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.

As an anthropology major and man of science and reason, two people of the same sex cannot successfully reproduce. Yes I get where people can adopt and artificially inseminate or get a man or woman to help them create a child, but in the grand scheme of the species survival, if we sent a bunch of homosexuals out into space to explore the vastness of the universe, we wouldn't make it to the closest star system before dying out. I'm not against it I'm not for it, it's just not my style, but I'm all for the survival of our species and if every man and woman were homosexual to the fullest extent where they refused to bang to preserve the species, we would cease to exist.
And don't mention those stupid lizards that died out but one pregnant female survived and birthed all females and they still somehow exist and are born pregnant or something, we're not freakin lizards.
I'm just sayin, if you're for intergalactic space travel, don't be gay. Otherwise do whatever the hell you want.

As for the whole religious aspect of it, you may or may not be able to choose to be gay, but you sure as hell have a choice in which religion you choose to follow. And there are plenty of them out there, plus in America anyway you can make up your own and get a tax break! But if you still choose to be Catholic or Christian or whatever, next time you go to church ask the people there if they bash you or treat you bad or look at you funny, What Would Jesus Do?

Boggy Man wrote:
I think I've only heard two secular arguments that hold water. (While still not standing up to close scrutiny.) One is that the state should encourage the nuclear family as it is much better in raising children than alternate models. While it's true that stable households are much more nurturing the evidence for opposite sex couples raising more well adjusted children is practically nonexistent.

I'm no expert, but I believe that this line of thinking is born from a hole as well... There is plenty of evidence to show that kids who come up in a single parent household have more "issues" in life than those who came up in households with 2 parents. Thing is, without criminal records, or mental health professionals talking about the number of people they see, we have no real basis for this argument, because well adjusted people, generally, don't seek mental health help, and they definitely, generally don't end up on criminal registries (by going to prison, or being convicted of crimes, etc). Of course there are going to be outliers from each side (one side being 1 parent, the other being 2), but I believe that, at least in the case of the outliers (for lack of a better term) that are successful from a 1 parent household generally gained a father/mother figure outside of the home. Notable examples of this are the numerous professional athletes in the US who grew up with only a mom. In interviews most of them express tremendous gratitude and place their School and College football coaches at a fatherly level. The coaches figuratively became a father to these guys. Conversely, the men that I was around in the army who were in similar situations were universally the ones that we had the most issues with. Whether we can put a name or term on what the exact role/mentoring that a male does for other males or not, I personally think that there are actually things that men cannot learn from living in a 1 mom, or 2 mom household; and vice-versa for girls growing up in a 1 dad or 2 dad household (though, at least on girls, I don't think it's as big an impact or difference as with boys lacking a father-figure)


All that said, I follow your argument that the gov't wants to keep the nuclear family alive, but I agree that, from a government point of view, they should be looking more to the stability of the house, not the combination of bits that the adult couple have.

hotsauceman1 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

any young man who is not a liberal, has no heart

any old man that is not conservative, has no brain

I hate that saying. as if people re supposed to follow a predetermined path of ideals

It's not so much a set or predetermined path of ideals, just that, most younger people are full of piss and vinegar, and want to change the world Right. Now. As they age and become wiser, some of their views may or may not change, but even the ones that don't change will probably become more accepted, come to pass and become more of the conservative ideal

nkelsch wrote:
In regards to 'weddings' you almost never actually 'rent' the church. You get to request to use the church by being a 'member' of the church in good standing (which means you have been up to date with your tithes) and you usually get the pastor or priest to agree to the ceremony and pay them a nominal fee. You then also pay any of the people who work the event like an organist and such.

I know that they make it complicated, I've had a few friends who had to be baptized especially for their wedding, and attend church services for a few weeks before etc... Essentially jumping through the hoops. 'Personally' I consider this a religious vetting process and slightly offensive, it isn't something I would do (It's also a bit pointless, as I'm sure those people never went back after the wedding).

I know when my father died, he specified in his will that he wanted his funeral to be a humanist ceremony. I went to the undertaker and they had a list of local crematoriums (all of which had chapels), and a list of people who would conduct the funeral in different faiths. I picked the ones I wanted, paid my money and that was that.

Obviously I couldn't have specified that I wanted a priest to conduct a humanist ceremony because that is not his job. However I was accommodated for, there was a 'minister' on the books who specialized in humanist ceremonies.

I really feel that getting married should be the same. If they are in the business of performing weddings for money (which they are), then it should be made much more difficult for them to discriminate. Churches are not like other buildings, they are often quite important land marks and public spaces. In this country they are also often listed buildings of great age and beauty. It is understandable that people would want very much to use them for weddings, I personally think that if they pay their money then they should be allowed to, without being discriminated against on religious grounds.

Why don't we let gay people have marriage but call it something else...

joemysak311 wrote:
As an anthropology major and man of science and reason, two people of the same sex cannot successfully reproduce. Yes I get where people can adopt and artificially inseminate or get a man or woman to help them create a child, but in the grand scheme of the species survival, if we sent a bunch of homosexuals out into space to explore the vastness of the universe, we wouldn't make it to the closest star system before dying out. I'm not against it I'm not for it, it's just not my style, but I'm all for the survival of our species and if every man and woman were homosexual to the fullest extent where they refused to bang to preserve the species, we would cease to exist.
And don't mention those stupid lizards that died out but one pregnant female survived and birthed all females and they still somehow exist and are born pregnant or something, we're not freakin lizards.
I'm just sayin, if you're for intergalactic space travel, don't be gay. Otherwise do whatever the hell you want.

Um...... whuuuuuuut? You do realize that there has been some scientific observation that 'homosexuality' may be mammals natural response to overpopulation and may actually be 'good' for the survival of species by hard-wiring creatures in overpopulated societies to be attracted to the opposite pheromones to result in a reduction in offspring? There are also peer reviewed studies that show that children born into households with older siblings of the same gender are more likely to be gay.

http://classes.biology.ucsd.edu/bisp194-1.FA09/Blanchard_2001.pdf

'Refuse to bang to preserve the species'? Seriously? Interstellar space travel? Seriously? Does the survival of the human race due to low birth rate or need to colonize planets generations away a valid talking point to this discussion or a reason there is a 'problem"? By time either of those are 'issues which need to be addressed' the science will probably have been solved so it probably won't be much of an issue... And hell, Even gay people can 'choose' to force breeding in the name of the end of the human race or science in a space program though I suspect it would be done more in a dish and less in a manual sperm deposit so it won't matter the orientation of the parents at all. Breeding and sexual preference are not at all tied in today's society or in the future. Homosexuality is not "the refusal to have genetic offspring" as you tend to imply with your 'cease to exist' statement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:
. Churches are not like other buildings, they are often quite important land marks and public spaces. In this country they are also often listed buildings of great age and beauty. It is understandable that people would want very much to use them for weddings, I personally think that if they pay their money then they should be allowed to, without being discriminated against on religious grounds.

They are not public spaces. They are private spaces like a home. Imagine if you own a really nice historic house, by your logic, I should have the right to get married in your house or throw a party there as long as I throw cash in your face simply because historically relevant buildings are the right of the entire population.

This is why churches are not actually rented, they are reserved for use by members of the congregation. If you are not a member, why should you have the government come in and force the church to let you use it? Why should I not be able to have the government come in and tell you that you have to let me use your historical house? This isn't Chuck E Cheeses...

Now there are those who feel the government should seize assets and force churches to pay corporate taxes and have business laws apply to them. I guess a historical building is enough to seize property from a church/business/private citizen for it to be available to the public in your eyes. (sometimes the government does this through eminent domain already)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And churches are not in the business of making money off of weddings. They make surprisingly little on weddings and the weddings are only at times when the church is idle from non-use anyways. To believe that is how churches work and to compare them to 'for profit' entertainment/wedding/funeral venues is a little disingenuous and reeks of anti-religious institution propaganda.

 Smacks wrote:


I really feel that getting married should be the same. If they are in the business of performing weddings for money (which they are), then it should be made much more difficult for them to discriminate. Churches are not like other buildings, they are often quite important land marks and public spaces. In this country they are also often listed buildings of great age and beauty. It is understandable that people would want very much to use them for weddings, I personally think that if they pay their money then they should be allowed to, without being discriminated against on religious grounds.

Um, no. They are not in the "business of performing weddings for money" and it's laughable that you think that. Most Catholic Churches won't perform a wedding ceremony without a mass or allow non-Catholics to be wed in them. Because for Catholics, it about the covenant of marriage and is a very important piece of the faith as it is considered a sacrament.

Churches should absolutely not have to accommodate people they don't want to simply because the building are pretty or because they hold historical significance.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:
.

And churches are not in the business of making money off of weddings. They make surprisingly little on weddings and the weddings are only at times when the church is idle from non-use anyways. To believe that is how churches work and to compare them to 'for profit' entertainment/wedding/funeral venues is a little disingenuous and reeks of anti-religious institution propaganda.

Couldn't have said it better.

The gak would truly hit the fan if the courts tried to force churches to hold weddings against their beliefs, so I think that scenario is far in the future, if ever.

nkelsch wrote:
Imagine if you own a really nice historic house, by your logic, I should have the right to get married in your house or throw a party there as long as I throw cash in your face simply because historically relevant buildings are the right of the entire population.

People already turn up, wave cash, and get married in churches. How does that fit into your analogy? Oh wait it doesn't because it's a nonsense straw-man. if I was in the business of renting out my home for functions, and I discriminated against a customer based on their religion then I would be breaking the law.

This is why churches are not actually rented, they are reserved for use by members of the congregation. If you are not a member, why should you have the government come in and force the church to let you use it? Why should I not be able to have the government come in and tell you that you have to let me use your historical house? This isn't Chuck E Cheeses...

The upkeep of many churches in the UK is often subsidized by public money in a separate fund from historical houses, which is "historical places of worship". Key difference there, and the fund doesn't specify one religion over another.

The argument is somewhat academic anyway, as more and more churches in the UK are failing to turn a profit and are being forced to rent out their spaces as function halls. Eventually economics may well force them to stop discriminating.

 Smacks wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Imagine if you own a really nice historic house, by your logic, I should have the right to get married in your house or throw a party there as long as I throw cash in your face simply because historically relevant buildings are the right of the entire population.

People already turn up, wave cash, and get married in churches. How does that fit into your analogy? Oh wait it doesn't because it's a nonsense straw-man. if I was in the business of renting out my home for functions, and I discriminated against a customer based on their religion then I would be breaking the law.

This is why churches are not actually rented, they are reserved for use by members of the congregation. If you are not a member, why should you have the government come in and force the church to let you use it? Why should I not be able to have the government come in and tell you that you have to let me use your historical house? This isn't Chuck E Cheeses...

The upkeep of many churches in the UK is often subsidized by public money in a separate fund from historical houses, which is "historical places of worship". Key difference there, and the fund doesn't specify one religion over another.

They don't wave cash at the churches in my religion. Where are these churches at that get rented out, and can you provide specifics and links on that claim?

You don't seem to understand how getting married at a church actually works. It's not a "service" you can "buy" like getting a new haircut. There's more to it.

Furthermore, I can't speak for the UK, but most countries spend money on maintaining old monuments, including churces, as it improves the overall look, it raises net worth of any nearby ground that might be up for sale, etc. Not to mention that a LOT of public services get supported by the state and wouldn't be able to run without it.

To me, it appears that you are fishing for reasons to irrationally discredit Christanity / churches instead of trying to make actual points.

Relapse wrote:
They don't wave cash at the churches in my religion.

So people get married in the church for free do they? Lucky you.

Where are these churches at that get rented out, and can you provide specifics and links on that claim?

I did say churches in the UK. What claim specifically would you like me to provide a link on?

 Smacks wrote:

Relapse wrote:
They don't wave cash at the churches in my religion.

So people get married in the church for free do they? Lucky you.

Where are these churches at that get rented out, and can you provide specifics and links on that claim?

I did say churches in the UK. What claim specifically would you like me to provide a link on?

That people rent out churches for weddings. It's a bit of an alien concept to me and I am trying to wrap my brain around people having to do that.

Relapse wrote:
That people rent out churches for weddings. It's a bit of an alien concept to me and I am trying to wrap my brain around people having to do that.

Are you disputing that people get married in churches?

 Smacks wrote:

Relapse wrote:
That people rent out churches for weddings. It's a bit of an alien concept to me and I am trying to wrap my brain around people having to do that.

Are you disputing that people get married in churches?

Now you're just being silly. You came in with this statement that people wave cash at churches to rent them for marriages and I wanted specifics because I've never heard of anyone having to do that. If you're just trying to throw bs statements around, ok, enjoy.

 Smacks wrote:

Relapse wrote:
They don't wave cash at the churches in my religion.

So people get married in the church for free do they? Lucky you.

It was $150 for us and that few was to pay the pianist and music director for their time.

So yeah, pretty much free.

 cincydooley wrote:
And who would be forcing the churches to marry people they didn't want to? The government I presume?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
They probably would have made that argument to defeat Brown vs Board of Education if that were true.

Public school vs private church, perhaps?

I think segregation, and Brown V Board of Education, also impacted segregation in private areas as well.

And could you argue that officiants are acting as agents of the state and not as private citizens?

I don't think the flower-shop case tried to go the 4th route either, but I'm not sure on that one.

The best case against it would probably be the 1st.

 cincydooley wrote:
Also, I think it's awfully unfair to call anyone that doesn't agree with gay marriage on religious grounds bigots or nutters.

Discrimination is no less discriminatory if it's written in a religious text.

I'm not sure why a religious issue should affect civil society.

If your church doesn't allow Gay marriage isn't that enough for you, or do people feel the need to go out their way to ruin other peoples good times?

Relapse wrote:
Now you're just being silly. You came in with this statement that people wave cash at churches to rent them for marriages and I wanted specifics because I've never heard of anyone having to do that. If you're just trying to throw bs statements around, ok, enjoy.

No problem. http://www.yourchurchwedding.org/your-wedding/the-cost-of-church-weddings.aspx

 insaniak wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Also, I think it's awfully unfair to call anyone that doesn't agree with gay marriage on religious grounds bigots or nutters.

Discrimination is no less discriminatory if it's written in a religious text.

I completely agree. I think there's a difference between being discriminatory and being a bigot.

http://www.yourchurchwedding.org/your-wedding/the-cost-of-church-weddings.aspx

You're just embarrasing yourself now.

Also note how you can just "wave money" to get married:

http://www.yourchurchwedding.org/youre-welcome/more-churches-to-choose-from.aspx

Point taken, you hate Christians. For whatever reason.

 Sigvatr wrote:
http://www.yourchurchwedding.org/your-wedding/the-cost-of-church-weddings.aspx

You're just embarrasing yourself now.

Also note how you can just "wave money" to get married:

http://www.yourchurchwedding.org/youre-welcome/more-churches-to-choose-from.aspx

Point taken, you hate Christians. For whatever reason.

You are embarrassing yourself. Are you denying that they charge money, and perform weddings?

The extra stipulations you linked are the part that I was arguing are discriminatory.

If you link to sites to back points, how about you'd read them first? And find out what they charge people for?

Also: you keep irrationally hating on Christian churches while at the same time calling them "discriminatory".

 Sigvatr wrote:
If you link to sites to back points, how about you'd read them first? And find out what they charge people for?

The only point I needed to back was they do charge. The site gives a break down of what the money is for (vicar's time, upkeep of the church etc...) this is the same stuff private companies charge for, and incidentally the cost is about the same as hiring a non-CoE space for a wedding.

Also: you keep irrationally hating on Christian churches while at the same time calling them "discriminatory".

I'm not irrationally hating on Christians.

 Smacks wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
If you link to sites to back points, how about you'd read them first? And find out what they charge people for?

The only point I needed to back was they do charge. The site gives a break down of what the money is for (vicar's time, upkeep of the church etc...) this is the same stuff private companies charge for, and incidentally the cost is about the same as hiring a non-CoE space for a wedding.

So basically, they should work for free because...?

[...] just because I think Churches are a public space that should be available for people to use regardless of religion.

That's your problem. They aren't. Whether you think they are or not: they aren't. They're buildings that belong to the church and all that comes with it.

Their house, their roules. Don't like it, don't go there.

 Smacks wrote:
This does make me question what motivates gay people to want to be married before a god who allegedly considers them an abomination.

You might as well ask what motivates women to wear pants to church when their god allegedly considers that an abomination...

The answer is the same in both cases: many Christians ignore the parts of the bible that are patently absurd in today's world, on the assumption that the Bible is supposed to be a guidebook for living a good life as a good person, but since it's so very old the attitudes contained within it don't always fit today's society and occasionally need to be re-evaluated.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
If you link to sites to back points, how about you'd read them first? And find out what they charge people for?

The only point I needed to back was they do charge. The site gives a break down of what the money is for (vicar's time, upkeep of the church etc...) this is the same stuff private companies charge for, and incidentally the cost is about the same as hiring a non-CoE space for a wedding.

So basically, they should work for free because...?

I didn't say they should work for free. I just think that if they take peoples money then it shouldn't be the case that "your money isn't good here" for people who are a protected group.

That's your problem. They aren't. Whether you think they are or not: they aren't. They're buildings that belong to the church and all that comes with it.

Their house, their roules. Don't like it, don't go there.

Actually I recanted that comment before you posted, because it wasn't what I wanted to say. But the the UK isn't a secular as other countries. The Queen who is the head of state here is also defender of the faith and head of the Church of England. In that sense many of them are public spaces.

Catholic churches might be different, but yes I do think they should be treated like any other corporation and pay tax and not be allowed to discriminate against people based on sexuality or religion. At least not for the purpose of renting a space.

You can argue all you want that the space is not rented and that it is for private members. But to my mind that is just a technicality, which is the equivalent of saying. My money is in offshore accounts so I don't have to pay tax. The space is used by the public, for money, to get married. It should be subject to the same rules as other function rooms for hire.

 insaniak wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
This does make me question what motivates gay people to want to be married before a god who allegedly considers them an abomination.

You might as well ask what motivates women to wear pants to church when their god allegedly considers that an abomination...

The answer is the same in both cases: many Christians ignore the parts of the bible that are patently absurd in today's world, on the assumption that the Bible is supposed to be a guidebook for living a good life as a good person, but since it's so very old the attitudes contained within it don't always fit today's society and occasionally need to be re-evaluated.

I agree that both things being an abomination are equally absurd. The difference however between wearing pants and gay marriage is that the Catholic church has an official stance on gay marriage and they are against it (I don't know exactly what their stance is on pants).

 Smacks wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Now you're just being silly. You came in with this statement that people wave cash at churches to rent them for marriages and I wanted specifics because I've never heard of anyone having to do that. If you're just trying to throw bs statements around, ok, enjoy.

No problem. http://www.yourchurchwedding.org/your-wedding/the-cost-of-church-weddings.aspx

Apparently if I tip my waiter at a chilis I am now 'renting' chilis and if I pay an administrative fee and a tax to renew my passport I am 'renting' city hall.

To try to make statements to basically equivocate getting married in a church to a business transaction no different from renting out chuck e cheese for a birthday is madness.

And while there are specific laws which protect people against discrimination in some circumstances, 'Discrimination' is not actually illegal. You can't argue that you have the right to never be discriminated on any level in any aspect of society. You only have those rights in limited and explicit parts of society and only for some identified 'protected classes'. You can be denied a job because you are ugly, denied housing because you smell bad and denied access to a business/job due to physical attributes like age, height, weight, ability to lift something and so on. All are discrimination, all legal.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
This does make me question what motivates gay people to want to be married before a god who allegedly considers them an abomination.

You might as well ask what motivates women to wear pants to church when their god allegedly considers that an abomination...

The answer is the same in both cases: many Christians ignore the parts of the bible that are patently absurd in today's world, on the assumption that the Bible is supposed to be a guidebook for living a good life as a good person, but since it's so very old the attitudes contained within it don't always fit today's society and occasionally need to be re-evaluated.

And that some people feel the need to try to change the church from within. I know many homosexual Catholics who are very religious and are willing to go the long haul hoping to see future reformation. Catholics are not as literal when it comes to bible as some of the stuff you find in evangelical united states sects of Christianity.

The Catholic Churches position leaves the door open that people may be scientifically born that way, but for now, they need to choose to not act on it and be chaste. They basically compare it to alcoholism, and that someone who is genetically predisposed to being an alcoholic should strive to not give in to his natural predisposition. Personally, I think we will see a shift from the Catholic church on this within our lifetime. I mean, hanging your hat on old testament Sodom and the rantings of Paul are not strong foundations and both are evolving church positions and are hot topics of debate within the catholic church.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

any young man who is not a liberal, has no heart

any old man that is not conservative, has no brain

I hate that saying. as if people re supposed to follow a predetermined path of ideals

It's not so much a set or predetermined path of ideals, just that, most younger people are full of piss and vinegar, and want to change the world Right. Now. As they age and become wiser, some of their views may or may not change, but even the ones that don't change will probably become more accepted, come to pass and become more of the conservative ideal

So, Liberals have no brains, and conservatives no heart. Im sorry I disagree, Yes, as you get older, your view change, you my be liberal or conservative. I know people who where young republicans who voted for obama and vice versa. The saying is stupid, just plain studpid and insults alot of of people. It implies young people have no brains and that liberals who are older are stupid, and just says the republicans are heartless.

nkelsch wrote:
To try to make statements to basically equivocate getting married in a church to a business transaction no different from renting out chuck e cheese for a birthday is madness.

I agree with you 100% it is not the same thing...

But it should be!

And while there are specific laws which protect people against discrimination in some circumstances, 'Discrimination' is not actually illegal. You can't argue that you have the right to never be discriminated on any level in any aspect of society. You only have those rights in limited and explicit parts of society and only for some identified 'protected classes'. You can be denied a job because you are ugly, denied housing because you smell bad and denied access to a business/job due to physical attributes like age, height, weight, ability to lift something and so on. All are discrimination, all legal.

How about refused service?