Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
That sounds complitely stupid. If you want to hear my opinion no private organisation should be forced to do something against their principles, example chruches forced to do gay marriages. That enforcement is as silly as forcing a Hindu to eat beef.

"I'm sorry sir, we can't serve you as you are the wrong colour"...

Which is the core issue here, really. The tenets of some religions, due to archaic beliefs, would be violated because someone wants to be contractually bonded to someone with similar physiology. On the other hand, there's alternatives, like another church or a courthouse wedding. At the same time, that's not good enough because of the fact that "homosexuality is natural" and "it's discrimination(one to eight exclamation points)".

Ultimately,who do you compel to operate against their core being, the clergyman who thinks you're fundamentally undermining his faith, or the people who demand their services? Much as I hate religion, I gotta say that no one should be forced to perform an act they don't agree with, so I gotta side with the priest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Were I a satanist, or even an atheist (not much of a stretch) and I approached a priest letting him know full well my stance, but demanding his service, would you be so appalled that he refused me the ceremony?

I just had three friends transfer to school in OK. They are foreign. I really hope the bigotry doesn't extend to them, but I'm afraid it will. What a sorry state of affairs.

They'll probably be fine, long as they're not gay and don't get too close to Arizona or Texas.

 daedalus wrote:
They'll probably be fine, long as they're not gay and don't get too close to Arizona or Texas.

They moved from Texas to OK actually. Haha.

Not going to happen. Imagine the loss of funds from marriage fee's? Government got into it because "Hey, they need a marriage license to get married.......Hundred dollars!" but I do not care at all as long as no "normal" marriage or same sex marriage does not get an advantage over one another.

You're thinking small man. They give up the marriage fees, but they recoup in spades on the gain from the tax breaks.

Prove there is a god, or even that anything at all you believe is true, and I might grant there is a reason for treating certain groups as subhuman, even if I did not agree with it (even if god existed, I still don't think that is a great reason to be a horrible human being).

As an atheist and being straight and already married, I very much doubt I will be in a position to require a religious wedding but I am given to understand that even with the word of god apparently compelling you to be a biggot, there are some good human beings who will perform religious weddings for people who commit the sin of loving the wrong kind of person... you know, those with the wrong skin colour ir gender...

 Ouze wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are you in favor of repealing all tax benefits,

Yes.

military survivor benefits to spouses,

You can designate whoever you want on the form.

inheritance laws, etc etc etc?

Write a will.

I had to show this post just so I could say: I agree entirely.

The state has no business solemnizing marriages. It is a private covenant between two people and their house of worship or secular equivalent. Marriage to a consenting adult is, IMO a human right the state has no authority to either convey or deny.

That's the difference between a civil marriage and a religious marriage.

The state whether solemnizing marriages or not would still need to record them, so you would have to sign some forms and get a certificate showing you were married. That is the way marriage actually is done in some countries, certainly in Japan at any rate. You get married any way you like, then you go to the register office and fill in the forms. Then you are married. If you don't fill in the forms you aren't married, no matter how many religious ceremonies you did.

IDK about Oklahoma.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's the difference between a civil marriage and a religious marriage.

The state whether solemnizing marriages or not would still need to record them, so you would have to sign some forms and get a certificate showing you were married. That is the way marriage actually is done in some countries, certainly in Japan at any rate. You get married any way you like, then you go to the register office and fill in the forms. Then you are married. If you don't fill in the forms you aren't married, no matter how many religious ceremonies you did.

IDK about Oklahoma.

That's how it's done in the States as well.

"Civil marriage" is basically just a shorthand way of entering into a bunch of different contracts, and of course a couple tax breaks.

The state can get out of that business very easily.

 Seaward wrote:
The state can get out of that business very easily.

Not really. You could duplicate most of the contract aspects of marriage with private contracts, but then you have the chaos of millions of slightly different marriage contracts to deal with. The only people who win in that situation are the lawyers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
That sounds complitely stupid. If you want to hear my opinion no private organisation should be forced to do something against their principles, example chruches forced to do gay marriages. That enforcement is as silly as forcing a Hindu to eat beef.

No, it's not even close to the same. A religious official performing a (legal) marriage is acting as a representative of the government, and the government has every right to require you to meet certain standards (like marrying everyone who wishes to get married) before granting you that power. The equivalent of forcing a Hindu to eat beef would be forcing a church to perform a wedding ceremony that had no legal status for a couple they don't wish to marry. So sure, insist on your right to refuse wedding services to people you don't like, you just won't get the authority to make those marriages have any legal value.

SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
That sounds complitely stupid. If you want to hear my opinion no private organisation should be forced to do something against their principles, example chruches forced to do gay marriages. That enforcement is as silly as forcing a Hindu to eat beef.

"I'm sorry sir, we can't serve you as you are the wrong colour"...

This a bit of a stramanshis argument (see the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man), because organisations who's main principles include rasism should be rather banned.

SilverMK2 wrote:Prove there is a god, or even that anything at all you believe is true, and I might grant there is a reason for treating certain groups as subhuman, even if I did not agree with it (even if god existed, I still don't think that is a great reason to be a horrible human being).

As an atheist and being straight and already married, I very much doubt I will be in a position to require a religious wedding but I am given to understand that even with the word of god apparently compelling you to be a biggot, there are some good human beings who will perform religious weddings for people who commit the sin of loving the wrong kind of person... you know, those with the wrong skin colour ir gender...

Now, I do not think proving the exsistence of God is at all relevant to this discussion.

Of course now we get to the is homosexuality disease or not discussion. Oh, well I would say it is a mental disorder like depression. I think that it is a normal disese so having it does not make you a bad person or anything to be punished. The reason I believe it is a disease is that that it prevents the natural chance of getting a child. Of course everybody is gonna pull the "it does not need to be natural", but let me give another example: Is it a disease if a person can't eat oraly but has to be fed to the vein? I also think it is silly that the discussion has mostly two sides arguing: side one: homosexuality should be emphasised, side two: homosexuals are perverts and need to be punished. Now, I do not belong to eather side but I think homosexuality should be tried to be cured by scientisific methods, not by some pseudo science.

I also do not believe in being horrible person to gays as I said I only wish for them to be cured or let live in piece if there is no cure. But for the wedding thing I still say that the church should have the power to choose do they want gay marriages or not. Also for priests doing at the moment gay marriages I find rather silly because it is against the principles of the church. These coversations tend to center around christianity but lets have another example: do you think that forcing a muslim to eat pork would be reasonable?

And for a final point where have you gotten the idea that religious people are bad or discriminatory. Even the bible says "love each other" and something along the lines "may the sinles cast the first stone".



Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS when I am referring to marriage I mean the religious ritual, I am sorry for any misconvinience, because the non religious marriage is referred in my mother tong a maistrate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PPS although my other opinions, I support gays to have the right to non religious marriage.

 Sienisoturi wrote:
This a bit of a stramanshis argument (see the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man), because organisations who's main principles include rasism should be rather banned.

It really isn't, given the past history of racism and segregation in the US.

Oh, well I would say it is a mental disorder like depression.

Then you would be a bigot.

The reason I believe it is a disease is that that it prevents the natural chance of getting a child.

So do a lot of other things. Sex without the (significant) possibility of having a (non-aborted) child is awesome, and not limited to gay people.

Is it a disease if a person can't eat oraly but has to be fed to the vein?

Do you really not see any difference between having kids, something that is completely optional, and being able to meet basic requirements for continued life? Or do you consider it a disease if someone decides they don't want kids, or can't find anyone willing to have kids with them?

Now, I do not belong to eather side but I think homosexuality should be tried to be cured by scientisific methods, not by some pseudo science.

Curing homosexuality makes about as much sense as curing black people. And yes, you're just as bad a person as someone who proposes the latter.

Also for priests doing at the moment gay marriages I find rather silly because it is against the principles of the church. These coversations tend to center around christianity but lets have another example: do you think that forcing a muslim to eat pork would be reasonable?

As previously stated, your analogy doesn't work. Performing state-recognized marriages is acting as a representative of the government, not just having a religious ceremony. If you want the ability to decide who you're going to offer that service to then you should have to forfeit the "officialness" of your marriages, and leave them with no more meaning than the "marriage" I just performed between my two tank models.

And for a final point where have you gotten the idea that religious people are bad or discriminatory.

Probably from the vast amounts of religiously-motivated discrimination in the US.

 Sienisoturi wrote:
I think homosexuality should be tried to be cured by scientisific methods, not by some pseudo science.

You already crossed into pseudo science whenever you started to talk about "curing" homosexuality...

We are doing good on our Bingo since midnight though...

 Sienisoturi wrote:
This a bit of a stramanshis argument (see the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man), because organisations who's main principles include rasism should be rather banned.

You realise of course that there were plenty of religious arguments about equality of the races, especially in America right? And there were lots of places that refused to serve peple based on race, because of "deeply held principles". Thankfully the government stepped in and told people to stop being so bloody stupid and most people got on with being a little less horrible to one another because of some totally incorrect sentiments.

I would suggest you go and read the link you provided and bring yourself up to speed on what a strawman actually is.

Now, I do not think proving the exsistence of God is at all relevant to this discussion.

If you want to claim your arguments are valid, you need to prove the validity of your argument.

Of course now we get to the is homosexuality disease or not discussion.

Erm... what?

Oh, well I would say it is a mental disorder like depression.

It is a "disorder" in the sense that it is not the majority state of existance, however it is very far from a medical disorder.

I think that it is a normal disese so having it does not make you a bad person or anything to be punished.

So, ignoring the sentiment of it being a disease, you suggest that homosexuality is a part of the normal spectrum of humanity and there is nothing wrong with it?

The reason I believe it is a disease is that that it prevents the natural chance of getting a child.

...

Perhaps you are not quite aware of what a disease actually is. Does "being a priest" suddenly become a disease in some religions since they choose not to have sex with anyone (well...)?

Of course everybody is gonna pull the "it does not need to be natural", but let me give another example: Is it a disease if a person can't eat oraly but has to be fed to the vein?

I again advise you to go and look up what the word disease actually means.

I also think it is silly that the discussion has mostly two sides arguing: side one: homosexuality should be emphasised, side two: homosexuals are perverts and need to be punished.

Erm... I am pretty sure there is no side trying to emphasise homosexuality. Promote equality? Certainly.

Now, I do not belong to eather side but I think homosexuality should be tried to be cured by scientisific methods,

So, earlier you suggest that homosexuality is a normal part of the human makeup, but now suggest that it needs to be "cured".

My favorite colour is blue, do I need to be cured of this because I should like red?

not by some pseudo science.

Speaking of which... perhaps you might want to go away and read up on what you are actually talking about, and actualy look at some scientifically valid and peer reviewed work.

I also do not believe in being horrible person to gays as I said I only wish for them to be cured or let live in piece if there is no cure.

Again, go and read up on what homosexuality actually is...

But for the wedding thing I still say that the church should have the power to choose do they want gay marriages or not.

So, we can go back to refusing to marry people of different races too? How about refusing to marry people who support the wrong political party?

Yay!

Also for priests doing at the moment gay marriages I find rather silly because it is against the principles of the church.

Clearly they don't think so.

These coversations tend to center around christianity but lets have another example: do you think that forcing a muslim to eat pork would be reasonable?

There is not really an equivilance here. There is no legal issue surrounding what meat you can or cannot consume, nor any rights etc attached to the meats you eat.

And for a final point where have you gotten the idea that religious people are bad or discriminatory. Even the bible says "love each other" and something along the lines "may the sinles cast the first stone".

And yet you seem to find it fine that they block people who love one another getting married, either specifically in the religious sense, or married at all in the eyes of the law. And you seem to be suggesting that homosexuals need to be cured of their "disease". Not very loving.

PPS although my other opinions, I support gays to have the right to non religious marriage.

So, why can't they have a religious marriage as well?

Edit: Fixed quotes.

Please refer to my three reasons on page three and ignore this.

 Sienisoturi wrote:
I do not think that curing homosexuality is pseudo science if it is done according to the ethics of doctors. Although I know that at the moment there are not any serious ways to cure it, but I think they should research for that cure. For the thing that homosexuality is a disease I already explained.

The concept that homosexuality is something that needs to be "cured" is the pseudoscience here. Although there is no arguing that a lot of attempts to "cure" homosexuality are entirely without any founding in scientific or medical principle and certainly there is no question that forcing people to undergo a cure (especially to something that does not need curing) goes against all ethical considerations of medicine.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
I do not think that curing homosexuality is pseudo science if it is done according to the ethics of doctors. Although I know that at the moment there are not any serious ways to cure it, but I think they should research for that cure. For the thing that homosexuality is a disease I already explained.

The concept that homosexuality is something that needs to be "cured" is the pseudoscience here. Although there is no arguing that a lot of attempts to "cure" homosexuality are entirely without any founding in scientific or medical principle and certainly there is no question that forcing people to undergo a cure (especially to something that does not need curing) goes against all ethical considerations of medicine.

I believe homosexuality is a disease due to the reasons I already explained.

This:

I do not think that curing homosexuality is pseudo science if it is done according to the ethics of doctors. Although I know that at the moment there are not any serious ways to cure it, but I think they should research for that cure. For the thing that homosexuality is a disease I already explained.

Makes reading all of this



unnecessary.

 Sienisoturi wrote:
I believe homosexuality is a disease due to the reasons I already explained.

Nothing you said even hinted at a reason for homosexuality being considered a disease. I'm a clinical scientist, I know what a disease is and I know a lot of ways to cure and/or mittigate their effects... if you don't want to go and research the issue yourself at least trust me when I tell you homosexuality is not a disease.

Funny enough as it is, I actually would like to see them implement this and see where non-marriage leads the state.

Well the 'homosexuality is a mental disorder' hasn't been accurate according to the DSM since, what, DSM III? II? One of those. It's not a disorder according to any seriously regarded medical or psychological professional. Anyone who says that it is seriously a mental condition loses all credibility in that area for either failing at stats or producing bs papers and should be ranked equivalent to Wakefield (of immunisation article fame) in terms of their contributions to society and general medical knowledge

 Sienisoturi wrote:


I believe homosexuality is a disease due to the reasons I already explained.

 Sienisoturi wrote:
I think homosexuality should be tried to be cured by scientisific methods, not by some pseudo science.

I think Homophobia is a mental disease which should be cured by scientific methods.

I suggest rounding up all homophobic conservative christians, strapping them to a chair and forcing them to watch a marathon of lesbian and gay romance movies. Periodically a lesbian or gay man will plant a big sloppy kiss on them for good measure.

Then when they're cured, they shall be granted honorary membership status of the LGBT community and a lovely rainbow scarf as a memento of their life changing experience.

 Sienisoturi wrote:
Don't you think that referring to race when we are talking about homosexuality is a strawman.

No, because there are a lot of similarities between the two situations in the US. For example, the arguments against gay marriage are often almost word-for-word copies of past arguments against interracial marriage.

I am not familiar with the word bigot but to my knowlege it is amock name for conservatives, and I do not think that mocking brings this discussion forward at all.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

And I'd say you fit that definition pretty well.

True but the big differencre here is that straight people have the chance and will probably still at some point have children.

The point here is that it isn't a "disease" to have sex that doesn't produce children. Lots of people have lots of sex without any intent to produce children, so why is it only a "disease" when the reason there won't be any children is that the people involved are gay instead of a man and a woman using birth control?

The reason that I see people not having children as a disease is that no specie (except some medusas) can survive without reproduction. I do konsider the choice of not having children as a similie to a disease becasue all healthy humans have the desire to make children. Although this can also be thought as cheating nature which in this case is irresponsible. For the people who have no chance to get children becasue they have no partner I call that unluckines.

Sorry, but this is absolute nonsense. People who only want sex with their own gender are a small minority, and their actions have no meaningful impact on the birth rate or our survival as a species. And there are plenty of people who are not gay but still don't want children. In fact, it's a safe bet that the majority of sex is done for reasons other than producing children.

Also, if you want to argue about what is "natural", there are theories that some non-zero rate of homosexuality is actually a desirable attribute in a species, whether because the gay members of the group contribute to supporting offspring without producing any of their own (and therefore have more resources to spend on that support), or because homosexuality is an inevitable side effect of some other valuable attribute.

Being black does not in my memory have any negative effects like homosexuality which I already explained before.

Neither does homosexuality.

In that I meant the religious not the state marriage. Also for this, don't you there have this strickt separation of religion and state so the govermental marriage should not have any religious requirements.

I don't think you understand the situation here. In the US a "religious" marriage has legal status because we grant religious officials (along with other people) the right to perform "state" marriages, including all relevant paperwork. The argument about "forcing" religious officials to perform marriages is about whether or not they have to perform the "state" aspect of a marriage. Whether or not they want to perform a religious ceremony or not is irrelevant, and nobody is arguing that they should be forced to do so.

I think it is sad if some people use religion as a tool of violence but that does not mean that all religious people are bad.

Nobody said that all religious people are bad. But you're blind if you can't see how religiously-motivated discrimination is a relevant issue here.

@Sienisoturi:

Homosexuals have no desire to be cured of anything. And if single individuals do, it's probably due to bigotry and peer pressure, which is a completely different thing.

And since homosexuals do not want a 'cure', it would go against the "ethics of doctors" right from the start to even consider searching a "cure". Would you want them to forcefully administer it to people who don't want this "cure"? Not doing stuff like that is kind of the 101 of medical ethics.

 Sienisoturi wrote:
I believe homosexuality is a disease due to the reasons I already explained.

And you aren't just wrong, you're laughably wrong. You're in the same category as flat-earth theorists and the crazy guy on the corner screaming about mind control in the chemtrails.

Please refer to my three reasons on page three and ignore this.

Cure...disease...

"I looked it up and homosexuality fits in that category. "

But it fething doesn't. Its been specifically removed from a list of disorders, that has then been revised at least twice!

 Sienisoturi wrote:
Stuff

Yeah... I think I am going to take a break from this conversation now. Hopefully someone else will be able to get through to you.

 d-usa wrote:
Cure...disease...

Exalted