How Can George Bush Represent the People if.......

[Sayonara]

"If a male or female human being is denied the right to marry a male or female animal' date=' [and'] a male or female animal is equally denied the right to marry a male or female human being[,] I see no discrimination against either."

 

This assertion is sound enough to most people. However, indefensibly invoking a shallow case of special pleading leads us to question deep principles delineating proper and inappropriate relationships (i.e., consent).

I think you might find that the crux of most arguments is that the term "inappropriate relationship" is not justifiable when discussing homosexual couples, so I would dispute that special pleading is in action.

[AL]

You can re-work the above quote to claim discrimination against polygamy (association), pedophilia (age discrimination), and bestiality (animal rights).

You are, of course correct about that. It is a silly quote that has no underlying principle that can be used to justify the miscegenist's position. Which is why such a claim makes for a poor defense of banning interracial marriage, or in the case of today, homosexual ones.

[drz]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

 

but for a quick read try:

 

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm

 

The latter clearly shows that the bible does not support homosexuality. There are passages which recomend gay's be put to death. The homosexual has no foot to stand on when arguing with the church that it should recognize a homosexual marriage.

 

In short, according to the link to SAB's list of homosexuality in the bible, there is no room for the homosex within the christian church.

 

But that isn't the issue. Homosexual couples are wanting to be recognized as equal citizens in a country that is supposed to be "by the people, for the people." None can show me a definition of the word people that excludes certain groups of humans due to their sexual orientation, just as the word cannot exclude members of certain races, or religions.

 

Our government is supposed to be neutral to religous beliefs. This includes the belief the majority of our countries people cherish. Therefore, there is no good reason why homosexual couples cannot be legally married, even if a particular religion does not accept it as so. The only reasons anti-gay marriage people can give you can be traced to the bible. Such responses as "Marriage is defined as being between man and woman" Sure, because we borrowed the biblical definition of marriage. However, when things like taxes and benefits got tossed into the mix, the government had to take on responsibility of issuing marriage licenses.

 

To this day, if you are married by a preacher who is not licensed by the government to do so, you are not legally married, although you may be according to your belief system. The government has taken the step to create what we call "Legal marriage" and as such, being a government institution, should also be neutral to religous beliefs, thereby not excluding any man or women, or any combination of.

 

I mean, the bible also tells us "A house divided cannot stand". Could this be interpreted to disallow people of differing religous beliefs to be married? I'm about to do just this, as I am a non-religous, whilest my wife-to-be is a methodist. Should someone do something about this, since the bible cleary states our marriage will not work? Should this be illegal, since, according to the majority of peoples beliefs, will do nothing but waste our time and perhaps bring children into the world under a bad relationship? Also, since I'm just as evil in God's eyes as the homosex, shouldn't this be outlawed?

[newbie]

Gee' date=' this sounds familiar. Where have I heard this before...oh yeah, here:

[i']"If the negro is denied the right to marry a white person, [and] the white person is equally denied the right to marry the negro[,] I see no discrimination against either."

--Illinois Republican Senator Lyman Trumbull, in defense of anti-miscegenation laws.[/i]

I understand people will take offense to this but I am sorry this is the way it is. Interracial marriage is not the same as homosexual marriage; it can only be relevant if the circumstances are the same, regardless of the objection. They are not. There is a no difference between a black or white human being skin color being trivial, but there is a big difference between a man and a woman.

 

 

 

Homosexual couples are wanting to be recognized as equal citizens in a country that is supposed to be "by the people' date=' for the people."

[/quote'] They are recognized as equal citizens, they just believe that is not the case.

 

 

None can show me a definition of the word people that excludes certain groups of humans due to their sexual orientation' date=' just as the word cannot exclude members of certain races, or religions.

[/quote'] No one said they were not human either.

 

Our government is supposed to be neutral to religous beliefs. This includes the belief the majority of our countries people cherish. Therefore' date=' there is no good reason why homosexual couples cannot be legally married, even if a particular religion does not accept it as so. The only reasons anti-gay marriage people can give you can be traced to the bible. Such responses as "Marriage is defined as being between man and woman" Sure, because we borrowed the biblical definition of marriage. However, when things like taxes and benefits got tossed into the mix, the government had to take on responsibility of issuing marriage licenses.

 

To this day, if you are married by a preacher who is not licensed by the government to do so, you are not legally married, although you may be according to your belief system. The government has taken the step to create what we call "Legal marriage" and as such, being a government institution, should also be neutral to religous beliefs, thereby not excluding any man or women, or any combination of.[/font']

To your credit you have a point, since two homosexuals decide to spend the rest of their life together it would be nice for them to have some rights as married couples. I just want to point out that they do have rights; gay couples can already do everything married people do; express love, set up housekeeping, share home ownership, have sex, raise children, commingle property, receive inheritance, and spend the rest of their lives together. Homosexuals not being able to wed lack certain entitlements, but not freedoms.

 

I mean' date=' the bible also tells us "A house divided cannot stand". Could this be interpreted to disallow people of differing religous beliefs to be married? I'm about to do just this, as I am a non-religous, whilest my wife-to-be is a methodist. Should someone do something about this, since the bible cleary states our marriage will not work? Should this be illegal, since, according to the majority of peoples beliefs, will do nothing but waste our time and perhaps bring children into the world under a bad relationship? Also, since I'm just as evil in God's eyes as the homosex, shouldn't this be outlawed?

 

Bible does not say that at all. Clearly as you said yourself you are not religious. Since we established that why would we go this route when it doesn't prove your point? Never mind you don't have to respond to that.

[budullewraagh]

There is a no difference between a black or white human being skin color being trivial, but there is a big difference between a man and a woman.

that's left open to one's opinion. it isn't fact.

They are recognized as equal citizens

not if they aren't allowed to marry. if they aren't allowed to marry, the constitution is not being upheld. but then again, with ashcroft, who cares about the constitution?

[newbie]

that's left open to one's opinion. it isn't fact.

What!? I know you can't be serious. If you don't have anything to contribute please don't post.

 

not if they aren't allowed to marry. if they aren't allowed to marry' date='.....

[/quote'] Why do you believe that? I dropped the dribble you had in that sentence and kept the only substance there.

[budullewraagh]

If you don't have anything to contribute please don't post.

i did contribute something. you read it. apparently you believe gender to be a greater dividing gap than race. the two are not comparable to me, for example, but are comparable to you. it is opinionated.

 

Why do you believe that? I dropped the dribble you had in that sentence and kept the only substance there.

if a nation does not give equal rights to all, that nation discriminates and does not recognize everybody to be equal under the law.

 

more importantly, STOP THE FLAMING!

[atinymonkey]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

 

but for a quick read try:

 

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm

 

The latter clearly shows that the bible does not support homosexuality. There are passages which recomend gay's be put to death. The homosexual has no foot to stand on when arguing with the church that it should recognize a homosexual marriage.

 

In short' date=' according to the link to SAB's list of homosexuality in the bible, there is no room for the homosex within the christian church.[/quote']

 

Your confusing Sodomites with homosexuals. Sodomites are people who inhabited Sodom, colloquial usage in the Bible is for people who enjoy physical pleasures.

 

If the scribes that created the Catholic Bible had meant homosexuals, they would damn well have used the word homosexuals. The word Catholic means comprehensive (rough translation) and is the cannon for the Christian Church. There is no scope to 're-interpret' words for your own particular needs.

[Sayonara]

Did you read the rest of that post?

[atinymonkey]

Did you read the rest of that post?

 

No, I'm too stupid to read whole posts. Could you do me a favour and remind me to read all of a post everytime I quote somebody?

 

Cheers.

[Sayonara]

No, I'm too stupid to read whole posts.

 

I was just asking a reasonable and civil question, so you can ditch the attitude.

 

You're on your own with this one.

[atinymonkey]

It was not civil, it's fairly rude. Especially in my own thread. If you wanted to clarify, I'm sitting right next to you where you can talk to me.

 

The point of me quoting one section is that I was replying to the one section. I don't see the problem in me doing that.

[Sayonara]

It was not civil, it's fairly rude. Especially in my own thread.

How is it rude?

 

 

If you wanted to clarify, I'm sitting right next to you where you can talk to me.

You know perfectly well that is not completely true.

 

 

The point of me quoting one section is that I was replying to the one section. I don't see the problem in me doing that.

There is no problem with that. None is implied by me asking a general question about something else entirely - I did not actually refer to your post in any way.

[jordan]

...apparently you believe gender to be a greater dividing gap than race. the two are not comparable to me, for example, but are comparable to you. it is opinionated.

The reason newbie said this:

If you don't have anything to contribute please don't post.

is because you've had two posts and are still yet to explain why you think that gender plays no more or less of a role than race.

 

 

 

And just to point out, the two would be comparable for you and would not be comparable for newbie.

[budullewraagh]

he should be more clear.

 

gender and race divide the superclass "homo sapien". despite the fact that there are a set number of genders and races, one cannot put numerical values on the degree of which they divide because it is very much opinionated. i said this before and thought it was made clear. my regrets if it was not.

[jordan]

But I still believe one can put different wieghts on race and gender when talking about marriage.

[drz]

They are recognized as equal citizens, they just believe that is not the case.

 

Then why aren't they allowed to marry? If you recognize a gay couple as equals to a straight couple, then what is it that makes them unable to be married?

 

No one said they were not human either.

 

It is the general attitude conveyed by homophobic types. And you also quote me out of context, remember the part about "by the people, for the people"? If a person is gay, and is a member of the united states, he should have equal rights and respect as any other member of this country.

 

I just want to point out that they do have rights; gay couples can already do everything married people do; express love, set up housekeeping, share home ownership, have sex, raise children,

 

Granted, but the following you mention:

 

commingle property, receive inheritance, and spend the rest of their lives together.

 

is simply not true. If it were, I don't think you'd have people fighting for the rights to have these things. Also, while the above things you mentioned may be true, they are disciminated against in almost every aspect of life.

 

Bible does not say that at all. Clearly as you said yourself you are not religious. Since we established that why would we go this route when it doesn't prove your point? Never mind you don't have to respond to that.

 

Mar 3:25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

 

This is often used these days to keep members of one denomination to wed members of others. While this may not be the original intention, this is indeed what it used for quite often.

 

Also, and don't make me cite the examples, many times in the bible non-believers and homosexuals are mentioned seemingly in the same breath, each have been described as abominations. My point, is that if we as a country should outlaw homosexual marriages due to god finding such unions to be an abomination, so should we outlaw cross denominational marriages, especially if one of the members is a non-believer, as the bible tells us about divided houses, and non-believers being evil.

 

__

 

atinymonkey

 

Your confusing Sodomites with homosexuals. Sodomites are people who inhabited Sodom, colloquial usage in the Bible is for people who enjoy physical pleasures.

 

If the scribes that created the Catholic Bible had meant homosexuals, they would damn well have used the word homosexuals. The word Catholic means comprehensive (rough translation) and is the cannon for the Christian Church. There is no scope to 're-interpret' words for your own particular needs.

 

Aye, but it would not be my confusion, but those who prepared those works. I merely linked to them. Obviously, and certainly in the eyes of a anti-gay person, sodomite can easily describe a homosexual relationship, since, in their eyes it is purely for pleasure, and couldn't possibly be to express love.

 

Also, I didn't write the bible, nor the sites which prepared these collections. I may have misquoted, and I thank you for the education, because I did not know this, however, I still believe my point stands. If your gay, you have no right to claiming to be a christian. Unless of course you wish to give up your sinfull nature.

 

And incase someone doesn't read the entire post, I am completly against such discrimination and supremacy.

[Sayonara]

Then why aren't they allowed to marry? If you recognize a gay couple as equals to a straight couple, then what is it that makes them unable to be married?

Newbi would have you believe that their rights are not being trampled on, because gay Americans are free to marry someone of the opposite sex, as are heterosexual people.

 

And of course that isn't a sick mockery of the principles behind marriage, hell no sireeee.

[drz]

I realise it is essentially useless to argue with the bible types, as, everything they know has already been dictated to them. If it argues with their belief system, it must be wrong, because there beliefs says there belief is true.

 

However, I figured I'd make a try at it

[newbie]

Then why aren't they allowed to marry? If you recognize a gay couple as equals to a straight couple' date=' then what is it that makes them unable to be married?

[/quote'] Question isn't why aren't they allowed to marry, question is why should they be? Think about that for a bit, what is gained from them geting married? They really do have all those rights i mentioned in my last post.

 

It is the general attitude conveyed by homophobic types. And you also quote me out of context' date=' remember the part about "by the people, for the people"? If a person is gay, and is a member of the united states, he should have equal rights and respect as any other member of this country.

[/quote'] I already mentioned that homosexuals are not being deined any rights

 

is simply not true. If it were' date=' I don't think you'd have people fighting for the rights to have these things. Also, while the above things you mentioned may be true, they are disciminated against in almost every aspect of life.

[/quote'] But it is true, you can look it up for yourself.

 

 

Mar 3:25 And if a house be divided against itself' date=' that house cannot stand.

 

This is often used these days to keep members of one denomination to wed members of others. While this may not be the original intention, this is indeed what it used for quite often.

 

Also, and don't make me cite the examples, many times in the bible non-believers and homosexuals are mentioned seemingly in the same breath, each have been described as abominations. My point, is that if we as a country should outlaw homosexual marriages due to god finding such unions to be an abomination, so should we outlaw cross denominational marriages, especially if one of the members is a non-believer, as the bible tells us about divided houses, and non-believers being evil.

[/quote'] I really should have deleted that part, I’m sorry. But that quote is way out of context and does not imply that. But you are aware of that already.

 

 

 

 

Newbi would have you believe that their rights are not being trampled on' date=' because gay Americans are free to marry someone of the opposite sex, as are heterosexual people.

 

And of course that isn't a sick mockery of the principles behind marriage, hell no sireeee.

 

[/quote'] Since this is a vague remark to my post, that is your opinion after all. But it is not a mockery of anything.

[drz]

Question isn't why aren't they allowed to marry, question is why should they be? Think about that for a bit, what is gained from them geting married? They really do have all those rights i mentioned in my last post.

 

Question is, do you always respond to a question with a question, and yet fail to answer the original question?

 

Anyhow, to not be you, I personally gain nothing from gays being allowed to marry. Neither do you, nor any other person in the world, unless you are a gay person, hoping to marry the person you love. Perhaps the only thing to be gained from it is that two people can do something that makes them happy. Is it so offending that you just can't stand the thought of it? Or has years of ingrained dogma forced you to simply not accept it for no good reason?

 

Why should they be allowed to marry? Why should you, or anyone be allowed to marry? Why does any body other then myself and the person I love have the right decide who I can marry.

 

Why should they marry? Why should you breath?

 

 

(fyi, not a threat btw)

[Sayonara]

Question isn't why aren't they allowed to marry, question is why should they be?

If you are going to ask that, you might as well ask "Why should anyone be married?"

Say hello to Special Pleading.

 

Think about that for a bit, what is gained from them geting married? They really do have all those rights i mentioned in my last post.

Because marriage symbolises a far deeper commitment to a relationship, in front of family and friends (and god as applicable). Perhaps you just can't understand why anyone would want that, but it is actually important to some people.

 

 

Since this is a vague remark to my post, that is your opinion after all. But it is not a mockery of anything.

On the contrary, it was not vague at all. I think it highlights just how twisted your approach to this is.

 

 

Question is, do you always respond to a question with a question, and yet fail to answer the original question?

He pretty much does, yes. I strongly suggest you read his posting history from the start so you know what to expect.

[budullewraagh]

Question isn't why aren't they allowed to marry, question is why should they be?

i'll answer that. every citizen is given the same rights as every other citizen (under the constitution). otherwise it's called discrimination.

Think about that for a bit, what is gained from them geting married?

it is irrelevant. if they want it, they should be entitled to having it because we need equal rights for all.

[jordan]

Since the three previous posts all say the same basic thing, I'll address this to all three:

 

You have all said that they should be allowed to marry because they want to; it makes them happy. What I don't understand is why this is the only form of marriage discrimination that is recieving attention. Why is polygamy illegal and no one claims discrimination?

 

Making the arguement "because they want to" isn't really logical reasoning behind why they should be allowed. In fact, it's hardly reasoning at all. What I think needs to be shown is how they are equal to all the other people who have been married. If the purpose of marriage is reproduction, why should people who can't do so be allowed to married? Why should we encourage the this mindset just "because they want to"?

[Sayonara]

You have all said that they should be allowed to marry because they want to; it makes them happy.

Well, it wasn't my intention to put across the idea that they are just marrying because they "want to". Regardless, if you're going to counter with that, you need to start by explaining why anyone should be allowed to marry.

 

 

What I don't understand is why this is the only form of marriage discrimination that is recieving attention.

Because it's the topic?

 

 

Why is polygamy illegal and no one claims discrimination?

I'm sure some people probably do.

 

 

Making the arguement "because they want to" isn't really logical reasoning behind why they should be allowed. In fact, it's hardly reasoning at all. What I think needs to be shown is how they are equal to all the other people who have been married.

What do you mean by "equal to" in this context?

 

 

If the purpose of marriage is reproduction, why should people who can't do so be allowed to married? Why should we encourage the this mindset just "because they want to"?

I'm dispute that reproduction is the purpose of marriage. I seem to remember it having something to do with God blessing a committed and devoted relationship, what with it glorifying him?

That is, of course, assuming you're discussing Judaeo-Christian marriage.