Moral values

[sshyperion]

So, by giving a gay couple a marriage ceritificate, you are telling every religious group that does not view gay couples as married that they cannot practice that aspect of their religion, violating the first amendment.

 

umm what about black segregation in the southern states and slavery in general up to even the 1950s in the US. wasn't that a violation of US ammendments? "...and all men are created equal." from the looks of things that wasn't very equal the way they were treated along with various other minorities...

[Aileron]

Not quite, Ducky. Everyone has a right to recognize a marriage it they choose to. If a religion wants to recognize gay marriage, they can do so if the couples do not have a certificate. However, if the couple does, those that do not wish to recognize it are still forced to.

 

 

A marriage certifact is like paper money. Money is essentially a law that requires citizens to recognize a piece of paper to be equivolent to its stated value in gold. If I were to walk into Fort Knox with a $20 bill and say: "Here is a $20 bill, I want $20s worth of gold" whoever was managing the fort would be legally required to trade. If I similarly walked in with a blank sheet of paper, the teller would not be required to do so.

 

The interesting thing is though, if I offered the same paper to someone with $20s of gold, and he was stupid enough to hold enough value to it, it would be legal to trade a normal paper for $20s of gold. No one is required by law to view blank pieces of paper as near-worthless.

 

Thus, its legal for theme parks to make their own little version of money that is only good in their park.

 

 

A marriage without a certificate is like a blank sheet of paper. While people are not required to view it as a marriage, they are also not required to view it as nothing. Thus, any religion who wishes to recognize gay marriage may still do so, and they would be acting kind of like a theme park. Their marriages won't be good outside their religion, but all religious rights are preserved.

[»SD>Big]

they won't let me marry my cat

[»Ducky]

Normally the arguement would be valid, but we aren't talking about blank paper entirely.

 

When this blank piece of paper is handed to a couple, it immediately gets legal value due to the ability for larger medical capabilities, joint ownership.. So on and so on.

 

The homosexual community is be getting "shafted" of equal rights.

[MasterDrake]

Since when is marriage a right, it has always been a privlage, EG Driving, Smoking, etc etc

[white_0men]

When you start giving tax breaks to married couples, it becomes everyone's right to be able to get married.

 

What does a state marriage license have to do with religion anyway?

[MonteZuma]

I am undecided on this issue, but I can't see any reason why a gay couple should have less legal rights or privileges than a heterosexual couple.

 

Where is the moral dillema?

 

What is the threat to society?

 

And what perverted logic says that same-sex marriage will lead to "finding rights in the slaying of each other"? This is an uninformed and biggoted statement if ever I've read one.

[Aileron]

Ducky, the blank paper is a metaphore for the union between a gay couple, not the legal form. Its there to point out the differences between a $20 bill and normal paper. I could have used a quarter and a small chunk of metal instead.

 

Metal that is backed by the government in worth 25 cents of gold. Metal that is not backed by the government is worth whatever the buyer and seller agree upon, one option being 25 cents of gold. Thus a marriage backed by the government is worthy of X, and a marriage not backed by the government is worthy of whatever the "buyer" agree upon, one option being X.

 

I'll retry this in section 2 without the confusing metaphore.

 

1) We are defending the status quo, a status quo that has been around for almost a million years. Under the rule that "if its not broke, don't fix it", we don't need ANY reason to resist change. Its the force of change that needs to provide the reason. Kinda like Newton's first law: A body at rest stays at rest. Unless a good force is put on the object, it won't move.

 

2) We are not talking about "rights" here, but certificates. Altough marriage is a right, not a priveledge. Well, the difference is simple. Imagine a place of complete and utter anarchy. Two - whatever - decides to get married. Now, they have every right to do so. However, the problem arises when they talk to a third person for some reason. The third person can either view the couple as married or view the couple as not married.

 

Now enter the marriage cerificate. If the third person does not view that as a marriage, the couple can slam their marriage certificate in that person's face, pointing out that the government says they are. The third person, being a citizen of that government is required by law to view the couple as married then.

 

Suppose the couple did not have the certificate. They still have the right to view themselves as married, and the third person still has the right to view them as married. So, it is not the couple's right to consider themselves married in question, it is the right of third parties to deny that marriage which is in question.

 

Now religion does enter into this. The third party could be a person, business, whatever, but if the third party happens to be a religion, and they decide not to recognize the couple as married, to infringe on that right would be to infringe on that religion, violating the First Amendment. Thus, giving the couple a marriage certificate when the religion does not recognize the marriage violates the members of that religion's rights.

[Zetirix]

Lemme think here, I didn't read the whole thread... low on time and all... But where I was born (the US...) there was a thing in our consi!@#$%^&*ution that mentioned something about a seperation of church and state... tax breaks comes from the state, since no church I've seen gives money to married people who aren't preaching to others... and then there's a church who would give "permission" if you will to a couple to get a license... Some seperation. Permission... Blessings, who knows... Religion is bunk anyways... if you wanna get married all it takes is a vow and love between two consenting adults, it's not everyone elses problem that they don't like it or fail to realize what a marriage was actually made for. Gay couples can be traced all the way back to before the Greek and Roman empires... I recently heard that poor Julius Caesar and Brutus were "married" in the sense I speak of. Go figure.

 

- Z

[»Ducky]

Ducky, the blank paper is a metaphore for the union between a gay couple, not the legal form. Its there to point out the differences between a $20 bill and normal paper. I could have used a quarter and a small chunk of metal instead.

I understand that fully, But that blank piece of paper gets value when it is legally slapped with a coat of ink, pressed and acknowledged by the government when marriage takes place.

1) We are defending the status quo, a status quo that has been around for almost a million years. Under the rule that "if its not broke, don't fix it", we don't need ANY reason to resist change. Its the force of change that needs to provide the reason. Kinda like Newton's first law: A body at rest stays at rest. Unless a good force is put on the object, it won't move.

20%+ of the United States population isn't a force to change from?

We aren't talking about 5 people on southside, holding signs that say "Legalize Crack."

We are talking about a quarter (or more) of the country who realize the injustice and that are for the rights of others.

 

You have made these long analogies, metaphors, stories, jokes.. whatever they so happen to be. But all you are doing is making a long drawn out speech about how, if you aren't part of xxx religion, you can't enjoy the same luxories.

Utter BS, no matter what mask you put on it.

The ONLY way that wouldn't be bull is if these religious factions themselves took money from their own pocket so that couples could have those benefits.

They don't, so guess what.

 

Until we give homosexual couples the same perks for their 'fake' marriage, they can't view that blank paper as having value. Do you take them as complete idiots? Everyone else is walking around with tickets to a concert, and they are trying to get in with paper. They desearve the real deal, not a write off.

[Aileron]

Ofcourse, (1) doesn't apply in the complete case. My only point is that we don't need to justify not changing anything.

 

Judgeing by the fact that you resorted to flaming, it looks like my point holds water. Just keep in mind, we aren't withhold rights, we are witholding certificates.

[white_0men]

Your points hold nothing.

 

Saying that religion has a position to deny other person's the right to be married by the state is ridiculous. The church has zero control over the actions of the state and the do-*BAD WORD*-ents the state gives out.

 

What the third person thinks is also completely irrelevant to the fact that the state is not giving equal treatment based on sexual preferance.

 

If someone else doesn't bother to pick apart your horrible analogy, I'll see what else I can come up with after class.

[»Ducky]

I just asked a simple question. I respect your views though I believe them flawed.

Neither of us will convert the other, and I understand this.

 

You are with-holding certificates that give rights. I just see no logical way around it.

There will always be some part of religion that is for or against something, that is why it should be excluded.

 

If the cir-*BAD WORD*-stance was marriage under god, I would see something wrong with it.

You cannot be an active murderer and expect equal rights and a loving home in the afterlife.

If you exclude God from your vow of love, then no religious aspect should be involved what so ever.

[Bacchus]

I haven't read half the posts because it reeks of prejudice and cheap religious ideals.

 

 

Man...who gives a -*BAD WORD*- about gays and lesbians?...lots of people (most of this forum users i'm pretty sure of it) are hooked on porn like flies on dung so don't tell me you're against it...or you're idiot enough to think that only "male" gays are unnatural?

 

Did you know that most women will find gays cuter, wiser, smarter, better looking than you sorry hetero !@#$%^&*es?

 

 

"gnegnegne...gayness isn't natural...gnegnejesusgnelord almightygne"

 

c'mon, stop acting like complete morons and just admit it: WHO CARES!!

 

-*BAD WORD*-, you peeps are amazing. You so stuck up you sound like jesus freaks and half-senile nuns

[»Ducky]

So anyways, forgetting about his post.

[Hackysack]

Recombo, your are such an ignorant person. You are to keen to what you believe, to look at the other side of things. To blatently say,

No matter. If you want gay and lesbians in your society ducky, why not go to Europe or a country where it's permitted. Do I have personal stake? No, other than being offended by it. I do not care to know homesexual men or women nor will I have any tolerance of it.

is completely outta line. Just because your opinions are different the others, doesn't mean they are the ones who are wrong. Why don't you move outta the country if you dont like it? Because you believe your right. Which your not. You can have your own opinion on the subject, but when it comes to it you should have as much say in peoples sexual lives as in telling them what to wear each day. Indivisuality, my friend. Not everyone going to be the same, like the same things, think the same. The fact that there has been a law against gay marriage, just blows my mind. As a government, they cannot push religious veiws onto a country. Dont you see this as being religious based? The government should have no say in who marries who. Now if you don't understand that, than you sir are a moron. -_-

[Aileron]

I haven't read half the posts

 

Yep, I can agree to that. The rest of your post is an ignorant libigot pre-made judgement.

 

white_Omen, seperation between church and state means that both church and state are sovereign en!@#$%^&*ies, and that religion has equal power and authority as the state. You have it backwards though, this issue is about the state trying to push its authority over a religious matter.

 

Ducky, marriage certificates don't give a couple the right to consider themselves married, they have it regardless. Enter the example of polygamy in Utah. None of those marriages are endorsed, yet they still consider themselves married, and their community does as well. I'm not comparing the two beyond that, so don't reply to this. Since some noob is going to overcompaire and reply to that comparison anyway - stfu noob.

 

If denied the right to marry, gay couples will still consider themselves married, and everyone who thinks so will consider them married as well. Thus, their rights are not violated in the slightest.

 

Maybe its the tax-break married couples get. However, this is merely economic incentive to get married in order to increase consumption and produce the next generation of workers...neither of which really apply to gay couples.

 

However, I think a compromise can be struck here. The left should make abortion illegal except in the case of health risk to the mother and the right allow some form of gay marriage. Both sides give a little and take a little. The gays get to make their family, the babies get to live to see tomorrow. The state gets a load of consuption and a large worforce tomorrow. The church gets to see abortion made illegal. Everyone wins.

[Dr.Worthless]

As a government, they cannot push religious veiws onto a country. Dont you see this as being religious based? The government should have no say in who marries who. Now if you don't understand that, than you sir are a moron

 

This is where this question of morality is so paradoxal. You claim that everyone is en!@#$%^&*led to your opinion, and you are yours, yet you are basing fact/fiction on your opinions.

 

The core question really is does the government have any right to dictate morality? If the government does, who does? Popular opinion?

[sshyperion]

white_Omen, seperation between church and state means that both church and state are sovereign en!@#$%^&*ies, and that religion has equal power and authority as the state.  You have it backwards though, this issue is about the state trying to push its authority over a religious matter.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

quick note: religion doesn't have total equal power as the state. if they did then the apparent separation of church and state would be meaningless and we'd be still nowhere better off. btw in reference to your abortion issue, would you like it if your girlfriend or a female friend was raped or sexually molested and was forced to carry a child that may be resented and harmful to her? I know I wouldn't want that upon her... but I digress...

 

**SECULAR** Legal marriage is a state matter, not a religious one. The church's concept of what marriage is its own and shouldn't influence who gets to marry. True, the concept of marriage may be based on religious background but that was then and this is now. The church doesn't have to agree with non straight people legally being married and thus should not be screaming at the state to ban them just because it doesn't agree with them. this equal power and authority business with the church ended long long ago when separation of church and state came into effect. **secular law** i repeat **secular law** ...once had religious basis but now is distinct from religious ties like that... as it has been repeated before and again in this thread, they don't have to be married in the church's eyes if the church doesn't want to but that shouldn't mean they can't legally be married for financial or whatever other reasons.

[»Ducky]

If denied the right to marry, gay couples will still consider themselves married, and everyone who thinks so will consider them married as well. Thus, their rights are not violated in the slightest.

I honestly could care less about who views what as what. The simple fact that they are denied tax breaks and what not is infringing on their rights.

 

Maybe its the tax-break married couples get.

Ding Ding, that is one solid reason, but not the only.

However, this is merely economic incentive to get married in order to increase consumption and produce the next generation of workers...neither of which really apply to gay couples.

Sure it is an incentive for that, but a good part of marriages have nothing to do with children at all. So why should gays be excluded.

 

However, I think a compromise can be struck here. The left should make abortion illegal except in the case of health risk to the mother and the right allow some form of gay marriage. Both sides give a little and take a little. The gays get to make their family, the babies get to live to see tomorrow. The state gets a load of consuption and a large worforce tomorrow. The church gets to see abortion made illegal. Everyone wins.

Lol, a compromise would be making homosexual marriage in a church illegal, but allowing them the benefits they seek from their "Commitment ceremonies."

 

As for abortion.. Don't slam me with a major topic right after all that :-p

On a lighter note, the following quote has been seemingly true on many occasions.

 

"Conservatives are all in favor of the unborn. They would do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Conservatives are obsessed with the fetus, from conception to nine months. After that they don't wanna know about you, they don't wanna hear from you. No nothing. No neo-natal care, no daycare, no Head Start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no wellfare, no nothing. If you're pre-born, you're fine. If you're pre-school you're -*BAD WORD*-ed. Conservatives don't give a -*BAD WORD*- about you until you reach military age. Then they think you're just fine, just what they've been looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."

-George Carlin

[Dr.Worthless]

"Conservatives are all in favor of the unborn. They would do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Conservatives are obsessed with the fetus, from conception to nine months. After that they don't wanna know about you, they don't wanna hear from you. No nothing. No neo-natal care, no daycare, no Head Start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no wellfare, no nothing. If you're pre-born, you're fine. If you're pre-school you're -*BAD WORD*-ed. Conservatives don't give a -*BAD WORD*- about you until you reach military age. Then they think you're just fine, just what they've been looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."

-George Carlin

.. and those are the same dead "babies" that died to give Mr. Carlin the freedom to stand on the stage and make millions being an -*BAD WORD*-...

 

Oh, wonderful america.

 

quick note: religion doesn't have total equal power as the state. if they did then the apparent separation of church and state would be meaningless and we'd be still nowhere better off. btw in reference to your abortion issue, would you like it if your girlfriend or a female friend was raped or sexually molested and was forced to carry a child that may be resented and harmful to her? I know I wouldn't want that upon her... but I digress...

 

I don't think anyone but the extreme religious right want absolute abortion restriction. Most moderates want abortion in rape/health situations but no "it doesn't fit my lifestyle" abortions..

[white_0men]

A big thanks goes out to hyp for already responding, but I promised a response.

 

white_Omen, seperation between church and state means that both church and state are sovereign en!@#$%^&*ies, and that religion has equal power and authority as the state.  You have it backwards though, this issue is about the state trying to push its authority over a religious matter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

HAHAHAHA. The church and state have equal power and authority? Do I even need to respond after you make that kind of claim? Probably not, but I will anyway.

 

Why should the state NOT be able to push its authority over the church?

 

Are we talking every religion here, or just your religion? If it's all of them, like it should be, then the religion I just made up 5 minutes ago decrees that gay marriages are accepted. Not that my religion has anything to do with government perks for married couples, but since you claim that no religion will accept them, I just had to throw this out there.

 

As for the denial of equal rights, here we go :

 

1. Married couples are allowed visitation while in the hospital, and can make decisions regarding their spouses if they are unable to. Gay couples who tell themselves they are married do not get this same treatment.

 

2. Social security benefits and pension plans are passed on to the spouse after death. Again, Gay couples telling themselves they are married aren't going to receive the rest of the benefits earned by the now dead spouse.

 

3. Health Insurance/Dental Coverage that would cover the entire family doesn't cover gay marriages effectively making gay workers earn less than someone in a heterosexual marriage. They are paying for coverage they can't use because their spouse is not recognized by the state.

 

4. Inheritance earned by a surviving spouse has a tax put on it for a same-sex partner. Married couples don't have to pay a single cent on it, what a surprise there.

 

I'm sure there are more, but you get the drift.

 

You can do your own research on the stuff mentioned above.

 

Treating someone differently because of their sexual preference is bigotry. Plain and simple.

[Dr.Worthless]

Why should the state NOT be able to push its authority over the church?

ROFLMFAO

 

Remember the whole "seperation of church and state" thing you ramble on about? Yeah.. this is the real situation it was made for.. remember the whole "religious freedom" idealism that this country was founded on? People think "seperation of church and state" was created so the church couldn't impede on the state, when in reality its the other way around.

 

*EDIT*

Treating someone differently because of their sexual preference is bigotry. Plain and simple.

 

Here is where I'm at a real moral dilemma within myself. On one hand I do believe this, there's no reason for me to treat someone different because they are.. "different".

 

But what if in my core beliefs I feel that the issue that they are "different" about is wrong? I am a Christian, and my moral values are rooted in biblical teachings.

 

Oh the internal conflictions, what ever shall I do..

[»Ducky]

.. and those are the same dead "babies" that died to give Mr. Carlin the freedom to stand on the stage and make millions being an -*BAD WORD*-...

 

Oh, wonderful america.

Carlin always leans towards more liberal, but he is realistic when he speaks.

At times, that is exactly what it feels like.

 

But your comment in general, I don't understand it.

Without going into a hardcore arguement, care to explain?

[Dr.Worthless]

Carlin always leans towards more liberal, but he is realistic when he speaks.

At times, that is exactly what it feels like.

 

But your comment in general, I don't understand it.

Without going into a hardcore arguement, care to explain?

 

I'm a fan of carlin, alot of what he says is just so common sense that its hilarious, I love how he's just so in your face.

 

Anyway, I was just pointing out the catch-22. While carlin has the right to view republican as "baby farmers" that defend unborn US citizens rights just so they can grow up to fight in wars. At the same time, If you attribute "war" with "republicans", than it is the "republicans" that sent the "babies" to war to protect carlins freedom TO criticise the very organization (The babies) that spilled blood to insure he could. I'll quote senator Zell Miller on his speech at the RNC "It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag. " His speech was dogmatic at times, but MAN is that a powerful quote.

 

 

 

 

And yes.. sometimes Carlin's just to liberal for my tastes, funny guy though.