Banning Gay Marriage is NOT the Answer :: Shmeng :: Cynical Indulgence


- Cynical Indulgence - (Shmeng is not a Gothic site)	Apr 20, 2024 - 05:27 AM

Articles Section

· Articles Home
· Article Archives
· Top Articles
· Polls

Eye Candy

Newest Pic:

DragonSchizo
Random Pic:

ickgirl

More Pictures...

Most read story in Religion:
Pono

Rate article

Average Rating : 3.0
Total ratings : 6

3 star

Banning Gay Marriage is NOT the Answer | Login/Create an account | 20 Comments

Comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

Re: Banning Gay Marriage is NOT the Answer
by gothicmorman (litty_klj@hotmail.com) on Nov 29, 2005 - 09:43 PM
(User info | Send a Message) http://www.freewebs.com/gothicmorman

Hm, that is kind of the same thing my mom says. She prays for gay people and accepts them into the church as children of christ because she says they are mislead and need healing to become whole again (aka striaght)

thus i don't listen to her very much. Also i don't tell her that i go both ways or that i have sex or that i get paid under the table but she found that one out anyway.

I figure to practice what they preach one should accept them and love them even if you don't believe in the same thing as them. or ignore them and go on living ones own life. as long as they are not trying to burn anyone at the stake what does it matterwhat they think is wrong or right...

Re: Banning Gay Marriage is NOT the Answer
by feralucce (feralucce@wayoutonthecorner.com) on Nov 29, 2005 - 10:30 PM
(User info | Send a Message) http://www.wayoutonthecorner.com/feralucce

you said "Humans aren't BORN homosexual, they either choose to be that way, or follow their heart rather than society's custom chain."

Not to be combative, but I have several gay friends... CLOSE TO ME... and a brother that is homosexual... You ARE born with sexuality wired in... your sexuality is not a choice... it just is... NOW... whether you act on it... IS a choice...

Also... if you read the religious texts that they hide behind, you will find that they are correct (ACCORDING TO THE BOOK)... even if they do not know where it says, or what it says, the bible itself calls homosexuality an abomination, and in several palces it states they should be stoned, in othesr burned...

What makes this odd is there is no mention of two women... evidently there were no lesbians before 1960... it only cites two men... reguardless....

What would jesus do? Take a good look at his actions, especially in the apocrypha. The christ figure was, fully, human... he had hatred and fear, just like us...

In most of the parables, he did not teach compassion, but a lack of hypocrisy...

For instance... "we caught this woman in the act of adultery" (takes two) he replied with "Let those of you not caught in THIS sin, cast the first stone."

My point is, and this is one I have made before. The work Christian means, litereally, "Little Christ." The people you describe, are not christian... anyone who would label themselves (with a couple notable exceptions taht I know of *winks into the shmeng shadows*) cannot possibly be.

Rest assured, that as the aged lawmakers fade, so do their way of belief, and the world will become a better place for it.

Re: Banning Gay Marriage is NOT the Answer
by Arthegarn on Dec 19, 2005 - 08:44 AM
(User info | Send a Message) http://http://

Feral, as we say, “neither so much nor so bald”. Some people have homosexuality wired in. Some don’t, and yet they are the gayer of the gay. Perhaps it’s BECAUSE they don’t have it wired in that they are sooooo gaaay.

Homosexuality is homosexuality. You stone women as well as men. I mean...

*the shmeng shadows wink back*

[ No anonymous comments ]

Re: Banning Gay Marriage is NOT the Answer
by feralucce (feralucce@wayoutonthecorner.com) on Dec 20, 2005 - 03:36 AM
(User info | Send a Message) http://www.wayoutonthecorner.com/feralucce

I disagree... but that is the beauty of this forum...

[ No anonymous comments ]

Re: Banning Gay Marriage is NOT the Answer
by feralucce (feralucce@wayoutonthecorner.com) on Dec 21, 2005 - 01:08 AM
(User info | Send a Message) http://www.wayoutonthecorner.com/feralucce

"Homosexuality is homosexuality. You stone women as well as men. I mean"... by the book they site... lesbians are different then gay men... it says is a man lays with a man as he would a woman... If someone knows of an anti lesbian one I would love to be corrrected

[ No anonymous comments ]

Re: Banning Gay Marriage is NOT the Answer
by Arthegarn on Dec 27, 2005 - 06:53 AM
(User info | Send a Message) http://http://

OK, there is no specific condemnation for lesbians. There is no specific condemnation for polygamy, either. Horray!

[ No anonymous comments ]

Re: Banning Gay Marriage is NOT the Answer
by Xaoswolf (xaoswolfathotmaildotcom) on Jan 19, 2006 - 08:58 AM
(User info | Send a Message) http://the_xaoswolf.1up.com

as for the no lesbian thing...

If a man has sex with another man, the sperm are wasted, if a woman has sex with another woman, no sperm are wasted...

Well, none are wasted unless those women are on the internet, in which case, I would guess that a million times more sperm are wasted...

[ No anonymous comments ]

Re: Banning Gay Marriage is NOT the Answer
by Schizo (Aranea@Spidersdance.com) on Nov 30, 2005 - 02:21 AM
(User info | Send a Message) http://

Funny, isn't it, how fixated some Christians are on the sexual sins. They're so much more interesting than the boring old sins of gluttony, pride, or dishonesty. Or eating shellfish. Yeah. Eating shellfish is a sin, too.

The only sins Jesus Christ really seemed to care about were spiritual arrogance and spiritual half-heartedness. Even the woman caught in adultery - he said "go and sin no more", but adultery, though it involves sex, is actually a sin of dishonesty. Pretending to be a fathful spouse when you are not - just as the denounced Pharisees pretended to be better off spiritually than everyone else when they were not.

Of course, homosexuality is a hot topic right now. Gays are standing up for themselves, and saying that they are not ashamed of themselves, and others should not see them as shameful. It's kind of been shoved in the Christians' faces. Kind of hard to ignore. Kind of like it's going to be when we all come out of the closet about eating shellfish... oh wait...

Personally, if I were still a Christian, I would be more worried about being a modern day Pharisee, trying to tell other people what they should or should not do to be acceptable in God's eyes, and trying to prove how holy I am. I would much rather be the adulteress - or homosexual. I would rather have Jesus save my life than tell me I was a race of vipers descended from my father, the devil.

But then again, I'm not a Christian, which is why I eat shellfish, and daydream about someday having time to find a girlfriend (my husband says it's OK with him, but hell, I'm too busy for what I've already got, so why add more?) And it's also why I don't concern myself with opinions of what other people should be doing with their lives when it isn't hurting me.

Shellfish-eating Christians.
by Arthegarn on Dec 19, 2005 - 08:51 AM
(User info | Send a Message) http://http://

Heyyy Schizo!!

Well, you have to admit sexual sins are much funnier than gluttony or whatever. And give in for so much more gossip... and so many more newspapers sold... As for the rest, I mostly agree with you. Except about the shellfish. Eating shellfish is not a sin since Mark 7, 15. Pity some other things were not stated that clearly...

[ No anonymous comments ]

Re: Shellfish-eating Christians.
by Schizo (Aranea@Spidersdance.com) on Dec 19, 2005 - 02:14 PM
(User info | Send a Message) http://

ARTHEGARN!!!! How's my favorite Spaniard? I thought you had disappeared forever!

Well, stick with gluttony then - a sin many tried-and-true Christians indulge in with glee. Although in the church I was raised in, we kept about 3/4 of those weird little Old Testament laws, and pretended that meant we kept them all. But I must admit, they were hardly the norm of Christianity.

However, I did take my first bite of lobster with as much rebellious joy as many law-bounds did their first experience of pre-marital sex.

[ No anonymous comments ]

Cutting Off Our Noses
by Monolycus on Dec 01, 2005 - 04:06 PM
(User info | Send a Message)

Yes, it's me chiming in, so those of you with more experience hearing from me and more delicate viscera might want to save yourself some time and stop reading this now. As some of my closer compadrés are (no doubt) tired of hearing me say, our attitudes have wide ranging (and often unanticipated) consequences. This gets convoluted, so you'll have to bear with me.

Delphi and GM are running into problems and released several thousand employees into the growing (yet forgotten) ranks of the unemployed. Why did they have to do this when the economy is so weak anyway? Well, without hyperlinking my sources here (which seems to break forums, I've found), they say they simply can't compete with foreign automaking corporations (mostly Japanese and Korean companies). The reason for this is two-fold: They can't afford to pay worker benefits/pension packages because, unlike foreign companies, Americans do not buy smaller, more efficient cars. What they fail to mention in this equation is that Japanese and Korean companies do not NEED to pay worker benefits packages because they have national health care systems.

So... because Americans would rather spend huge sums of money on our military ( to harm people we don't like) than spend it on taking care of people we DO like, and because we are gluttonous pigs who can't shake off our need to show off our consumption in front of our neighbours, we have basically cut our own economic wrists. With the increase in unemployment, we now need a national health care system more than we already did (since more people are unemployed) and have made it harder for taxpayers to fund it (since more people are unemployed).

All of this could have been avoided if we weren't so damned hateful and believed it was more important to spend our money on HURTING others that we don't like (dropping bombs on "enemies"and showing off to the neighbours how much bigger a car we can afford) than HELPING people we do like (letting sick people see the inside of a hospital every now and again).

So what does any of this have to do with gay marriage? Well, it's more of the same, really. We (the majority here... don't get defensive) don't want people we don't like (gays, in this case) to have the same benefits of people we do like (heterosexuals, in this case). What benefits are we depriving them of by not legally recognising their relationships? They can still live together and have sex, so all we are really keeping them from doing is benefitting from one or the other's insurance. This creates more people who can not see the inside of a hospital and, subsequently, means more sick people who can not afford to pay taxes. This further weakens the economy.

Now, if we had a national health care system in place, people could live with each other, sleep with whomever they wanted, and not worry about insurance benefits. In this case, it would not matter if we allowed gays to marry or banned marriage for heterosexuals. People would still form the relationships they always have and it's none of the State's business who's hooking up with whom. But we can't have that because it is more important to us to hurt people we don't like than help people we do.

I don't think gay marriage is the larger issue... I think our self-destructive hatefulness is. Hurting our "enemies" (gays, in this case) hurts all of us. And yet we can't drop our hatefulness even if we know full well that our hatefulness is making even our loved ones suffer.

Re: Cutting Off Our Noses
by feralucce (feralucce@wayoutonthecorner.com) on Dec 01, 2005 - 05:38 PM
(User info | Send a Message) http://www.wayoutonthecorner.com/feralucce

a well thought out point... and very well worded... but what your propose requires taht we evolve beyond that which we are... and as a species, I do not think that is possible.

Whether it is a societal construct or an instinctual one, (and for once, I think it is not instinct), doesn 't matter as the few people who can get past it are not having children and not passing the trait on and as such the beneficial trait dies out as soon as it is spawned...

Man is hate... at least on the whole... while it is a terrible truth... unless we can educate the younger to avoid the hate it is self perpetuating and will continue...

[ No anonymous comments ]

Re: Cutting Off Our Noses
by valerian (valerian@araneum.ca) on Dec 09, 2005 - 09:44 AM
(User info | Send a Message) http://valerian.araneum.ca

Gay marriage is legal here in British Columbia, and I believe in Ontario too (not sure where else in Canada, it's very early in the day and I do not feel like Googling everything atm). We *do* have a national health care system, and that is precisely what is pissing people off, unlike what you suggested. The outraged give their reasons as being twofold: for the very insurance/benefits issue that you mentioned *based* on religious doctrine. If the bible says no, and the government says yes, then even those who are religiously against the issue are forced to pay their taxes to benefit the very thing they despise. They feel their power of choice has been taken away. It's ugly.

Luckily, the majority in BC really don't seem to have an issue with how gays spend their time, and "live and let live" (personally, I don't think anyone has the right to tell someone who they can love and how they can show it). Frankly, if the Christians are going to go around spouting Old Testament doctrine about homosexuality, they had better start being consistent if they want to be taken seriously. For starters, in addition to the shellfish issue, wearing blended fabrics is an abomination. So if they're going to get their knickers in a twist over something, they'd better make sure they're not poly/cotton.

:P

[ No anonymous comments ]

Re: Cutting Off Our Noses
by Devin (devin-at-vibechild-dot-com) on Dec 09, 2005 - 02:27 PM
(User info | Send a Message) http://devin.vibechild.com/

My favorite argument along those lines is that the Old Testament says that it's ok to own slaves from neighboring countries, but the consensus in the US is that it is only ok to own Mexicans and not Canadians. Before gay marriage is outlawed, it should be legal to own Canadians. Consistancy is important.

[ No anonymous comments ]

Two. Got one for the bedroom.
by Monolycus on Dec 09, 2005 - 04:15 PM
(User info | Send a Message)

Thanks for the tip, Devin. I was stumped about what to get you for Christmas.

[ No anonymous comments ]

Re: Cutting Off Our Noses
by Monolycus on Dec 09, 2005 - 04:13 PM
(User info | Send a Message)

Yes, there are self-destructively hateful people everywhere, even in the Liberal Paradise that is Canada. I'm not surprised to hear about the outrage in conservative B.C.... that's where most of the Canadian oil tycoons reside (and yes, Virginia, there *are* Canadian oil tycoons). I don't think it undermines my original thesis entirely to hear that there is some outrage from the fundies about it... actually the reverse. The fact that there even exists legalised same-sex unions and a national health care system in the same place kind of reinforces to me that the basic question is one of attitude, and that you Canuck's per capita of hateful lunatics is just lagging behind your southerly neighbour. I'd have been a lot more surprised to hear that outraged fundamentalist hatemongers were entirely absent in any population.

[ No anonymous comments ]

Re: Cutting Off Our Noses
by Arthegarn on Dec 19, 2005 - 09:11 AM
(User info | Send a Message) http://http://

Hmh... Hey, Mono, we have a really wonderful National Health Care system down here and we still have the same arguments... Don't let yourself be misleaded by the fact that gays can now marry in Spain, the debate is still there.

(As for me, I think they should be able to marry, even if I would not call it "matrimony". "Marriage" is more like it. If you really want to know my opinion about the whole story you have it here: http://www.razasdenoche.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1137ѱ

[ No anonymous comments ]

Re: Cutting Off Our Noses
by Monolycus on Dec 19, 2005 - 10:29 AM
(User info | Send a Message)

Good to see you back in these parts, Arth.

Anyway, as I explained to Valerian above, I was never making the case that the debate would not exist at all if there were a national health care system. I doubt that there is any population on Earth that is so free from the phenomenon I was describing (harming others at the expense of oneself) that it would not crop up at all.

But you have the same situation in Spain that Valerian described in BC. You have a national health care system and gays can legally marry. This indicates to me that your respective populations have a MINORITY of individual Puritans who want to cut off their noses than the United States has. Since the US has neither legalised same-sex unions nor a national health care system, we have a MAJORITY of individual Puritans who want to cut off their noses.

That was my argument... not that the presence of both a national health care system and legalised same-sex unions would suddenly make a population in its entirety into a Utopian paradise where every individual member suddenly stops wishing harm on others and causing unintended consequences for themselves. What we will find in both the cases of Spain and British Columbia is that they are not fighting the same self-destructive economic tendencies that Puritans cause for themselves and others that the United States has. This is NOT because there are none in the entire populations of Spain and British Columbia, but because those Puritans are not the rule (as they are in the United States) and do not have a stranglehold on legislation.

Also, Arth, and this is not a personal attack, you came out very strongly in favour of invading Iraq on these boards back in 2003. By the logic you and Val are using, I should conclude from this that everyone in Spain shared that view. In fact, from most of the opinion polls I saw at that time, that was not the position of the majority of the Spanish people (even though it WAS the opinion of the Spanish government who over-ruled the majority in that instance).

I think perhaps both you and Val missed the nuance of my argument. It's probably my fault for not having made myself more clear.

[ No anonymous comments ]

Re: Banning people who sat banning Gay Marriage is NOT the Answer is not the answer
by Arthegarn on Dec 19, 2005 - 08:22 AM
(User info | Send a Message) http://http://

OK, let’s begin with the beginning.

So we have these people who believe homosexuality is a disease and treat homosexuals like sick people. We also have the fact that these people treat sick people kindly.

So what’s the problem?

Sorry, Artesque, but I can’t see it. Everybody is entitled to an opinion as long as they don’t try to force their opinion into other people. They are not mistreating anybody, hurting or harming. What’s wrong? They have a different set of values and beliefs and to them is just as obvious that homosexuality is a disease as to you that it’s not. Why does a system of beliefs that leads these people to treat homosexuals kindly make you sick? I guarantee you all those people who think I am going straight to hell because I am a Roman Catholic and would like to see me embracing the One True Faith (meaning theirs) don’t make me sick, Actually I thank their kindness, their good intentions, and the fact that they keep to their businesses and let me keep to mine.

If you think that homosexuality is a disease there can be no arguing that Jesus would have loved them and tried to heal them. He loved ant tried to help sock people. I can’t see why is that idea revolting.

I don’t understand why is it selfish to wish that sick people heal and recover. If you really think homosexuality is a disease, hoping gays to become straight is the good thing to do, and hoping them to remain sick is the evil thing to do. Period

You say humans are not born homosexual. False. While it is true that not all gays were born gays, it is not true that no gay was born gay. There are three basic reasons why a person develops homosexual behaviours: 1) That person has natural (meaning genetic) homosexual tendencies (meaning that has genetic characteristics, be them inherited or the result of a mutation, that makes that person feel sexually attracted to members of the person’s same sex instead of the opposite) 2) Being a genetic heterosexual, that person has willingly decided to go over hir natural inclinations and develop a homosexual conduct, be it occasional or permanent. 3) Being a genetic heterosexual, that person has suffered any of a number of possible traumas that have made him develop, unwillingly or unknowingly, a homosexual tendency. Any of the true sources is possible for any given case; trying to say that any one of these explanations explains all cases is an oversimplification that leads to an oversimplified (=often wrong) behaviour.

So, with all due respect, I believe your idea about all homosexiuals “chosing to be that way” or “following their hearts” is wrong as often as not.

When homosexual conduct is the result of a trauma, as stated in 3), the person displaying a homosexual conduct does not do so willingly nor as an act of freedom. These people could, and should, be restored to their own, natural, free selves so that they can later make a free choice about their sexuality. Just as all genetic homosexuals who deny themselves their condition and force themselves to act as heterosexuals, meaning they exhibit a “straight” behaviour out of a different kind of trauma, one much more frequent than the one we are discussing, should first be brought to accept theiir natural tendencies so then, knowingly and willingly, they can make a similar choice.

I am a religious person. I need God to tell me the difference between right and wrong because God literally wrote the book on right and wrong. Of course, that doesn’t mean that I am a bloody idiot that lets some other bloody idiot tell him what he says God says is right or wrong. Including St. Paul. You don’t think Jesus would “love & care extra, for homosexual individuals, to drag them into heterosexuality”? That’s fine with me. You think Jesus “would love & accept them just like he does to everybody else”? That’s fine with me too. If I don’t find your beliefs, no matter how different from mine, revolting, why do you feel others’ to be so? .

Read the rest of this comment...

Re: Banning Gay Marriage is NOT the Answer
by callei on Jan 17, 2006 - 08:03 AM
(User info | Send a Message) http://http://

there is an interesting and unspoken part to this arguement. in a western marriage ( i cannot speak to Asian or Hindu marriages on this point) when a man and a woman get married, his sperm becomes her property and the property of the state, in that the laws state that it can only be used in the attempt to procreate. His sperm, like his wallet and her bed are no longer private property, but in fact change hands during the wedding vows.
What does this have to do with gay marriage? in the case of two men, who owns the sperm? in the case of two women, where does the sperm come from?

remember marriage, in a state sanctioned sense, is only a means of handling property in the present and in the furture (keeping the kids from killing each other for the farm). Marriage, in itself, is not about "love" but about business, commerce, and contracts.

that is what i find funny about the gay marriage arguemnt; the fact that they are fighting for the legal, state sanctioned business contract that is a loveless marriage because they love each other. I love the irony.

That said, i think anyone that wants to get married, providing they understand what it really is, should be able to get married. I think as well that we, as a people and a governement, should recognize more than four states of union (single, dating, engaged, and married) like living together but not heading for a binding contract, having a binding contract but dont want to share a bed, in deep lust but have no other significant feelings or use for each other, temporarily united for the sake of a child, a parent, a state of war etc.

But then I think everyone should take a classing in how to be human too, so what do i know?

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, the rest © 2001 by VibeChild.com Add shmeng_syn to your Live Journal Friends List. If you have a website check the webmasters section - You can get this site on your Palm Pilot using This link - By using this website, you are agreeing to abide by our Terms of Use. If you are a bot thinking of spamming members, get your email addresses here