religious person can respect my right to be an atheist while "knowing" that I'm going to hell for that. Works both ways.

It is open to people who have no legs, as it should be. There isn't much reason for renting it for themselves, but they still have the choice. Anyway, if they were to rent one it would probably for someone else who can't rent on for some reason; that or they have synthetic legs so can still ride it. You're silly.

Fine, bad example. Selling beer and cigarettes is a service. So it should be open to people under 16.

[ick312]

Ick, I understand your point on taxation and state pensions - but you are not taking into account the full story. Remember that a large proportion of benefits and tax deductions only come into place once a couple has a child - not before;

well let us just say that most tax benefits are dependent if you are married or not. In fact theres only one additional advantage from the state if you get a child, its called "Kindergeld" ~ childmoney, which the states directly pays to you for raising your child. Tax and pension benefits come with marriage. Please consider that i talk about germany.

[Mysthalin]

Cos you don't have to follow what the leaders tell you to do?

You see, the thing is, you have to. Particularly in something as dogmatic as the Catholic church which will label you a schismatic and heretic for declaring opposing views (and get excommunicated).

There are surely organisations that allow a lot more personal freedom in opinion - but for something such as a religion you really are either for it and everything it officially stands for, or against it and not really part of it. In any case, the changes that you seem to want to impose would concern the beliefs and actions of the clergy and the fundamentalist interest groups related to the churches - not the average church-goers.

I think it's very sweet that you want your religion to change for the better - but the fact of the matter is that others can't do it for you. The religion needs to want to change itself. Imposed change is just not worth it.

well let us just say that most tax benefits are dependent if you are married or not. In fact theres only one additional advantage from the state if you get a child, its called "Kindergeld" ~ childmoney, which the states directly pays to you for raising your child. Tax and pension benefits come with marriage. Keep in mind that i talk about germany.

I'm pretty sure you also have tax credits which vary based upon the number of dependents in the household, as well as many others. I'm also pretty sure most kids are guaranteed state education in germany (something that everyone pays an equal portion of their income for, regardless if they are sending any kids to school). I'm pretty sure students get state-sponsored discounts on travel and etc. There's plenty of indirect ways by which kids (and by extension - their parents) get money from the state that I personally think definitely pay off the differences in used tax between a childless couple and one with children in the course of a lifetime.

[ick312]

I'm pretty sure you also have tax credits which vary based upon the number of dependents in the household, as well as many others. I'm also pretty sure most kids are guaranteed state education in germany (something that everyone pays an equal portion of their income for, regardless if they are sending any kids to school). I'm pretty sure students get state-sponsored discounts on travel and etc. There's plenty of indirect ways by which kids (and by extension - their parents) get money from the state that I personally think definitely pay off the differences in used tax between a childless couple and one with children in the course of a lifetime.

Well as i said the direct tax advantage, doesnt depend on children. Its for married couples and its called "Ehegatten-Splitting". The State supports you by raising a child, with nice adavantages like "Kindergeld", "Elterngeld" and free schools. However University i germany costs money! The costs are compared to international schools very low, but for some its a problem.

Well students dont get any discount from the state. Theres a programm called "bafög" which is basically a loan with a long paybacktime. But you have to pay it back!

There's plenty of indirect ways by which kids (and by extension - their parents) get money from the state that I personally think definitely pay off the differences in used tax between a childless couple and one with children in the course of a lifetime.

well acutually not. The only direct financial benefit is the Kindergeld, while the "Ehegattensplitting" is bound to marriage - not to children.