Gay Couples are to be Allowed to Marry in Churches.

[Wyatt]

Being black or any other race for that matter is not the same as being homosexual. Homosexuality is not stamped on your skin. You do not know someone is homosexual just by looking at them. If you want to argue that gay people face bigotry you may. I do not want to get into an argument on homosexuals and sexuality your analogy was just a very poor one.
Salam

I'm pretty sure his analogy was comparing people's behaviour towards sexuality and race. The reactions are very similar, though sexuality and race are completely different.

In a free state where every man is "born equally," should black people be enslaved?
In a state that promises "freedom of religion," should gay marriage be allowed to those not religious?

I would agree that in a Christian state or Islamic state, gay marriage being banned is completely reasonable because of the principals at hand. However, in a country where one is allowed to be immoral agents of sin, can someone love someone else of the same gender without having their hands lopped off?

 

[Maryan0]

I'm pretty sure his analogy was comparing people's behaviour towards sexuality and race. The reactions are very similar, though sexuality and race are completely different.

Saying a person who is a victim of racism can "act" a certain way in order in order to be treated equally does not make sense. If he meant differently he should have used a different analogy.
Salam

 

[جوري]

can someone love someone else of the same gender without having their hands lopped off?

we're not talking about love.. anyone can love anyone.. we're talking about acting on it..
and the rules really don't differ in that regard between homos and heteros..

all the best

 

[GuestFellow]

I actually have a question that might be a bit unrelated to the topic, but still fits in to the discussion. Do religions become less conventional over time? It's what I've sort of noticed. Maybe this would be an interesting thread... the discussion of the preservation of conventionality within religions and how it changes over time.

Religions do not change but followers of religions can change the religion itself.

Correct. Which is why we shouldn't allow such bans without good rational reasons, such as valid security concerns where they exist (like not allowing full head coverings in banks). We also need rational reasons beyond "eww" or "My god says its wrong" to deny homosexuals the right to marry and be with the one they love, or to ban homosexuality outright as the one guy posted he wants to do above. If I met his "homosexuality should be outlawed" with "Islam should be outlawed" (which I don't say) and offered no more than that, I'd rightly be dismissed as a bigot.

There are some health concerns regarding sodomy which is one reason why Muslims disprove of it. Will this fit in your definition of "good rational reasons."

we're not talking about love.. anyone can love anyone.. we're talking about acting on it..
and the rules really don't differ in that regard between homos and heteros..

all the best

I've heard of people falling in love with objects, people marrying pets and marrying cartoon characters...

^ Tell me its not true...

 

[جوري]

I've heard of people falling in love with objects, people marrying pets and marrying cartoon characters... ^ Tell me its not true...

Yes I posted a thread once about a guy who wanted to marry his cat...

 

[Tyrion]

Yes I posted a thread once about a guy who wanted to marry his cat...

I think there was recently a story about a woman who married R2D2 (the robot from Star Wars), but I'm fairly certain it was done in a not so serious way. I've read tons of articles where it's a bit more serious/pathetic though... One of my favorites was of a man who married a character from one of his video games.

 

[Wyatt]

I've heard of people falling in love with objects, people marrying pets and marrying cartoon characters...

^ Tell me its not true...

;D and croissants. lol jk etc.

 

[جوري]

I think there was recently a story about a woman who married R2D2 (the robot from Star Wars)... I've read tons of articles like this. One of my favorites was of a man who married a character from one of his video games.

The world is frankly turning into a very strange place..

 

[Tyrion]

Here's a pic:

It was done at some kind of convention though, so I'm pretty sure they were just being silly.

Here's the link to the (much sadder, yet slightly hilarious) story of a Japanese man who married a video game character.

 

[Wyatt]

I don't think I'd object to marrying a foreign language. <33

 

[جوري]

It was done at some kind of convention though, so I'm pretty sure they were just being silly.

people use machines for pleasure all the time.. I don't think that it is far fetched!

 

[GuestFellow]

;D and croissants. lol jk etc.

I should start my own croissants parade...

 

[جوري]

I should start my own croissants parade...

I do enjoy the pic you have in your siggy.. makes me wanna change my SN to sweet marmalade..

 

[titus]

what is a good rational reason to ban incest?
what is a good rational reason to ban theft?
what is a good rational reason to ban drinking under 18?
what is a good rational reason to make the age of consent 18 in Iowa and 16 in Rhode Island?

what is worst so called bigotry or frank stupidity?

Because every act you mention involves someone considered too young to fully comprehend the consequences of their action or it involves a victim or potential victim.

There is no victim in homosexual marriage. It is an act between two consenting adults.

here are some health concerns regarding sodomy which is one reason why Muslims disprove of it. Will this fit in your definition of "good rational reasons."

Probably not. The health risks are minimal. If health concerns were truly that much of a priority then the government would make illegal smoking, driving, KFC and donuts. Also if you want legislate sexuality based on health concerns then the government would have to encourage women to engage in homosexual activities because there is less health risk in a woman having sex with another woman than with a man.

 

[Ramadhan]

Because every act you mention involves someone considered too young to fully comprehend the consequences of their action or it involves a victim or potential victim.

It is interesting to note how you conveniently avoided the question on incest. what is a good rational reason to ban incest between consenting mother and son?

 

[جوري]

Because every act you mention involves someone considered too young to fully comprehend the consequences of their action or it involves a victim or potential victim.

There is no victim in homosexual marriage. It is an act between two consenting adults.

:lol: hmmm do these look like non consenting adults?

Couple stand by forbidden love

By Tristana Moore
BBC News, Berlin

Interview with couple

At their home in Leipzig, Patrick Stuebing and Susan Karolewski are in the kitchen, playing with a young toddler. They share a small flat in an east German tower block on the outskirts of the city. It looks like an ordinary family scene, but Patrick is Susan's brother and they are lovers.
"Many people see it as a crime, but we've done nothing wrong," said Patrick, an unemployed locksmith.
"We are like normal lovers. We want to have a family. Our whole family broke apart when we were younger, and after that happened, Susan and I were brought closer together," he said.
Patrick, who is 30 years old, was adopted and, as a child, he lived in Potsdam.
He did not meet his mother and biological family until he was 23. He travelled to Leipzig with a friend in 2000, determined to make contact with his other relatives.

This law is out of date and it breaches the couple's civil rights

Lawyer Endrik Wilhelm

He met his sister Susan for the first time, and according to the couple, after their mother died, they fell in love.
"When I was younger, I didn't know that I had a brother. I met Patrick and I was so surprised," said Susan, who is 22.
She says she does not feel guilty about their relationship.
"I hope this law will be overturned," Susan said.
"I just want to live with my family, and be left alone by the authorities and by the courts," she went on, in a hardly audible voice.
Jail sentence
Patrick and Susan have been living together for the last six years, and they now have four children.
The authorities placed their first son, Eric, in the care of a foster family, and two other children were also placed in care.
"Our children are with foster parents. We talk to them as often as possible, but the authorities have taken away so much from us," said Susan.
"We only have our little daughter, Sofia, who is living with us," she said.

All but one of the couple's children have been taken into care


Incest is a criminal offence in Germany. Patrick Stuebing has already served a two-year sentence for committing incest and there is another jail term looming if paragraph 173 of the legal code is not overturned.
The couple's lawyer, Endrik Wilhelm, has lodged an appeal with Germany's highest judicial body, the federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe, in order to overturn the country's ban on incest.
"Under Germany's criminal code, which dates back to 1871, it is a crime for close relatives to have sex and it's punishable by up to three years in prison. This law is out of date and it breaches the couple's civil rights," Dr Wilhelm said.
"Why are disabled parents allowed to have children, or people with hereditary diseases or women over 40? No-one says that is a crime.
"This couple are not harming anyone. It is discrimination. And besides, we must not forget that every child is so valuable," said Dr Wilhelm.

We would like society to recognise us, as any other normal couple

Patrick Stuebing


The couple's case is controversial and it has prompted a heated debate in the media.
"We need this law against incest in Germany and in the whole of Europe," said Professor Juergen Kunze, a geneticist at Berlin's Charite Hospital.
"It is based on long traditions in Western societies, and the law is here for a good reason," said Prof Kunze.
"Medical research has shown that there is a higher risk of genetic abnormalities when close relatives have a child together. When siblings have children, there is a 50% chance that the child will be disabled," he said.
Patrick and Susan say they have no other choice but to fight the current law.
"I have read that some doctors claim that children born to siblings could be disabled, but what about disabled parents who have children, or older parents?" asked Patrick.
"People have said that our children are disabled, but that is wrong. They are not disabled," said Patrick.
"Eric, our eldest child, has epilepsy, but he was born two months premature, he also has learning difficulties. Our other daughter, Sarah, has special needs," Patrick said.
Ruling soon
The couple claim they have received a lot of support from friends and neighbours.
"When we go out to the supermarket, people recognise us and many have told us that they support our legal challenge," said Patrick.
"We would like society to recognise us, as any other normal couple," he said.
In 2004, Patrick voluntarily underwent a vasectomy.
"It's legal for the couple to live together, and to share a bed. But they are breaking the law once they have sex. If there are no more children, then who will be able to prove that they are a couple?" asked their lawyer.
Dr Wilhelm said a ruling was expected in the next few months.
"We've already heard that the vice-president of the Constitutional Court said that there will be a 'fundamental discussion' about this issue in Germany," said Dr Wilhelm.
"Many criminal law experts say that we are right and I'm confident that my clients will win their case. The law against incest is based on very old moral principles. The law was abolished in France, it's about time it should be scrapped here in Germany as well."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6424937.stm

clearly a losing argument you've there!

Probably not. The health risks are minimal. If health concerns were truly that much of a priority then the government would make illegal smoking, driving, KFC and donuts. Also if you want legislate sexuality based on health concerns then the government would have to encourage women to engage in homosexual activities because there is less health risk in a woman having sex with another woman than with a man.

They're not minimal in fact I have already posted to the contrary, Sodomites have to be screened for anal cancer which isn't a normal test that folks have to be regularly screened for given its rarity.. plus a host of other what is called 'gay bowel disease' -- of course this country would have the same success rate banning homosexuality as it would abolishing drinking and driving.. so they do the next best thing and make it legal and even encouraged!

 

[titus]

It is interesting to note how you conveniently avoided the question on incest. what is a good rational reason to ban incest between consenting mother and son?

I didn't avoid it, actually. Incest was the reason I included "potential victims" because children born to incestual couples have an extremely high risk of birth defects. They are the potential victims.

 

[CosmicPathos]

I didn't avoid it, actually. Incest was the reason I included "potential victims" because children born to incestual couples have an extremely high risk of birth defects. They are the potential victims.

Then so are children victims who are born to mothers older than 35 years of age?


btw didnt you use to be christian? lost faith, lolz?

 

[GuestFellow]

Then so are children victims who are born to mothers older than 35 years of age?

I'm not sure what you mean here? I've heard there are more risks involved when a older women is pregnant, does this include genetic risks to the child?

 

[Ramadhan]

I didn't avoid it, actually. Incest was the reason I included "potential victims" because children born to incestual couples have an extremely high risk of birth defects. They are the potential victims.

Now now, who are to say that all incest couples want children?
What about post-menopause mother who want to get married with her own son?
then judging by your standard, you must allow them, no?

And what about bestiality? and before you say they are not consenting, who are you to say that a man and his b itch cannot love each other and who are you to say that the b itch cannot enjoy sexual relation with her human husband?

Now you see that your (and the liberal society) standards of what is allowed and not allowed is just so arbitrary.