Is there a non-religious reason as to why same sex unions...

[oi]

Since I'm not really that educated in how the american system works on this level, perhaps I shouldn't open my mouth (I'm not even sure how it works in Sweden hehe), but anyways..

So if I understand this correctly, you recieve benefits from being married? And the church is supposed to be separated from the state? If that's the case, I fail to see how anyone can claim that the state and church in fact are separate entities, since it seems as if the church has alot to say about who's allowed to be married. Wouldn't it be better if you could engage in a union with a partner without going to the church and recieve the same kind of benefits? And then the ones who are into religion could just marry in a church for traditions sake, since that's what it really is, a tradition. I mean it's not like you really need to be married to show that you care for eachother.. And if you happen to want to marry and even if you happen to be gay or wahtever, tough luch, you're a freak of nature (according to them). Make your own religion and marry with their blessing. Or better yet, just pretend that you're married since it wouldn't have any benefits except an abstract sense of companionship.

Personally, as you might've guessed, I don't see much point in getting married just for the sake of getting married. It's a silly tradition, just like baptism. Do you really need the consent of others to show your affection for your partner?

And on the matter of pedophiles and all that. Really, what goes on in other peoples mind is none of my buisness, as long as it doesn't hurt others, which it happens to do when an adult has a sexual relation with a child. But other than that, my emotions for pedophiles is more like pity than disgust or hatred or whatever, since most of them will probably live through their lives without being able to express their sexual feelings. And that's the only difference between being hetero, homo or a pedohpile in my mind. As I said, what goes on in your head is none of my buisness. And how does one become homo/hetero? I dunno, and it could just be a matter of being (un)lucky for all I care.

On a different note, did you know that beastiality (or whatever it's called, you know.. animals.. and stuff) is increasing in Sweden at such an "alarming" rate that vets are getting worried for the safety of animals? How's that for a fact

 

[Legion]

And on the matter of pedophiles and all that. Really, what goes on in other peoples mind is none of my buisness, as long as it doesn't hurt others, which it happens to do when an adult has a sexual relation with a child.

Well its safe to say you really can't always know what is going on in other's minds.

But other than that, my emotions for pedophiles is more like pity than disgust or hatred or whatever, since most of them will probably live through their lives without being able to express their sexual feelings.

Infact psychological findings back what you are suggesting. Most of them appear to suffer from developmentary problems leading them to be often incapable of caring on real relationships with adults. Unfortunately they just don't really seem bothered by this in all cases.

And that's the only difference between being hetero, homo or a pedohpile in my mind. As I said, what goes on in your head is none of my buisness. And how does one become homo/hetero? I dunno, and it could just be a matter of being (un)lucky for all I care.

Whether genetically determined or enviromentally or even perhaps both the concept of love and marriage are cultural constructs. I do not therefore think religiocity should have the right to dictate who can and can not get married. I simply have not seen any christian here propose a reason outside of their religion to refuse homosexuals their right to marry. Seriously, what are the real differences besides financial between long term relationships and marriage?

On a different note, did you know that beastiality (or whatever it's called, you know.. animals.. and stuff) is increasing in Sweden at such an "alarming" rate that vets are getting worried for the safety of animals? How's that for a fact

Well it does provide evidence that people can infact choose what they are attracted to. Unless of course you are born with the cow/sheep sexor gene...

 

[Joe DeFuria]

So if I understand this correctly, you recieve benefits from being married?

Yes, certain tax benefits, for example.

And the church is supposed to be separated from the state?

Yes.

If that's the case, I fail to see how anyone can claim that the state and church in fact are separate entities, since it seems as if the church has alot to say about who's allowed to be married.

No, you misunderstand.

In the U.S., you don't need a church to get married. All you need to do is go to your local government municpality, and any man and woman can get "married." (A bit simplfied explanation, but you get the point.) No church needs to be involved.

That's the "catch" with respect to homosexuality...it is one man, and one woman.

That being said...many "religious marriages/ceremonies" are recognized by the government as legal. (You still have to sign the government marriage license of course.) I'm not sure on the details, but essentially, you can be licesensed by the gov't to perform "legal" marriage ceremonies. So, a priest, rabbi, etc, can be licensed to perform a legal marriage ceremony just as other "public" officials are, like mayors, judges, etc.

 

[Legion]

so what you are saying is this really is nothing more than a battle over semantics?

 

[London Geezer]

I think we should rename this forum to "The one where Legion and Natoma can endlessly argue on Homosexuality/Paedophila/Bestiality".

Not much of a General forum at the moment...

I guess i just don't have the Arguing-Endlessly-Knowing-It's-Completely-Useless Gene

And with this one, goodbye.

 

[oi]

In the U.S., you don't need a church to get married. All you need to do is go to your local government municpality, and any man and woman can get "married." (A bit simplfied explanation, but you get the point.) No church needs to be involved.

Ah, thanks. I got kinda confused since I automatically thought that you marry in church, since that's how it works here hehe. But I don't think you recieve any benefits that would make it notably unfair in comparision to not being married here though. There are some exceptions however. Like if you're married and have kids but live separated most of the time (due to working in another city or something like that), I think that you can recieve some "travel-aid" of sorts. But most if not all benefits are related to having children.

But anyway, now that you explained that, I'm even more clueless as to why you shouldn't be able to marry as a gay couple lol. Since I assumed that the church was in charge I thought it was pretty obvious that problems would arise hehe.

Edit: Actually after researching the matter, it seems as if you recieve no benefits whatsoever from being married, with the exception of a possibility to inherit money. Other than that, being married and just living together is the same thing.

Edit2: You can also go to the state to get married here too. Shows how much I knew about the subject But anyways, since you don't recieve any benefits, I guess not as many care about it (although some do, since there are people who protests aganst gay marriage here too).

 

[Natoma]

So if I understand this correctly, you recieve benefits from being married?

Yes, certain tax benefits, for example.

Also being able to see your spouse in the hospital, many inheritance clauses, health insurance, etc etc etc. It goes way beyond just tax benefits.

If that's the case, I fail to see how anyone can claim that the state and church in fact are separate entities, since it seems as if the church has alot to say about who's allowed to be married.

No, you misunderstand.

In the U.S., you don't need a church to get married. All you need to do is go to your local government municpality, and any man and woman can get "married." (A bit simplfied explanation, but you get the point.) No church needs to be involved.

That's the "catch" with respect to homosexuality...it is one man, and one woman.

For now.

That being said...many "religious marriages/ceremonies" are recognized by the government as legal. (You still have to sign the government marriage license of course.) I'm not sure on the details, but essentially, you can be licesensed by the gov't to perform "legal" marriage ceremonies. So, a priest, rabbi, etc, can be licensed to perform a legal marriage ceremony just as other "public" officials are, like mayors, judges, etc.

Yes, but they're not recognized as performing the ceremony as a priest or rabbi, in the eyes of the government. They're recognized as workers of the state. A slight and somewhat "dangerous" line to walk, but it is there nonetheless as a separation.

 

[nelg]

What I am saying is that you cannot force yourself to be attracted to something that you naturally are not . If you think that you can, then ask yourself, could you make yourself attracted to someone of the same sex.

really, so you can't force yourself to like something that you dislike? I can't force myself to find something attractive that i never did in the first place? This is fact?

well then i stick to my pedophilia analogy. If they can't force themselves to be attracted to children then they must have been born that way. I guess we are just punishing them for something they can't help.

So are you saying that you, yourself, can force yourself to be sexually attracted to children. If so you are sick.

I am not suggesting pedophilia (or homosexuality) is normal However a homosexual relationship does not harm anyone. If you have a problem with it then don’t be gay.

 

[Natoma]

I think we should rename this forum to "The one where Legion and Natoma can endlessly argue on Homosexuality/Paedophila/Bestiality".

Not much of a General forum at the moment...

I guess i just don't have the Arguing-Endlessly-Knowing-It's-Completely-Useless Gene

And with this one, goodbye.

Actually it's more of a The one where Legion and XXX can endlessly argue on Homosexuality/Pedophilia/Beastiality. zidane1strife has taken up that mantle. I grew tired of hitting my head up against that brick wall weeks ago.

 

[London Geezer]

I think we should rename this forum to "The one where Legion and Natoma can endlessly argue on Homosexuality/Paedophila/Bestiality".

Not much of a General forum at the moment...

I guess i just don't have the Arguing-Endlessly-Knowing-It's-Completely-Useless Gene

And with this one, goodbye.

Actually it's more of a The one where Legion and XXX can endlessly argue on Homosexuality/Pedophilia/Beastiality. zidane1strife has taken up that mantle. I grew tired of hitting my head up against a brick wall weeks ago.

Yeah and i forgot Joe too...

 

[Legion]

So are you saying that you, yourself, can force yourself to be sexually attracted to children. If so you are sick.

Hold on, what you are saying is people, in your mind are born with an attraction to children? I thought you were simply allowing for the typical "dimorphic doublestandard".

I am not suggesting pedophilia (or homosexuality) is normal However a homosexual relationship does not harm anyone. If you have a problem with it then don’t be gay.

....i never said i had a problem with that....simply because i oppose one of your earlier arguments doesn't make me antigay.

 

[Legion]

Actually it's more of a The one where Legion and XXX can endlessly argue on Homosexuality/Pedophilia/Beastiality. zidane1strife has taken up that mantle. I grew tired of hitting my head up against that brick wall weeks ago.

but that brick wall consists of your invincible ignorance. Even zidane admits enviromental factors affect orientation. We just disagree on how much. We are just slightly different in our thinking. He is more infavor of genetics i am more in favor of enviroment.

 

[oi]

And shouldn't it actually be your democratic right to marry, since you recieve obvious benefits from it? Since imo this would fit into both equality in front of the law and the basic freedoms and rights for citizen of the state.

 

[Natoma]

And shouldn't it actually be your democratic right to marry, since you recieve obvious benefits from it? Since imo this would fit into both equality in front of the law and the basic freedoms and rights for citizen of the state.

Yes. Of course, this is only if you believe marriage is a state right, which is separate from marriage as a religious right.

 

[Legion]

And shouldn't it actually be your democratic right to marry, since you recieve obvious benefits from it? Since imo this would fit into both equality in front of the law and the basic freedoms and rights for citizen of the state.

Again i feel this is just an argument of semantics. What does it mean to be married? What is a "married couple"? We classically defined a married couple as one male and one female. Well, isn't that a tad bit arbitrary? There is no absolute by which to define this.


I really wondering if we should allow for polygamy.

 

[oi]

Yes. Of course, this is only if you believe marriage is a state right, which is separate from marriage as a religious right.

But isn't it a state right since the state is handling it? As I said earlier I didn't think it was wierd at all that there were problems since I thought that the church was in charge. But since it actually is the state that's in charge (unless it's more complex than I've understood it lol) I'll just go out and say it: it's retarded.

 

[London Geezer]

but that brick wall consists of your invincible ignorance. Even zidane admits enviromental factors affect orientation. We just disagree on how much. We are just slightly different in our thinking. He is more infavor of genetics i am more in favor of enviroment.

Flashing out my Devil's Advocate Gene here, but it's not like you, Legion, really KNOW what the hell you're talking about here... You are "in favour" of a view, while he's "in favour" of another. That doesn't make you more right, or better than him or any less ignorant than him. Unless you come up with the proof you're always requesting others to give you, you're exactly on the same level. Just bickering on opinions...

 

[Legion]

but that brick wall consists of your invincible ignorance. Even zidane admits enviromental factors affect orientation. We just disagree on how much. We are just slightly different in our thinking. He is more infavor of genetics i am more in favor of enviroment.

Flashing out my Devil's Advocate Gene here, but it's not like you, Legion, really KNOW what the hell you're talking about here... You are "in favour" of a view, while he's "in favour" of another. That doesn't make you more right, or better than him or any less ignorant than him.

I really don't know what the hell i am talking about? odd. I seem to have been defending my position with research.

Did i imply i was more correct then Zidane? I stated i disagreed with him.

wrt to natoma's position most of the research presented has provided very real documentation and support enviromental factors. In light of these factors and the conclusions of the tests as well as psychological understanding of sexual behavior is is likely impossible for a homosexual gene to exist. There are just to many holes on a cognitive level and natoma refuses to recognize this. This is the ignorance to which i am refering.

I do not assert anyone with the position genes influence sexuality is ignorant. I just ask when you take it to the extremes of predisposition you have something to back it up.

Unless you come up with the proof you're always requesting others to give you, you're exactly on the same level. Just bickering on opinions...

Really now? I didn't know i had the onus to prove there was a genetic link.

I have presented evidence for enviromental factors. So no, i am not just bickering.


Now utilizing my devils advocate gene, i thought you stated you weren't interested in another homosexual gene debate and were leaving this thread.

 

[London Geezer]

Now utilizing my devils advocate gene, i thought you stated you weren't interested in another homosexual gene debate and were leaving this thread.

Yeah, in fact i'm not discussing the gene thing, actually i'm making fun of it quite a lot (as you've seen) cause i think Homosexuality is as much about genetics as it is proportional to the amount of chicken eaten every year. I'm just bickering on you cause it's fun, and this discussion is OLD and tired anyway....

 

[jvd]

And shouldn't it actually be your democratic right to marry, since you recieve obvious benefits from it? Since imo this would fit into both equality in front of the law and the basic freedoms and rights for citizen of the state.

Yes. Of course, this is only if you believe marriage is a state right, which is separate from marriage as a religious right.

actually you can be denied a marriage liscense . In the 60s my uncle was going to marry a woman but the state did not allow it .

So its not your right to get married. Its a privlage . Sorta like a drivers liscense and right now you have to be strait to get it .

Just like you have to be 17 to get your liscense .

Oh and natoma if you want to get married just come to jersey , I'm sure the bill will pass soon .