You are a Racist, a Bigot and a Sexist.

[FoundOil]

The religious see everything in a religious context, ignoring the facts if they don't fit their prejudice.

You could say the same thing against the non-religious. In fact, I think their intolerance towards religion and the religious is becoming quite vehement.

Nothing to worry about there. We have had some very expressive interactions in the water cooler. I remember the "Are you an Atheist" thread.

Despite our very different perspectives on religion we still jump in to help Aziz Rasul out with Access issues. Moreover, several of us backed his right to express his views in the thread when it was suggested that he went too far in one post and was under threat of being banned.

I'm already liking this forum. I promise, though, I didn't join it for the "Watercooler" discussions (though most of my posts have been here so far).

 

[FoundOil]

Why do we give Religion so much credence.
Christianity and Islam are the dominating religions of the world at the moment.
Both feel that it is OK to kill each other and they do.

Why do you feel that Christianity feels justified in killing Muslims? I know what happened during the crusades but that was centuries ago.

It is not "Christianity" killing Muslims, it is Muslim extremists killing Muslims and the Allied governments killing Muslim extremists.

Wars have been going on for centuries. Both types of religion have a written sacred law. You can read them for the good that they contain of for a reason to war.

Yes and if members of their respective religions actually lived their religion, there wouldn't be any war.

When I look at the Churches around me I see money. One even has an ATM so that you can leave the service to go out and get some more money to put in the plate.

You are right. There are those who give religion a bad name - too many. But don't ignore all the good that they do either. During natural disasters, many religious groups are out there helping people financially and with labor (because they have an organization so they can gather their people together quickly to help out). Besides that, they help kids get education, help the poor and needy, etc. Religion does a lot of good, inspite of its imperfect people.

 

[Vassago]

Yes and if members of their respective religions actually lived their religion, there wouldn't be any war.

From my experience, you are a rarity because you recognize this and are not blind to the truth of it. Kudos.

As for the separation of church and state, this goes back to definitions changing. Our country is made up of a plethora of religious and non-religious individuals. The only way to go is separation of church and state, regardless of what the founding fathers intended. We live in a different time. People in those times burned witches at the stake as well. Would you like that to come back? I'm sure some fo the founding fathers were okay with this behavior.

 

[FoundOil]

Have an open mind and stop acting like others being allowed to marry has ANY effect on you or your marriage. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married. Simple?

So here is one of the negative effects that gay marriage has on society (though not directly on my marriage), and you all have discussed it, partially, in this thread. Gay marriage dilutes our society of meaningful and important labels. In that world or perspective the label of "Parents" disappears for you can never have "Parents". You can only have a "Parent." A child can never have both a Mom and a Dad (in the same relationship). So a child will never be able to say, "My mom and dad..." or "My parents...". He'll have to say things like "My guardians..." or "My care takers..." or "My Dad and his partner..." and similar statements on the female side. This dilutes and confuses society.

A baseball park (this actually happened) was sued by a man in the gay community for discrimination because they wouldn't give him the Mother's Day door prize. He either won or the park just settled and now no longer will have a Mother's Day promotional baseball game. So, how long will it be before Mother's Day disappears completely, if we continue down that path? This dilutes and confuses society.

In their world, what are the chances that anyone will ever really have a true "Sister" or true (from the same two parents - there's that word again) "Brother." A lot more remote. And I could continue with all of the other important familial labels that define us. This confuses and dilutes society.

 

[Galaxiom]

In their world, what are the chances that anyone will ever really have a true "Sister" or true (from the same two parents - there's that word again) "Brother." A lot more remote. And I could continue with all of the other important familial labels that define us. This confuses and dilutes society.

You are displaying your limited scope.

My daughter was born to my wife and her previous husband. She considers both me and my wife's ex (one of our closest friends) as her dads.

Both my daughter and the children from my first relationship refer to each other as brothers and sisters.

Under your regime, adopted parents would not be considered as "real". Do you wish to ban adoption too?

There is no reason why children of same sex couples should not be comfortable with having two mums or two dads. It is the prejudices of people like yourself (frequently religious) who cause the problems.

THe Prime Minister of Australia recently apologised to the women and their children who were separated at birth by forced adoption for no more reason than the mother was not married. This was largely a practice of religiously based hospitals.

The prejudices of the church have damaged millions of people across the planet by sitgmatising sexuality, marital status and countless other traits that they find unacceptable.

And you wonder why so many of us are vehermently opposed to the influence of religion on society.

 

[FoundOil]

Our country is made up of a plethora of religious and non-religious individuals. The only way to go is separation of church and state, regardless of what the founding fathers intended.

Right. We are not a theocracy and were definitely not intended to be. We don't want Islam's Sharia being the law of the land either, or any other specific religion's moral code. So government allows religions to practice freely. They can regulate themselves internally, but no government officials are stipulating membership requirements, beliefs, doctrines, dues, etc. We have government laws to protect citizens from generally accepted immoral behavior: don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, be honest in your dealings with each other, obey traffic signals and the speed limit, etc. These all promote a stable healthy society.

So, what about traditional marriage (between a man and a woman)? Does it help or hurt society in general? I think it is well established that it helps. Government encourages it through legislation, individuals are defined by it (single, married, separated, divorced), kids generally grow up planning on it (I know that is changing). Cities are built around families. There are activities for mom's, dad's, parents, children, and grandparents.

And, finally, to the point, what about gay marriage? Does it help or hurt society? In another post I mention one way I think it hurts society (the dilution of important labels). It also, generally, does not encourage the birth of children (even traditional marriage is struggling with that one these days). And what about the diseases that come from it (I haven't studied it so I don't know)? Isn't AIDS more common among them? What about STDs? Generally, I conclude that gay marriage is not good for society and yes, it should be legislated against and not encouraged. What am I not considering that would make it more beneficial for society?

 

[spikepl]

@FoundOil

Define "society". As far as I can see, your diatribe against gays is predicated on a "society" that does not encompass the people who do not fit your norms. That's a rather limited "society".

 

[Brianwarnock]

Foundoil is correct that homosexual unions may cause "society" problems with its language, as does non marriage between heterosexuals. I have trouble on some occassion referring to my grandsons father as he is not married to my daughter yet, the plans were interrupted by my late wife's illness.

But we will get over this problem after all language is a living thing, well not Latin.

I do think that some gays are their own worst enemy by stupid actions such as that at the ball park.

Brian

 

[Galaxiom]

So, what about traditional marriage (between a man and a woman)? Does it help or hurt society in general? I think it is well established that it helps.

No it has not been established at all.

You simply assume that it helps because that is what your religion's prejudices instill. In fact the traditional religous concept of marriage is a way to enforce the subjugation of women. This is spelt out in both the Bible and Quran.

Does it help to insist people stay together despite their incompatibility?

Religious attitudes have justified prejudices against those who don't conform with the dictate of the church. They have directly caused many people to live a life of needless shame and guilt.

 

[Galaxiom]

Isn't AIDS more common among [gays]? What about STDs? Generally, I conclude that gay marriage is not good for society and yes, it should be legislated against and not encouraged. What am I not considering that would make it more beneficial for society?

STDs are more common among people with multiple sexual partners.

Marraige is usally taken to mean sexual exclusivity between the partners so gay marriage clearly does not increase the incidence of STD.

 

[spikepl]

Isn't AIDS more common among [gays]? What about STDs? Generally, I conclude that gay marriage is not good for society and yes, it should be legislated against and not encouraged.

So your implicit postulate is that absence of gay marriage would cure gays of their gayness?

 

[Fifty2One]

What about divorce and remarriage? Same dilution of terms...
My mom & dad and my mom & dad?
My mom and dad and dad and dad in some cases?
or
My mom and mom and mom and mom & dad?
And would the child have to take last name of which remarried parent - or would parents be referred to as just generic 'your parents' or 'care takers' so as not to refer to them as Mr & Mrs WrongLastName?

So here is one of the negative effects that gay marriage has on society (though not directly on my marriage), and you all have discussed it, partially, in this thread. Gay marriage dilutes our society of meaningful and important labels. In that world or perspective the label of "Parents" disappears for you can never have "Parents". You can only have a "Parent." A child can never have both a Mom and a Dad (in the same relationship). So a child will never be able to say, "My mom and dad..." or "My parents...". He'll have to say things like "My guardians..." or "My care takers..." or "My Dad and his partner..." and similar statements on the female side. This dilutes and confuses society.

 

[Vassago]

So here is one of the negative effects that gay marriage has on society (though not directly on my marriage), and you all have discussed it, partially, in this thread. Gay marriage dilutes our society of meaningful and important labels. In that world or perspective the label of "Parents" disappears for you can never have "Parents". You can only have a "Parent." A child can never have both a Mom and a Dad (in the same relationship). So a child will never be able to say, "My mom and dad..." or "My parents...". He'll have to say things like "My guardians..." or "My care takers..." or "My Dad and his partner..." and similar statements on the female side. This dilutes and confuses society.

Not going to beat a dead horse here because I think that others covered it well enough. Just because it confuses YOUR society, doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. 50 years ago, partners from different races confused society and caused the same discomfort. From my experience, gay marriage only causes discomfort in the people on the outside looking in. In fact, the only discomfort the children will receive will be from the narrow-minded.

A baseball park (this actually happened) was sued by a man in the gay community for discrimination because they wouldn't give him the Mother's Day door prize. He either won or the park just settled and now no longer will have a Mother's Day promotional baseball game. So, how long will it be before Mother's Day disappears completely, if we continue down that path? This dilutes and confuses society.

Sexual identity is becoming a more fluid term. 50 years ago, sexual identify infused that cooking and housework were done by the woman of the house and cars and work were done by the man. I think you'll agree that society redefined gender roles in these respects. Some of the top chefs of the world are men and my girlfriend knows more about cars than I do. In my opinion, he should have won. It's again, a narrow-minded society that will not move forward.

In their world, what are the chances that anyone will ever really have a true "Sister" or true (from the same two parents - there's that word again) "Brother." A lot more remote. And I could continue with all of the other important familial labels that define us. This confuses and dilutes society.

Their world is also your world. Stop separating yourself from them. This is what places you amongst the narrow-minded. If you had a relative who "came out," I wonder how you would react. What makes a "true" relative? Just being born from the same parents? That's far too narrow-minded with society today. 50% of marriages end in divorce. There are more mixed families today than ever before. I grew up in one. My step-brothers and half-brother are just as much my true family as blood brothers and sisters and I make no designation between them except to explain that there isn't a designation to you. My step-father is my dad. My birth father only recently started being back in my life more, so that means I have two fathers. Not really all that confusing to someone who lives it, only to the people on the outside looking in. Not my problem. It's your's.

 

[Vassago]

Right. We are not a theocracy and were definitely not intended to be. We don't want Islam's Sharia being the law of the land either, or any other specific religion's moral code. So government allows religions to practice freely. They can regulate themselves internally, but no government officials are stipulating membership requirements, beliefs, doctrines, dues, etc. We have government laws to protect citizens from generally accepted immoral behavior: don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, be honest in your dealings with each other, obey traffic signals and the speed limit, etc. These all promote a stable healthy society.

Of course. Morals are not bound to the religious only. I'm not religious and wasn't truly raised to be so. I was still raised with morals and values to honor and respect EVERYONE, regardless of religious belief, sexual orientation, sexual identity, race, etc...

So, what about traditional marriage (between a man and a woman)? Does it help or hurt society in general? I think it is well established that it helps. Government encourages it through legislation, individuals are defined by it (single, married, separated, divorced), kids generally grow up planning on it (I know that is changing). Cities are built around families. There are activities for mom's, dad's, parents, children, and grandparents.

Well established to whom? Government encourages marriage for simplicity in dealing with legal matters. Why would that be limited to "traditional" marriage? Everything you said in this paragraph would equally and already does equally apply to gay marriage and families with a same-sex couple.

And, finally, to the point, what about gay marriage? Does it help or hurt society? In another post I mention one way I think it hurts society (the dilution of important labels). It also, generally, does not encourage the birth of children (even traditional marriage is struggling with that one these days). And what about the diseases that come from it (I haven't studied it so I don't know)? Isn't AIDS more common among them? What about STDs? Generally, I conclude that gay marriage is not good for society and yes, it should be legislated against and not encouraged. What am I not considering that would make it more beneficial for society?

Those labels you mention are archaic. They are unimportant in a family. I've already explained how I have one mom and two dads. Millions of children today are the product of single parents of either sex to multiple parents of multiple sexes. Again, only confusing to the people ont he outside looking in.

Birth of children? Tell that to my lesbian friends who found a surrogate donor. If they choose to have children, there are plenty of options to do so. Sure, they may not be completely related by blood (although in some instances, it's a family member that is a surrogate) but I've already explained how the definition of a family is not and should not be limited to only blood relatives.

As mentioned above, being in a gay marriage does not make you automatically promiscuous. In fact, I would be far more likely to believe that legalizing gay marriage would help slow the spread of STDs in the gay community. Married individuals are far less likely to cheat or be promiscuous than unmarried individuals. That's far more of a fact.

AIDS is even more of an issue in South Africa. It's not because of promiscuity in the gay community there. It's because of heterosexual ra**. Your argument is invalid.

 

[Vassago]

Foundoil is correct that homosexual unions may cause "society" problems with its language, as does non marriage between heterosexuals. I have trouble on some occassion referring to my grandsons father as he is not married to my daughter yet, the plans were interrupted by my late wife's illness.

But we will get over this problem after all language is a living thing, well not Latin.

I do think that some gays are their own worst enemy by stupid actions such as that at the ball park.

Brian

Why would it cause society problems? Why not just call it what it is, a marriage of two individuals, regardless of sexes of the individuals involved?

Some people are their own worst enemy. That one individual does not represent an entire sexual orientation any more than Osama Bin Laden represented an entire religion he claimed to follow.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Vass you are too defensive, you refuse to see the obvious problems that may and will occur, in a "normal" marriage there is no confusion when a child talks about mum or dad, but what happens with 2 of the same sex? I'm sure I don't know and I'm sure that those on that situation cope, but for the majority of society it will probably be confusing/ difficult.

That one individual exists in many cases, we have had it over here , it grabs the headlines and shows that at least some, which is all too easily translated to all, gays are unreasonable and want to force their agenda on society as a whole. I'm amazed that you cannot see the danger in that.

Brian

 

[Vassago]

Vass you are too defensive, you refuse to see the obvious problems that may and will occur, in a "normal" marriage there is no confusion when a child talks about mum or dad, but what happens with 2 of the same sex? I'm sure I don't know and I'm sure that those on that situation cope, but for the majority of society it will probably be confusing/ difficult.

That one individual exists in many cases, we have had it over here , it grabs the headlines and shows that at least some, which is all too easily translated to all, gays are unreasonable and want to force their agenda on society as a whole. I'm amazed that you cannot see the danger in that.

Brian

Only confusing for people on the outside from my experience. Not confusing for my lesbian couple's son. He understands perfectly well what's up just like a single parent's child, etc...

I'm not defensive, I just have an open enough mind to understand where the confusion really lies. Hetero parents don't want to have to explain to their kids why their friend has two moms or two dads. That's their problem.

 

[Brianwarnock]

:banghead:
I give up , I do wonder if people read what is actually written

Reread the last sentence of my first paragraph and tell me how it differs to what you wrote.

Brian

 

[Brianwarnock]

Well it's time to go and Vass is obviously not going to explain.

Brian

 

[Galaxiom]

I'm sure that those [in families of same sex marriages] cope, but for the majority of society it will probably be confusing/ difficult.

They find it confusing and difficult because of their prejudices. That is their problem.

What some here are arguing is that those who are in the situation should be stigmatised and hidden from society because others are uncomfortable.

And despite protestations about involving religion in the debate I will again emphasise that such prejudices stem from religious dogma. Religion has long be a central part of most societies and the attitudes persist even where its direct influence has waned.

The overt irrationality of the arguments offered particularly by FoundOil and Rainlover demonstrate an attitude that defies objective sensibilities. Attitudes maintained in the face of conflicting evidence are a central tenet of religious belief.