What's your position on gay marriage?

[Buck]

Randy I don't think of it as normal. And it should not be flaunted in public. It makes a spectacle out of nothing. i am not ready to say I support gay marriage, but I cannot say that I am against it. Again, I am against it being constantly glorified on television and news. You wanna be gay, be gay, don't do it on my time.

I feel the same way....And at the same time I don't like it when straight couples flaunt it in public, So to me not wanting to see two gay people go at it in public is normal, but so is not wanting to see to straight people go at it in public. To me both can be damaging to a young child. I think singling out public affection as being a problem only when gays do it is ignorance and close mindedness (is that a word?) I personally think that most peoples' negative views about gays is based on personal views and judgements that are based on ignorance and the arguments that are made can be made about more than just gays. I think that issues such as gay marriage are just an outsource for people to voice their hatred of gays, not their hatred of the ability of gays to marry. I am on the same page with most people that marriage is a sacred act between a man and a woman..but saying anybody who wants to get married to anyone can't do that is pure and simply wrong. Its forcing your views (be it religious or politcal or whatever) on other people, which is WRONG. The supposed seperation between religion and state is a bullshit concept when this stuff comes up, because the views on marriage stem solely from religious views and I think everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs whether it be devout or non existent. And Randy, I can understand u not wanting to have tunnel vision when in public if you don't want to see such stuff, but Why should they have to live in a cave because of a choice they made just because some person they don't even know thinks its wrong based on his /her own beliefs?

We live in a country that pride's itself on freedom, and like it or not that can mean we have to see things we don't necessarily believe in...Life is unfair.

[Kenneth]

Since we have political debates on this forum I though I would post a thread with my thought on Gay marraige and how in my opinion it effects our society. Here are my thoughts:

Gay marriage is a sin against man and GERD, it is un natural and I for one am sick of it getting shoved down my throat. I will never accept homosexuality in any form.

How it affects me individually is the continuing decay of morals around me and the profound effect it has on todays children in shaping their morals and beliefs.

I thank the good lord for California's decision...it's somewhat restores my faith in my fellow man. I don't want todays children raised thinking it's ok for same sex unions legal or illegal. We are turning into a modern day Sodom & Gomorrah and it among other now accepted immoral acts will be the down fall of this once great country. History is doomed to repeat it's self....if we know this, why do we continue to head down the path of self destruction    

Don't bash me for my beliefs or opinions, I just am curious where some of you stand on this in light of our recent political discussions. Please keep it civil,


Randy

[Peelz]

P.D.A.'s from any sexual orientation are uncomfortable and annoying. Get a room! Unless it is midgets, then it is just funny.

Can't believe this one is staying civil. Good job fellers.

[Mad Dog]

Morality in the western world is a function of the underlying Christian foundation of it's founders and rulers.  Whether you believe in a religion or not your basic fundamentals of what is right and wrong still stem from religious doctrines.  We as a nation have chosen to adopt some religious laws like those against theft, murder, perjury and even the practice of having weekends off (for some of us  ).  But simultaneously we decide that other laws or ideals are simply archaic and should be dismissed as primitive like staying a virgin until marriage, the use of contraceptives, or even the simplest use of "GERD damn".

My first point is that the only compass for right and wrong is religion; the world is just so far removed from the days where there was no rule of law that it's people think they made up the laws all on their own.

My next point is that the laws we follow both legally and socially are all arbitrary bullshit.  What is right and wrong is defined only within the context of society's tolerance, we choose to ignore some rules, break the ones we think we can get away with, and pick a few of the ones left to believe as absolute wrongs.

So what does that mean for the institute of marriage?  There are 2 parts to marriage; the legal and governmental adjoining of persons and the religious connotation.  My opinion is that US government should have never gotten involved with marriage, and the problems we face today in this thread stems from that very blunder.  It has been a part of the old world for centuries and millennia, no reason we had to follow in the same failed footsteps by making it part of law instead of leaving it as a social or religious grouping.  Many religions have some form of marriage indoctrinated into the beliefs, but these are not all the same and the bill of rights roughly says that the govt has no right to impinge upon the practice of any religion unless it poses a threat to the rights of others.  There are Christian sects that believe in and perform homosexual marriages, there are religions that perform plural, bigamist, and polygamist marriages, there are religions that perform incestuous marriages and many other, more taboo unions.

If you acknowledge only one idea of marriage then you are beholden to a particular belief structure whether you participate in that religion or not.  This makes you intolerant but clear in your beliefs.  To recognize more than one idea means you are devoted to the ideals of individual rights, but that same devotion demands that you accept any and all types of religious unions and practices that pass the "no infringement on the rights of others" clause.  This makes you tolerant but indifferent.  If you are willing to acknowledge some of the types of marriage but not others then you're back to where we started, a hypocritical bastardization of a free society based upon a religious one where the distinctions between what is right and what is wrong are all purely based upon the whim of society.


This and other such debates will go on forever, because we as a people will never agree to any one set of rules or laws and the majority of society will continue to shift in all directions and change with time.  If we all agreed there'd be no need for multiple religions or the separation of church and state.

[socalrappy700]

I nailed my gf behind a club once, does that count as P.D.A.?

[socalrappy700]

Morality in the western world is a function of the underlying Christian foundation of it's founders and rulers.  Whether you believe in a religion or not your basic fundamentals of what is right and wrong still stem from religious doctrines.  We as a nation have chosen to adopt some religious laws like those against theft, murder, perjury and even the practice of having weekends off (for some of us  ).  But simultaneously we decide that other laws or ideals are simply archaic and should be dismissed as primitive like staying a virgin until marriage, the use of contraceptives, or even the simplest use of "GERD damn".

My first point is that the only compass for right and wrong is religion; the world is just so far removed from the days where there was no rule of law that it's people think they made up the laws all on their own.

My next point is that the laws we follow both legally and socially are all arbitrary bullshit.  What is right and wrong is defined only within the context of society's tolerance, we choose to ignore some rules, break the ones we think we can get away with, and pick a few of the ones left to believe as absolute wrongs.

So what does that mean for the institute of marriage?  There are 2 parts to marriage; the legal and governmental adjoining of persons and the religious connotation.  My opinion is that US government should have never gotten involved with marriage, and the problems we face today in this thread stems from that very blunder.  It has been a part of the old world for centuries and millennia, no reason we had to follow in the same failed footsteps by making it part of law instead of leaving it as a social or religious grouping.  Many religions have some form of marriage indoctrinated into the beliefs, but these are not all the same and the bill of rights roughly says that the govt has no right to impinge upon the practice of any religion unless it poses a threat to the rights of others.  There are Christian sects that believe in and perform homosexual marriages, there are religions that perform plural, bigamist, and polygamist marriages, there are religions that perform incestuous marriages and many other, more taboo unions.

If you acknowledge only one idea of marriage then you are beholden to a particular belief structure whether you participate in that religion or not.  This makes you intolerant but clear in your beliefs.  To recognize more than one idea means you are devoted to the ideals of individual rights, but that same devotion demands that you accept any and all types of religious unions and practices that pass the "no infringement on the rights of others" clause.  This makes you tolerant but indifferent.  If you are willing to acknowledge some of the types of marriage but not others then you're back to where we started, a hypocritical bastardization of a free society based upon a religious one where the distinctions between what is right and what is wrong are all purely based upon the whim of society.


This and other such debates will go on forever, because we as a people will never agree to any one set of rules or laws and the majority of society will continue to shift in all directions and change with time.  If we all agreed there'd be no need for multiple religions or the separation of church and state.

I could of put that opinion into four sentences.  Someone likes to hear himself talk.

[LittleBuddha]

Yes, I did, as long as i knew who they were. Mickey Mouse and Spongebob got a few write-in votes.

Religion aside, should men be able to take more than one bride? Or women to take more than one husband, for that matter?

No, I don't.  And it has more to do with division of property and estate and taxes than religion. 

for me, that issue has to do with a woman's decency and worth.

Good point.  I'm a misogynist so I didn't think of that point.  Good call.   

It is hard for me to picture a woman willingly seeking out that lifestyle. I know most of them are raised that way, and have never seen real freedom, so they don't know any better. But, I can't help thinking we need to help them.

Misogynist and an atheist? You sir...are f**ked if indeed there is an afterlife.

I'll help them.   :grin_nod:

what, by driving the boat across the river styx? Just kiddin' :grin_nod:

Great.  Now I got "come sail away" stuck in my head.  Couldn't I get a better Styx song?  

[Peelz]

"My opinion is that US government should have never gotten involved with marriage, and the problems we face today in this thread stems from that very blunder"

great point.

I nailed my gf behind a club once, does that count as P.D.A.?

not if you paid her well.

[LittleBuddha]

Morality in the western world is a function of the underlying Christian foundation of it's founders and rulers.  Whether you believe in a religion or not your basic fundamentals of what is right and wrong still stem from religious doctrines.  We as a nation have chosen to adopt some religious laws like those against theft, murder, perjury and even the practice of having weekends off (for some of us  ).  But simultaneously we decide that other laws or ideals are simply archaic and should be dismissed as primitive like staying a virgin until marriage, the use of contraceptives, or even the simplest use of "GERD damn".

My first point is that the only compass for right and wrong is religion; the world is just so far removed from the days where there was no rule of law that it's people think they made up the laws all on their own.

My next point is that the laws we follow both legally and socially are all arbitrary bullshit.  What is right and wrong is defined only within the context of society's tolerance, we choose to ignore some rules, break the ones we think we can get away with, and pick a few of the ones left to believe as absolute wrongs.

So what does that mean for the institute of marriage?  There are 2 parts to marriage; the legal and governmental adjoining of persons and the religious connotation.  My opinion is that US government should have never gotten involved with marriage, and the problems we face today in this thread stems from that very blunder.  It has been a part of the old world for centuries and millennia, no reason we had to follow in the same failed footsteps by making it part of law instead of leaving it as a social or religious grouping.  Many religions have some form of marriage indoctrinated into the beliefs, but these are not all the same and the bill of rights roughly says that the govt has no right to impinge upon the practice of any religion unless it poses a threat to the rights of others.  There are Christian sects that believe in and perform homosexual marriages, there are religions that perform plural, bigamist, and polygamist marriages, there are religions that perform incestuous marriages and many other, more taboo unions.

If you acknowledge only one idea of marriage then you are beholden to a particular belief structure whether you participate in that religion or not.  This makes you intolerant but clear in your beliefs.  To recognize more than one idea means you are devoted to the ideals of individual rights, but that same devotion demands that you accept any and all types of religious unions and practices that pass the "no infringement on the rights of others" clause.  This makes you tolerant but indifferent.  If you are willing to acknowledge some of the types of marriage but not others then you're back to where we started, a hypocritical bastardization of a free society based upon a religious one where the distinctions between what is right and what is wrong are all purely based upon the whim of society.


This and other such debates will go on forever, because we as a people will never agree to any one set of rules or laws and the majority of society will continue to shift in all directions and change with time.  If we all agreed there'd be no need for multiple religions or the separation of church and state.

I could of put that opinion into four sentences.  Someone likes to hear himself talk.

Hey Mad Dog, try reading Shakespeare sometime.  Brevity is the soul of wit.      

[Mad Dog]

I could of put that opinion into four sentences.  Someone likes to hear himself talk.

Well that's that Wolverine edumacation of yours trumping my farm, dairy and grass classes again.

And buddah can have silverback read it to him if he can't understand.

[Buck]

Morality in the western world is a function of the underlying Christian foundation of it's founders and rulers.  Whether you believe in a religion or not your basic fundamentals of what is right and wrong still stem from religious doctrines.  We as a nation have chosen to adopt some religious laws like those against theft, murder, perjury and even the practice of having weekends off (for some of us  ).  But simultaneously we decide that other laws or ideals are simply archaic and should be dismissed as primitive like staying a virgin until marriage, the use of contraceptives, or even the simplest use of "GERD damn".

My first point is that the only compass for right and wrong is religion; the world is just so far removed from the days where there was no rule of law that it's people think they made up the laws all on their own.

My next point is that the laws we follow both legally and socially are all arbitrary bullshit.  What is right and wrong is defined only within the context of society's tolerance, we choose to ignore some rules, break the ones we think we can get away with, and pick a few of the ones left to believe as absolute wrongs.

So what does that mean for the institute of marriage?  There are 2 parts to marriage; the legal and governmental adjoining of persons and the religious connotation.  My opinion is that US government should have never gotten involved with marriage, and the problems we face today in this thread stems from that very blunder.  It has been a part of the old world for centuries and millennia, no reason we had to follow in the same failed footsteps by making it part of law instead of leaving it as a social or religious grouping.  Many religions have some form of marriage indoctrinated into the beliefs, but these are not all the same and the bill of rights roughly says that the govt has no right to impinge upon the practice of any religion unless it poses a threat to the rights of others.  There are Christian sects that believe in and perform homosexual marriages, there are religions that perform plural, bigamist, and polygamist marriages, there are religions that perform incestuous marriages and many other, more taboo unions.

If you acknowledge only one idea of marriage then you are beholden to a particular belief structure whether you participate in that religion or not.  This makes you intolerant but clear in your beliefs.  To recognize more than one idea means you are devoted to the ideals of individual rights, but that same devotion demands that you accept any and all types of religious unions and practices that pass the "no infringement on the rights of others" clause.  This makes you tolerant but indifferent.  If you are willing to acknowledge some of the types of marriage but not others then you're back to where we started, a hypocritical bastardization of a free society based upon a religious one where the distinctions between what is right and what is wrong are all purely based upon the whim of society.


This and other such debates will go on forever, because we as a people will never agree to any one set of rules or laws and the majority of society will continue to shift in all directions and change with time.  If we all agreed there'd be no need for multiple religions or the separation of church and state.

well put

[Krandall]

I could of put that opinion into four sentences.  Someone likes to hear himself talk.

And buddah can have silverback read it to him if he can't understand.

Ouch.... 

[LittleBuddha]

I could of put that opinion into four sentences.  Someone likes to hear himself talk.

Well that's that Wolverine edumacation of yours trumping my farm, dairy and grass classes again.

And buddah can have silverback read it to him if he can't understand.

You lost me at christian.   

[socalrappy700]

I could of put that opinion into four sentences.  Someone likes to hear himself talk.

Well that's that Wolverine edumacation of yours trumping my farm, dairy and grass classes again.

And buddah can have silverback read it to him if he can't understand.

Trust me, Scott and I both understand it well.  We only find humor in the length.

[Mad Dog]

I could of put that opinion into four sentences.  Someone likes to hear himself talk.

Well that's that Wolverine edumacation of yours trumping my farm, dairy and grass classes again.

And buddah can have silverback read it to him if he can't understand.

Trust me, Scott and I both understand it well.  We only find humor in the length.

You were the kids who only read the cliff notes right?  Concepts were clear but the book was too long :grin_nod:





Yeah it kind of took over a life of it's own.