Same-sex marriage opponents now worried that people might want to marry robots in the future (percentage, world)

[onihC]

I find this topic’s title interesting. Actually, it is gays/lesbians and their supporters fears of other preferences/orientations also getting support and acceptance, having them also redefine laws, redefine unions, redefine religion, have their pride marches, etc.

Originally Posted by hilgi

Actually I will do one better. Get the government out of schooling and let people send their kids to the school of their choice

There you go. But why would kids be forced to follow religion in school? Why would kids be forced to support homosexuality? Sounds fair to have NEITHER in public schools or send them to a private one.

What do you think of gays/lesbians who sue religious organizations, publishers, religious books, churches, etc.?

Jesus was talking to his audience; they were not gay men so he targeted his talk

First you said Jesus never talked about homosexuals, marriage, etc. Then you said it was divorce. Now you said no gay men were around when he was talking? Keep trying. He was directing the speech to an audience, period. He mentioned the marriage of a man and a woman who become one flesh (sex), just like it was in the beginning with Adam and Eve. The same way Muslims have the Quran as their holy book, Christians have the bible which they call “The Word of God”. And in both books and other religious books, homosexuality is a sin, against nature, etc. Why try to redefine religions? Why not become Satanists? I mean, those guys support gays/lesbians, travesties, and other orientations/preferences.

Plus we are not talking about religious unions

If you don’t want to talk about religion, then don’t bring it up. So that’s it with religion and move on? Be my guest. Wanna try biology now? Since one of you guys mentioned it before.

but ceremonies either permitted or as what I want certified. Religion has no bearing on the issue

Religion has no issue, yet, gays/lesbians have sued Christian churches for not marrying them. Should religion stay out of gays/lesbians business? I’ll support you guys and say, YES! But now, this goes both ways, should gays/lesbians stay out of religions, YES! Can’t cherry pick only what benefits you.

Most verses mistranslate or don't take context and history into account making it easy for them to condemn people

The bible and other religious literature say it clearly, homosexuality is a sin. Don’t know what is so confusing about it. I posted a few verses before in this thread, even from the Quran.

I think some gays hate religious people, not religion

They hate religion since it doesn’t cater to their lifestyles the same way a drunk, player, prostitute, etc. would hate it.

God supports all people; he does not hate any group

God loves people, not the sin. Homosexuality is a sin. I know of religious institutions who welcome gays/lesbians with wide opened arms and lead them to a life where they leave their sin of homosexuality behind just like others want to leave a lifestyle of promiscuity, stealing, lying, etc. behind. Not “Oh come in here, we’ll accept your lifestyle of lying”.

[hilgi]

Originally Posted by onihC

I find this topic’s title interesting. Actually, it is gays/lesbians and their supporters fears of other preferences/orientations also getting support and acceptance, having them also redefine laws, redefine unions, redefine religion, have their pride marches, etc.




There you go. But why would kids be forced to follow religion in school? Why would kids be forced to support homosexuality? Sounds fair to have NEITHER in public schools or send them to a private one.

What do you think of gays/lesbians who sue religious organizations, publishers, religious books, churches, etc.?



First you said Jesus never talked about homosexuals, marriage, etc. Then you said it was divorce. Now you said no gay men were around when he was talking? Keep trying. He was directing the speech to an audience, period. He mentioned the marriage of a man and a woman who become one flesh (sex), just like it was in the beginning with Adam and Eve. The same way Muslims have the Quran as their holy book, Christians have the bible which they call “The Word of God”. And in both books and other religious books, homosexuality is a sin, against nature, etc. Why try to redefine religions? Why not become Satanists? I mean, those guys support gays/lesbians, travesties, and other orientations/preferences.



If you don’t want to talk about religion, then don’t bring it up. So that’s it with religion and move on? Be my guest. Wanna try biology now? Since one of you guys mentioned it before.



Religion has no issue, yet, gays/lesbians have sued Christian churches for not marrying them. Should religion stay out of gays/lesbians business? I’ll support you guys and say, YES! But now, this goes both ways, should gays/lesbians stay out of religions, YES! Can’t cherry pick only what benefits you.



The bible and other religious literature say it clearly, homosexuality is a sin. Don’t know what is so confusing about it. I posted a few verses before in this thread, even from the Quran.



They hate religion since it doesn’t cater to their lifestyles the same way a drunk, player, prostitute, etc. would hate it.



God loves people, not the sin. Homosexuality is a sin. I know of religious institutions who welcome gays/lesbians with wide opened arms and lead them to a life where they leave their sin of homosexuality behind just like others want to leave a lifestyle of promiscuity, stealing, lying, etc. behind. Not “Oh come in here, we’ll accept your lifestyle of lying”.

Do you really want to go down the road of instituting religion from our government?

I hope you don't cut your hair if we do.

You keep diverting the debate; why not just say what you feel. You don't want gays to get married "because you said so."

There are not acceptable or constitutional grounds for not allowing free consenting adults to enter into a legal contract. I know you hate that, I know you lie awake at night thinking about what those guys are doing in their bedroom. It must suck for you.

But the fact remains; in a free country you cannot let your personal biases be the basis of contract law for legal, human, consenting adults regardless of sex, race, creed or color. You were born a couple hundred years too late, or in the wrong country. Maybe Iran would be a good fit for you, they execute gays! You could help with the stones.

Best of luck to you, we have gone in circles way more than I can count. You will never convince me to hate my neighbor and I will never convince you to love your neighbor.

[nightbird47]

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

The definition of marriage could easily and reasonably be defined as a relationship between two consenting human beings, thus marriages with robots, animals, toasters, etc. would not be a problem. There is no danger of vague definitions leading to a "slippery slope" here.

However, if at some point in the future we have reason to think that robots have actually become sentient beings, and we begin to treat them as legal citizens, then some people might want to consider expanding the definition of marriage to allow marriage to robots. This is not a slippery-slope; it is simply an opportunity to update our legal definition in light of advancing technology. This should not be big problem, and I, for one, might actually vote to change the definition of marriage, in that case. If we someday have reason to believe that robots are conscious, then we ought to treat them with the same respect, and offer the same rights, as we do to human beings.

And just for fun, I will add ETs to the mix. If we ever develop an on-going cultural inter-mixing with aliens, I see no reason why the definition of marriage shouldn't be expanded to include them as well.

One of the most resounding themes in Star Trek tng was Data. At one point a researcher wanted to have him transfered and taken apart to "study" him. He was an android after all. Picard's defense of what makes us a self aware individual is wonderful. Today if we just defined a marriage as between two consenting individuals (or human beings) we could solve the debate. Let churches marry or not marry individuals.

It would be a good basis for the future when there WILL be self aware "robots" though likely they will look like us and have synthetic bodies. Then we'll have to decide where awareness of self and the ability to give consent starts and ends. But that time WILL come. If we were to say your "robot" was just a machine but he/she was self-aware and able to make full decisions, wouldn't that be a new kind of slavery?

[hooligan]

Originally Posted by onihC

...The law said gays/lesbians couldn’t get married and now look how far they have gotten? So let teenagers, children, etc. march for their rights and redefine whatever they want just like gays/lesbians already did.

I'll say it again, slowly: What legal contract OTHER than marriage are gays not allowed to enter into? None. What legal contract OTHER than marriage are minors not allowed to enter into? Oh, that's right! All of them.

If you can't or won't recognize that vast difference, intelligent discussion from this point forward will be impossible. Please address this point, as you've ignored it throught this "discussion" and it is central to the argument at hand.

Originally Posted by onihC

Get gays/lesbians out of churches and religious organizations too. Why try to redefine that as well?

When did I advocate forcing churches to allow homosexuals to be members? Please show me that post. Here's a hint, you won't find it. Churches should be free to accept or reject whomever they wish, IMO. Wonderful attempt at a strawman, though.

Originally Posted by onihC

Remember the links I posted about gays/lesbians suing bible publishers, churches, etc.? What do you think of those gays/lesbians who sue?

Stupid people, of every stripe, file frivolous lawsuits every day. Why are you surprised? Again, a strawman that has nothing to do with the topic.

[twinArmageddons]

The precedent allowed for homosexuals to enter a marriage is the fact that on their own, they can legally enter a contract.

Teenagers, children, robots, inanimate objects, cannot enter a legal contract.

Therefore, saying t hat this will lead to those groups getting married is just plain idiotic.

[onihC]

Originally Posted by hilgi

Do you really want to go down the road of instituting religion from our government?

It’s a free country where you live but to have government forcing its people to follow a religion or to support homosexuality, doesn’t sound good.

You keep diverting the debate; why not just say what you feel. You don't want gays to get married "because you said so."

That’s not diverting the debate. Just reply to the points I brought just like I reply to you guys’ points. When you guys tell me I am probably gay in denial, I am a supporter trying to make anti-gays/lesbians look bad, etc. shows me someone else is trying to divert the debate. So let’s continue, shall we? ;-)

But the fact remains; in a free country you cannot let your personal biases be the basis of contract law for legal, human, consenting adults regardless of sex, race, creed or color. You were born a couple hundred years too late, or in the wrong country. Maybe Iran would be a good fit for you, they execute gays! You could help with the stones

You are not getting the point. I am not saying gays/lesbians shouldn’t get unions or whatever you want to call it. I am saying that if gays/lesbians are doing their thing, then why not all bunch of orientations/preferences as well? But you guys seem threatened or afraid of accepting other differences. Come on, follow all those slogans you guys proudly proclaim: accept differences, celebrate diversity, be loving, be a family, embrace others, etc. But when other preferences/orientations are mentioned, all those slogans are thrown out the window.

You will never convince me to hate my neighbor and I will never convince you to love your neighbor

Look at you, trying to make anybody who disagrees with you a bad person. Not the first time I see you guys try that. See, just because I don’t support the lifestyle of a drunk means I am hateful. So does it mean that just because you don’t support other orientations/preferences (that threaten you) does it make you hateful, close-minded, and so on? Stick to the debate instead of trying to throw a jab here and there, an insult, etc. Follow your gay/lesbian slogans instead and carry on.

You keep avoiding the questions I make you and other points I bring and instead rely on jabs, insults, etc. Are you running out of ideas? I am fine with you bringing your points, it is fun. If you can’t answer those points for whatever reason then leave it like that. Insults and jabs are a bit teeny really and I am sure you are a bit more mature than that, right?

Ok…I’ll reply to Hooligan since he brought some interesting points…

[emjaykay62]

Love is love. I do not care what someone may do or say, I will not stop loving the person I am with. And I do not think someone has the right to tell someone who to love or be with.

Fear is a funny thing, get your heads out of the sand. Homosexuality is not catching. Let people love and stop the hate.

[onihC]

Originally Posted by hooligan

I'll say it again, slowly: What legal contract OTHER than marriage are gays not allowed to enter into? None. What legal contract OTHER than marriage are minors not allowed to enter into? Oh, that's right! All of them.

And I’ll say it slowly…things change and are redefined. Why can’t other preferences/orientations redefine laws, contracts, religion, etc. just like gays/lesbians have been doing? Why not let them fight as well? Why are gays/lesbians and supporters so threatened by them also fighting for so called rights and privileges? I have not ignored the point. You guys keep saying “Oh, but they are minors…oh, they can’t because that is not legal…” well, gays/lesbians had all kinds of barriers and now look at them. Well, other preferences/orientations have bunch of barriers too, why not let them follow what gays/lesbians have done to get as far as they gotten now? Why would gays/lesbians be the “better” preference/orientation?

Originally Posted by Phantasy Tokoro

The precedent allowed for homosexuals to enter a marriage is the fact that on their own, they can legally enter a contract.

Teenagers, children, robots, inanimate objects, cannot enter a legal contract.

Therefore, saying t hat this will lead to those groups getting married is just plain idiotic.

Many years ago people thought it was plain idiotic for gays/lesbians to do what they are doing now. Who would imagine? Gays/lesbians have done so much to get where they are and finally have been accepted by at least half of the USA, or so it seems. Why are you guys afraid/intimidated of other preferences/orientations?

I know I know, it is not legal…Well, it was illegal for gays/lesbians to get unions and now look. Those laws were REDEFINED, marriage was REDEFINED, contracts were REDEFINED. Other preferences/orientations will fight for it as well and REDEFINE whatever they have to just like gays/lesbians who set the example that everything is possible. Why not let other couples, orientations, preferences, etc. be happy too? Come on, don’t forget gay/lesbian slogans.

Originally Posted by emjaykay62

Love is love. I do not care what someone may do or say, I will not stop loving the person I am with. And I do not think someone has the right to tell someone who to love or be with.

Fear is a funny thing, get your heads out of the sand. Homosexuality is not catching. Let people love and stop the hate.

There you go . Let gays/lesbians love each other, let teenagers love their 50 year old lover, etc. Let's all celebrate love, celebrate diversity, accept differences, be open minded, and be a happy loving family . Hey! These are some of the many gays/lesbian slogans after all.

[gallowsCalibrator]

Originally Posted by onihC

Many years ago people thought it was plain idiotic for gays/lesbians to do what they are doing now. Who would imagine? Gays/lesbians have done so much to get where they are and finally have been accepted by at least half of the USA, or so it seems. Why are you guys afraid/intimidated of other preferences/orientations?

I know I know, it is not legal…Well, it was illegal for gays/lesbians to get unions and now look. Those laws were REDEFINED, marriage was REDEFINED, contracts were REDEFINED. Other preferences/orientations will fight for it as well and REDEFINE whatever they have to just like gays/lesbians who set the example that everything is possible. Why not let other couples, orientations, preferences, etc. be happy too? Come on, don’t forget gay/lesbian slogans.

Yeah. You completely skipped over what he said.

Homosexuals can enter into any legal contract except marriage.

Children (and teenagers who've yet to reach the age of consent), pets, robots can not enter into any legal contract.

Got it memorized?

[donsabi]

People will want to marry their pets first.

Or like Sue, marry themselves.