| Author |
Message |
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
 Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:42 am |
|
Indeed. Saying people's opinions are ignorant because you don't agree with them is... well... ignorant.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
teya
Commander
Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 423
|
| Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:59 am |
|
| Puck wrote: | Surely the only ignorant ones are those who think that two people of the same-sex can be "married", when they cannot.  |
Why do you say that?
My church marries same-gender couples. Why would you claim that can't be done?
Are you saying that there's something "ignorant" about the UU fellowship?
And what makes these marriages not real? Is it that they can't procreate?
Well, I couldn't have kids. Does that mean my marriage wasn't real? Would that make any marriage involving a post-menopausal woman not real?
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:08 am |
|
| teya wrote: | | Puck wrote: | | Surely the only ignorant ones are those who think that two people of the same-sex can be "married", when they cannot. |
Why do you say that?
I am not going to go into explaination on this again.
My church marries same-gender couples. Why would you claim that can't be done?
Just because people claim to do it, and project the outward appearance of being married doesn't make it valid.
Are you saying that there's something "ignorant" about the UU fellowship?
And what makes these marriages not real? Is it that they can't procreate?
Well, I couldn't have kids. Does that mean my marriage wasn't real? Would that make any marriage involving a post-menopausal woman not real?
I never said if you can't procreate then it's not a marriage (although in the case of gay "marriage" it is part of the reason). I never implied your marriage wasn't real. I never said (nor would I say) any marriage involving a post-menopausal woman wasn't real. |
|
|
|
teya
Commander
Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 423
|
| Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:35 am |
|
| Puck wrote: | | teya wrote: | | Puck wrote: | | Surely the only ignorant ones are those who think that two people of the same-sex can be "married", when they cannot. |
Why do you say that? |
I am not going to go into explaination on this again. |
| Quote: | My church marries same-gender couples. Why would you claim that can't be done?
Just because people claim to do it, and project the outward appearance of being married doesn't make it valid. |
Well, then, what it looks like from this side of the fence is that you're claiming that *your* beliefs should trump those of others in terms of how laws are made. Except we don't have a state religion--whether yours or anyone else's.
But, see, I can't even be sure that's what you're saying because you refuse to give a reason. If you've given one before, perhaps you could link to it, so that I can read it?
| Quote: | | I never said if you can't procreate then it's not a marriage (although in the case of gay "marriage" it is part of the reason). I never implied your marriage wasn't real. I never said (nor would I say) any marriage involving a post-menopausal woman wasn't real. |
[/quote]
Well, then, you're not being consistent with your reasoning. If inability to procreate is a reason for blocking gay marriage, then it should be a reason to block any marriage.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:39 am |
|
I have explained it partially to you, a few pages back in this thread, and also have explained in more detail HERE
There is also a difference in the inability to being able to procreate because of natural reasons, and denying the possibility of procreation in unnatural ways, such as homosexual intercourse, contraceptives, etc.... Notice the two differences here..."inability & natural" vs. "denying & unnatural". However, it appears you think this is the sole argument I have in describing what is wrong with gay relationships. That would be false, because these relationships also lack the unitive aspect that heterosexual ones have. It may appear that I believe my beliefs should trump others, and I guess you are right in a way. I know that I am part of Christ's Church which contains the fullness of truth, and because of this feel that the truth is not simply my "belief" but the actual truth that applies to all of humanity.
|
|
|
teya
Commander
Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 423
|
| Wed Aug 02, 2006 8:22 am |
|
| Puck wrote: | | It may appear that I believe my beliefs should trump others, and I guess you are right in a way. I know that I am part of Christ's Church which contains the fullness of truth, and because of this feel that the truth is not simply my "belief" but the actual truth that applies to all of humanity. |
First, thanks for the link. It does clarify the position you're arguing.
The problem is, you're still arguing from a solely religious standpoint. Why should anyone not a member of your church be forced to live under its beliefs? *You* believe these things to be true. Not even all Christians agree with you.
You are granted freedom to worship and live according to your faith by the constitution. The other side of that is that so is every other American--whether they are a member of your church, a member of another church, or a member of none.
And it has already been pointed out that at least one mainstream faith performs same-gender marriage. You would deny them their religious beliefs so that your own could be codified into law.
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:05 am |
|
| Puck wrote: |
There is also a difference in the inability to being able to procreate because of natural reasons, and denying the possibility of procreation in unnatural ways, such as homosexual intercourse, contraceptives, etc.... |
...sorry, that caught me... how are contraceptives and homosexual intercourse alike? Is a marriage invalid if the couple always uses contraceptives, refuses to have a child, and "denies" procreation? ...and does the Church see something wrong with that? I'd never heard of catholics having an issue with the use of contraceptives. I know some denominations frown on or forbid it...but then, I'm not well informed about catholic beliefs in general.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
