Gay Couples are to be Allowed to Marry in Churches.

[Argamemnon]

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

that's truly unbelievable

I didn't know that people went so far, maybe we are living in ahir zaman (end times)...

 

[CosmicPathos]

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?

That is exactly what I mean. Women are born with all the eggs they would have in their life. So the more time those eggs remain arrested in meiosis I before meiosis II takes place after sperm has penetrated egg's layers, higher the chances of abnormalities in further divisions. So in short, the risks of having genetically diseased babies is very high as mothers get old. One such example is Downs syndrome.

So titus is saying that such children are victims who are congenitally diseased due to mom's choice of getting babies later? Why wouldnt titus call such children victims who are born with muscular diseases, metabolis disorders, endocrine disorders, cardiac diseases, eye diseases, neurological diseases as a result of parent's choice to have kids in old age?

He simply comes on forums to show us his mucousy runny green nasal secretions.

 

[جوري]

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.

Brother Mustafa is a geneticist and he can calculate for you and show you that the risk of birth defects in incestuous relationships isn't that much higher than non-incestuous relationships.. be that as it may are you saying that 'Birth defects' are the only deterrent in having an incestuous relationship? and are you by the same token suggesting that any couple with any genetic defect be sterilized for the potential of having children with defects?

See that is what happens when you make your own laws.. you dig yourself into holes from which there is no common sense, logic or a way out!

all the best

 

[Xena]

Well i personally do know some very religious gay people. I know it might seem verry contradicting to most people, but just because one is gay they still might have their belifs in their religion. And i certainly do not have a problem with that.

 

[Pygoscelis]

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?

I may find them odd, but I would not judge them or stand in their way.

And what about bestiality?

I think it may actually be legal in many places. Disgusting, yes. But Illegal? Why? We do much worse to animals. We eat them. We test chemicals on them. So who am I to say some guy can't get friendly with his goat?

Another case to consider is poligamy. Many in the west find it disgusting and it is illegal in many places. But again, I say that for us to ban it we should have some rational basis to do so (and as Islam allows for poligamy, I think you'd agree with that). Some rational arguments have been put forth and should be examined. Personally I'd err on the side of freedom, and so long as women are not being forced into or abused in poligamous marriages (or men in polyandrous ones) I see no reason for me to interject or judge them.

Same with the muslim head veils. I can see rational arguments for and against them, but personally I'd go with allowing them so long as the women are not forced or pressured to wear them.

Just because I have no interest in any of the above (or in being homosexual), and just because I may be disgusted by each of them, doesn't mean I should judge them, and certainly doesn't mean I have any right to interfere with them.

Practices like circumcision on the other hand, and the other things lily listed, I may object and intercede. Why? Because an innocent non-consenting person or victim is involved.

So no, this isn't terribly arbitrary. It is really quite simple: I stand for freedom and equity to all people, and I don't need religion to get me there.

 

[GuestFellow]

I think it may actually be legal in many places. Disgusting, yes. But Illegal? Why? We do much worse to animals. We eat them. We test chemicals on them. So who am I to say some guy can't get friendly with his goat?

We eat animals to live. We test products on animals to check what reaction they might have on humans. These benefit us, though I'm against animal testing. I see no benefit in allowing people to have sex with animals. Does this mean we can abuse and torture animals?

Nothing good comes out of bestiality. I think there is a possibility diseases might develop but I will leave that to members that are studying or have studied medicine. Just to make sure, you think it is fine to have sex with an animal?

Another case to consider is poligamy. Many in the west find it disgusting and it is illegal in many places.

I find that strange. I used to know many guys that boasted about having sex and dating several women. Is this not disgusting?

But again, I say that for us to ban it we should have some rational basis to do so (and as Islam allows for poligamy, I think you'd agree with that). Some rational arguments have been put forth and should be examined. Personally I'd err on the side of freedom, and so long as women are not being forced into or abused in poligamous marriages (or men in polyandrous ones) I see no reason for me to interject or judge them.

...In polyandrous marriages, would it not be difficult to identify the father of the child? I suppose you could take some medical tests.

Practices like circumcision, and the other things lily listed, on the other hand I do object to and would interject. Why? Because an innocent non-consenting person or victim is involved.

...You find bestiality perfectly acceptable even though the animal cannot give any form of consent but not circumcision?

There is no benefit in bestiality while there is some benefit in circumcision. That is the difference.

So no, this isn't terribly arbitrary. It is really quite simple; I stand for freedom and equity to all people, and I don't need religion to get me there.

We all know you did not need religion to reach your views. No need to point out the obvious. :

It is not simple. You are allowing several types of marriages to occur. Under your rule, bestiality, homosexual marriages and polyandry would be acceptable. This sounds like a recipe for disaster. I suppose you do not object to people marrying objects or anime characters?

 

[Pygoscelis]

We eat animals to live. We test products on animals to check what reaction they might have on humans. These benefit us, though I'm against animal testing. I see no benefit in allowing people to have sex with animals. Does this mean we can abuse and torture animals?

The reason against it would have to come along those lines. And perhaps a case could be made about animal abuse. But to do so you would have to equally oppose hunting for sport and other animal abuse cases or questionable cases. The other way to go to rationally oppose beastiality would be to speak of negative health effects, which I believe may exist and be a serious issue. My point here is that these kinds of reasons are valid; "eww" and "that's sick" are not so valid.

I find that strange. I used to know many guys that boasted about having sex and dating several women. Is this not disgusting?

I think so. But who am I to judge them? I'm not going to enact a law saying you can't have sex with more than one woman in your life. And I'm not going to make a law saying you can't marry more than one either.

I suppose you do not object to people marrying objects or anime characters?

You do raise some valid points about beastiality and poliandry that should be examined non-emotionally and adjusted for.

But inanimate objects and anime characters? I don't even have a gutteral reaction to that. What possible harm could it do? Come up with some arguments and I'd consider them. But I can't fathom any offhand and I'd much rather err on the side of freedom than repression. If that guy wants to marry an anime character, it is really not any of my business. I wish them well. Maybe I'll even make a avatar and attend their virtual wedding.

lol, it would be funny if Fred Phelps created an avatar and protested the wedding with his "God Hates Fags" virtual signs and some "God Hates Anime" ones.

 

[GuestFellow]

The reason against it would have to come along those lines. And perhaps a case could be made about animal abuse. But to do so you would have to equally oppose hunting for sport and other animal abuse cases or questionable cases. The other way to go to rationally oppose beastiality would be to speak of negative health effects, which I believe may exist and be a serious issue. My point here is that these kinds of reasons are valid; "eww" and "that's sick" are not so valid.

I'm against hunting animals for sport. I think it should be banned.

Yes I understand your point.

But inanimate objects and anime characters? I don't even have a gutteral reaction to that. What possible harm could it do? Come up with some arguments and I'd consider them. But I can't fathom any offhand and I'd much rather err on the side of freedom than repression. If that guy wants to marry an anime character, it is really not any of my business. I wish them well. Maybe I'll even make a avatar and attend their virtual wedding.

I was just curious to hear what you have to say about it. That is all. I would be concerned if Parliament spent time drafting laws to govern anime/object marriages....waste of time and money.

 

[Ramadhan]

So no, this isn't terribly arbitrary. It is really quite simple: I stand for freedom and equity to all people, and I don't need religion to get me there.

First off, I was responding to Titus' post. He is for homosexual marriage but against incestuous marriage. And hence I call him off on his arbitrary rule.
So, really, you need to stop the habit of jumping into discussions without understanding context and stop being so tribal.

And good for you for having a go for everyone. I'll stay away clear from your hypothetical country which allows marriages of incest, bestiality, non-animated and animated objects and God knows what else.

Enjoy your time while still have it.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I would be concerned if Parliament spent time drafting laws to govern anime/object marriages....waste of time and money.

I am actually concerned that government wastes time and money drafting and enforcing laws to govern marriage at all. It really should have no legal implications in my view, and be something spiritual for each religion or person or group to recognize or not as it or they see fit.

 

[glo]

I am actually concerned that government wastes time and money drafting and enforcing laws to govern marriage at all. It really should have no legal implications in my view, and be something spiritual for each religion or person or group to recognize or not as it or they see fit.

Actually, I agree. I don;t quite understand what the government has to do with the joining of two people in marriage. I suppose it bring certain legal rights ... such as financial security if the marriage breaks up.

But really a marriage is a promise between two people before witnesses, and - if ones believes in God - a promise before God too.

 

[Wyatt]

But really a marriage is a promise between two people before witnesses, and - if ones believes in God - a promise before God too.

That's how I see it too, but apparently it's more sanctimonious when it's restricted to a man and woman. Then again, I've also questioned the necessity of having a "marriage" when there's no God involved and if you took out the legal benefits. Having the same legal benefits, I'd be fine with a "civil union," because if I want to call it a marriage, I would call it a marriage.

I've questioned it a lot, not because I am some grouchy atheist living under a rock on his computer (wouldn't get good signal there, not that I do already), but because I've come from a home of broken marriages. My father is on his third marriage while my mother is on her fourth.

I am engaged, by the way. To me, there's only the promise that we make to each other. Legal benefits would be nice as well, but governmental approval isn't necessary for us to be happy together.

 

[Pygoscelis]

[COLOR=DarkRed
Also, I am very much against circumcision. I don't think "health" reasons nor religious reasons are enough to allow it. Maybe when the person has the will to do it for either one of those reasons, but being a victim of this mutilation when I was born, even though mine turned out fine, a friend of mine has a botched one. They messed up and the result is pretty awful. [/quote]

I wonder how many men would have it done in adulthood, with their full consent. I don't think many would. Do new converts to Judaism have to do it? It is supposed to represent their covenant with God. What a very peculiar thing for God to want. He made us perfect in his image, except he erred on the naughty bits and wants us to cut them up for him.

 

[جوري]

Also, I am very much against circumcision. I don't think "health" reasons nor religious reasons are enough to allow it. Maybe when the person has the will to do it for either one of those reasons, but being a victim of this mutilation when I was born, even though mine turned out fine, a friend of mine has a botched one. They messed up and the result is pretty awful.

Perhaps the Center for disease control can sum it up nicely for you:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

your friend's botched operation undoubtedly the result of lack of training since folks like Pygo completely ignorant of medicine seem to be under the impression that with loud braying and alot of hot air they can sway or halt an autonomous decision that is purely between the health care professional and the parents.. The parents have the right to choose a most skilled person to do the job and not look for someone with half training because there is a shortage or because doctors that perform it for religious purposes only seem to cater only to a limited number of the population. You're also your parents property until the age of 18 according to western laws.. so it isn't an atheist decision under any circumstance!

and lastly, I wouldn't comment on religious reasons, since they exist unless there is a bleeding diathesis which would preclude it.. Since the law in Islam isn't to counter ones health!

all the best

 

[GuestFellow]

And good for you for having a go for everyone. I'll stay away clear from your hypothetical country which allows marriages of incest, bestiality, non-animated and animated objects and God knows what else.

No rules for governing marriage either... o_o

 

[CosmicPathos]

Actually, I agree. I don;t quite understand what the government has to do with the joining of two people in marriage. I suppose it bring certain legal rights ... such as financial security if the marriage breaks up.

But really a marriage is a promise between two people before witnesses, and - if ones believes in God - a promise before God too.

why is that so? That does not leave any room for polygamous marriage.

Marriage is not a promise between two people. Marriage is a contract between two people at one time. The male can have this contract with a second female, subsequently.

 

[Woodrow]

Sorry but I can not resist posting this.

Fine let gays get married in a church, under the condition it is the Westboro Baptist Church:

 

[yas2010]

Sorry but I can not resist posting this.

Fine let gays get married in a church, under the condition it is the Westboro Baptist Church:

Salaam Uncle Woodrow.
The best giggle i've had today. Thankyou

 

[Pygoscelis]

Sorry but I can not resist posting this.

Fine let gays get married in a church, under the condition it is the Westboro Baptist Church:

Oh my that would be hilarious! Make it happen!

 

[glo]

Sorry but I can not resist posting this.

Fine let gays get married in a church, under the condition it is the Westboro Baptist Church:

Are you writing to them to suggest it?

(Actually, on a serious note, can you imagine how nasty that would turn out to be? +o( Not much of a joyful occasion for the couple, I imagine ...)