The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Re: Same Sex Marriage

Re: Same Sex Marriage
Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Saturday, December 10 2011, 1:30:57 (UTC)
from *** - *** Commercial - Windows XP - Mozilla
Website:
Website title:

Arrow wrote:
>pancho wrote:
>>...should it be legalized and why?
>
>- Interracial? Let's discuss same sex marriage.

...I am. You come at it from what angle you choose....I'll come at it from a civil rights standpoint. To be Gay is to be normal...to be human...to be an American...as is being Black normal and American...and as an American you are promised EQUAL rights...doesn't matter what anyone thinks of you...doesn;t matter that they dislike Gays, or Blacks...their likes and dislikes have no bearing on the Constitutional rights of American citizens.

It's a controversial issue in the US and recently I heard that not only do they want to legalize it, they are demanding the church to accept it as well. Anyway, I presume that argument goes as follows:

...you are very mistaken. The church is AFRAID that the next step will be to demand the churches accept it, and officiate. Right now it is simply a civil right. The Gay Movement people aren't stupid...there's no need to shoot themselves in the foot...for starters they are asking for a very basic civil right...but I have no doubt the next step, for many, will be to demand that churches either obey our civil laws or, lose their tax-exempt status, which is only right. If the rest of us have to pay taxes for the churches, including gay people...then those churches are not entitled to the tax dollars of gay people....but for now all that is being asked are basic civil rights...there is no "controversy" there...there is no "disagreement" there. Among people who deal in Law and Civil Rights (and not tribal superstitions), there is no argument or problem at all...the rest of us can't help it, or be bound by the fact that certain people among us, who believe wine turns to blood and there is a heaven on a cloud, have a "problem". These people have many serious problems which the rest of us have nothing to do with...those who have this "problem" are good at ranting and raving and holding press interviews where they can say whatever they please...but in a court of law, and we are a people of law FIRST, not religion, people have to make sense..they have to present evidence...and that's why the people with this "problem" have lost every court case and always will...it is also the reason they will remain popular with the Mob.
>
>Religion gives marriage a spiritual meaning but in the eyes of the law it is a mere contract.

...YOU claim religion does this. I don;t agree and don;t know what you're talking about or where you got this idea. What if I said my religion says there is a spiritual dimension to getting a tune-up? Who gave you this idea? marriage is indeed a legal contract...that's the way it began and that's the way it remained until women changed it during the modern era when "love" entered into it...till then it was merely a way of passing on property and disposing of girls...in fact wives WERE property, and it wasn't the church that changed that but we humans.

For example, if one dies, the other inherits. So with the separation of religion from state, marriage will become nothing more than a binding document.

...to those who have nothing but a deed to bind them...the rest of us have love and, often, children...and we don;t need god's spirit for that...can't you do a thing for its own sake without needing to haul a tribal god in by his ears to make sure you fulfill your obligations?

Therefore, if it is nothing more than a contract, then there's no reason why it should be between a man and woman.

..it is love, the contract part of it is required to settle property issues and conjugal and legal rights...and men can love men and woman can love women as good and deep as ever man loved woman or vice versa....talk real...talk sense....talk truth. Enough with mental gymnastics...you are making yourself dizzy.
>
>If that is true... if they legalize gay marriage on the basis that marriage is just a contract

..it is just a contract as far as the State is concerned...it is far more than that where the lovers are concerned. The State doesn;t care if you are in love when you marry, or stay in love if you stay married...it is only concerned with legal rights and obligations and property..it is the PEOPLE involved who deal in love.

, then why should this contract between two person only? Why not 20? Or 100? Why do they prevent the Mormons (or whatever) and Muslim Americans from having multiple partners?

...I'm pleased that you didn;t say "why not beastiality...what if I want to marry a GAY horse"????

...do I really have to answer this for you? Is it a serious question? Weren't you the one just saying you don;t want to waste time, don;t want to go in circles? The reason you can't have 2 or 20 is because these things are already ILLEGAL! No one is asking to make an illegal thing legal. Marriage is LEGAL....denying that right to Gay people will become ILLEGAL, as it always should have been...as banning interracial marriage always should have been.....at no time has a modern society been faced with the prospect of Gay people wishing to marry....just as at no time did America face the prospect of interracial marriage, until it DID, and then it did the right, the legal, thing. Thanks to homophobia taught by the church, Gay people have lived in fear all their lives...it is only recently that they have courageously, and at great risk, come out....had it not been for hetero hatred Gay people would have demanded this before the Mayflower landed...therefore, that so far legal marriage has only meant between man and woman is not due to the "natural order" of things but to the incredible viciousness of heteros...most of them trained up by the church....who would kill any Gay person asking for equal rights...as they did to women who demanded equal rights.

...women never had the vote either, till they GOT it. Does that mean that a woman who votes violates the "natural order"...or how god "intended things"? I told you...WE have civilized god, not the other way around.

...there is no need to go "Aquinas" on us....it is a simple question of equal civil rights...that's all. And even if some gays will later challenge the church, still doesn't change their right to demand equal treatment under the law. No church should be obligated to marry gay couples...I support their right to discriminate where their beliefs are concerned...BUT, neither do I want my tax dollars supporting such an organization...and I'm sure Gay people feel the same way...so that this too is a matter of civil law and justice....let the Church discriminate if it must, but then let it REFUSE Gay Taxes and make up the balance itself!



---------------------


The full topic:



***



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9