View Full Version: Gay Marriage (round 2)

Apnotes > Politics > Gay Marriage (round 2)


Title: Gay Marriage (round 2)
Description: for Cloaked


Essyne - January 13, 2008 03:09 AM (GMT)
Do gays "deserve" the right to be married?

Cloaked, I really am dying to hear this one...

Cloaked - January 13, 2008 03:17 AM (GMT)
Hahahaha thank you Essyne. What would you have me say?

Edit: I kind of lost my momentum for this one. I have to admit I don't really remember against what I was prepared to argue.

Essyne - January 13, 2008 03:23 AM (GMT)
That sucks... you were really going to "lay it all out" for us - - - I just wanted to hear it. Later, then.

Cloaked - January 13, 2008 03:26 AM (GMT)
Now is this because you think you would find it amusing or interesting? If you would find it amusing, I'm not offended. If I come across as an idiot or at least an idiot involving this topic, it's my own damn fault.

Essyne - January 13, 2008 03:42 AM (GMT)
Both. It's interesting to hear the opposite side of the spectrum. As far as the amusing, well... "idiot[ic]" isn't the word I'd use. Opinionated, and that's not bad OR stupid. It is what it is. The debate would never end, that's all I'm saying. It never DOES end with a topic like this.... (But it sure as hell is "amusing" AND interesting at the same time).

Cloaked - January 13, 2008 03:51 AM (GMT)
Haha okay well I do believe that gays most definitely have the right to marriage. I'm not really too sure what it is I should be debating against because I am unsure of your views. Also, I feel that they should be granted "marriage" status if they so choose to call it that. I'm a little vague on the semantics here, but I imagine the government typically calls all marriage and civil unions (excluding gays) "marriage." Should this be true, then, if one believes gays have the right to civil union, do they not also have the right be called married?

If the government does NOT officially call it marriage and instead calls all marriages "civil unions." Then as far as I have thought it out, it should only be civil unions between gays. What I mean by that is that if marriage is a term used in religion ONLY then we cannot force religion to change its doctrine, and gays are simply S.O.L.

Essyne - January 13, 2008 03:59 AM (GMT)
Once again, you surprise me. So the only reason, and I mean the only reason, that you are against granting them "marriage" status is because of religion?

EDIT: the changing of religious doctrine.... not the broad topic of religion... what a dumb question

Cloaked - January 13, 2008 04:05 AM (GMT)
Well here is where my ignorance plays through, as I can't summon up a reason they should not have that status with which I even disagree. Of course, I also can't really formulate much of a complete opinion without either being asked questions, reading a related topic or argument, or having ample time to think about it.

Edit:
And by ample I mean ample for ME, which is probably much longer than the average person.

Essyne - January 13, 2008 04:03 PM (GMT)
Okay... here are my views -

I think that homosexuality is not, in any way "bad". Yes, I am going to bring up relgion/philosophy/whatever you want to call it, simply because I think it's something that no one ever really talks about (even in mosts posts here it's (for the most part) a semi-taboo subject).

I strongly believe in reincarnation, and do believe in another side (neither heaven nor hell, simply a recuperation (sp?) point for our souls after each life). I believe that we are reincarnated until we reach enlightenment. Homosexuality, in my opinion, stems from living a numerous amount of lives as a female/male, and then being reborn as the opposite sex. Thus, I do think that it's something that is with you since your birth. You are attracted to the same sex because that is what you "remember".

Essentially, I think that homosexuality is simply soul recognition, as all love is, and that it is beautiful. Who is anyone to regulate something like that?

[R@v3N] - January 13, 2008 05:17 PM (GMT)
The thing is not everyone has the same religious/philosophical views as you have and therefore can argue with the "reincarnation" factor. I agree with you that it is the soul-to-soul recognition that defines love, but again, not everyone shares that view.

This topic is one that I hold as undebateable. Not because there are no substantial facts, but because there are too many substantial views. It's a topic that one must put aside all religion/philosophy and simply take in equality.

Essyne - January 14, 2008 12:10 AM (GMT)
I just like hearing other points of view as you said. It's interesting to hear the other side of the spectrum, and I originally posted this to hear what Cloaked (and others) had to say, whose opinion I hoped I could learn from.
Philosophical/religious debate is possible, as long as you're open. I never tried to impose my views on ANYone; that's why I purposely repeated "I believe," etc. I love people, and I love to "get inside their heads" (so to speak), and I love to listen to everything that they have to say - and yes, that includes religion. I simply stated my views so that Cloaked could have something to go off of. I don't consider myself all-knowing about anything, let alone religion.
I want people to "argue with the 'reincarnation' factor." Because I can take what they have to say in consideration and learn from them.

Cloaked - January 14, 2008 12:23 AM (GMT)
I'll start off getting your wheels spinning then Essyne. Why do you believe in reincarnation? Do you back it up with solid facts or purely is it something you feel.

Essyne - January 14, 2008 01:39 AM (GMT)
Well then.... in that case :)

Both. Reincarnation is a well-documented phenomenon. While it was something that I had always simply "felt", I researched it years ago and (to my astonishment) found many case studies in both Burma and Thailand (as well as Tibet, India, Turkey, etc.) In many instances, young children "remember" themselves being shot, clubbed to death, etc. Even more "coincidentally", they were born with abnormal scarring/birthmarks/etc. that directly correlate with their "former accidents". Another interesting study reported children speaking foreign languages like Aramaic, which is virtually extinct today (save some Catholic priests/scholars/"those kinds of guys"). It's fascinating!

What do you think about it? *I deem reincarnation "on topic" :D *this is going to be "one of those posts" that tends to stray - just no beastiality por favor!*

Cloaked - January 14, 2008 02:06 AM (GMT)
I think that's sufficient reasoning to believe in it. I don't think it would be enough to claim "knowing the truth" and pushing it on others, which you have not done. You have therefore gained the highly coveted Cloaked's Approval of Religious Beliefs (more widely known as CARB). You may rest easy now, I'm sure you were anxious.

Essyne - January 14, 2008 02:18 AM (GMT)
oh yeah... tell me about it - (I do love my CARB's)

Cloaked - January 14, 2008 03:27 AM (GMT)
I have nothing but 'em.




* Hosted for free by zIFBoards