MOCpages : Share your LEGO® creations
LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop The TFOL Private Club (Partially restored by L.C.V.)Star Wars
Welcome to the world's greatest LEGO fan community!
Explore cool creations, share your own, and have lots of fun together.  ~  It's all free!
The TFOL Private Club (Partially restored by L.C.V.)
Group home Members (126) LEGO creations (1001) Conversation (48850)
Conversation »
Marriage Equality
 Group admin 
Lately there's been a lot of media coverage of LGBT marriage rights, with the U.S. looking into their stance on the matter. With prominent LEGO sites like The Brothers Brick even providing their opinions, I think it would be an interesting issue to discuss here. Keep it civil.
Permalink
| March 28, 2013, 9:28 am
 Group admin 
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
Lately there's been a lot of media coverage of LGBT marriage rights, with the U.S. looking into their stance on the matter. With prominent LEGO sites like The Brothers Brick even providing their opinions, I think it would be an interesting issue to discuss here. Keep it civil.
I am strongly against it. Also, I do not think it even has to be discussed.

Permalink
| March 28, 2013, 9:46 am
 Group admin 
Also - debate thread? It is made for this kind of stuff.
Permalink
| March 28, 2013, 9:47 am
As a Catholic, I'm against it. :)
Permalink
| March 28, 2013, 9:51 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Also - debate thread? It is made for this kind of stuff.

Indeed it is. But people will feel better inclined to comment here, where there's no clutter.
Permalink
| March 28, 2013, 10:59 am
Strongly for it. No question about it.
Permalink
| March 28, 2013, 11:26 am
 Group admin 
Definitely for it.
Even if you find it morally wrong, are you not at all disturbed that the government is denying people such a basic right?
Permalink
| March 28, 2013, 11:35 am
I am strongly against calling it marriage. Marriage is a right for a Man and a Women, not for a man and a man or for a women and a women.
I don't care if they call it a union or whatever, because they have the right under the constitution of the United States of America, to do whatever they want, they do not, on the other hand, have the right to impose something on me that I do not want.

If you look at California home of the Homosexual capitol of the United States, San Fransisco, you will find that Homosexual marriage was voted down. I find that rather interesting, don't you?

If you call it something other than marriage I will not oppose it.
Do I find it correct in my moral code for someone to be a Homosexual, no I don't. But my Moral code will not allow me to inhibit another man from his freedom.

That is my stance on the matter, make of it what you wish...

--John
Permalink
| March 28, 2013, 12:59 pm
Quoting John Daniels
they do not, on the other hand, have the right to impose something on me that I do not want.

Don't like same sex marriage? Simple solution, don't get married to a man.
Permalink
| March 28, 2013, 1:22 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Space Gypsy .
Quoting John Daniels
they do not, on the other hand, have the right to impose something on me that I do not want.

Don't like same sex marriage? Simple solution, don't get married to a man.

It is not that. The point is that some people do not want others to do stupid things.
Permalink
| March 28, 2013, 1:29 pm
Quoting Space Gypsy .
Quoting John Daniels
they do not, on the other hand, have the right to impose something on me that I do not want.

Don't like same sex marriage? Simple solution, don't get married to a man.

I would never even think of it.

Permalink
| March 28, 2013, 1:58 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
It is not that. The point is that some people do not want others to do stupid things.

That's rediculous. That is an imposition in itself. Who defines stupid? You may consider one thing stupid, I would consider another thing stupid.

For example, I may not like cyclists wearing helmets because I think it's stupid. But I don't try and ban them.
Permalink
| March 28, 2013, 2:08 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Space Gypsy .

For example, I may not like cyclists wearing helmets because I think it's stupid. But I don't try and ban them.

At least give a good example. And you know who decides what is stupid? Nobody. It is already decided.
Permalink
| March 28, 2013, 2:34 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
At least give a good example. And you know who decides what is stupid? Nobody. It is already decided.

You got me. That was a bad example.
Different cultures find different things stupid.
The Roman Empire encouraged homosexuality. Christianity did not as a protest against the Romans.
Permalink
| March 28, 2013, 2:36 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Space Gypsy .
Romans.

Who said they were not stupid? And by that I do not mean stupider than everyone else at the time, mind you.
Permalink
| March 28, 2013, 2:45 pm
I'm fine with it, I suppose. Even though I do not like it in principle, and I think it's "wrong"(and I'm not even religious) I don't see how anyone can justify telling people they can't marry certain people.

And calling it a "civil union" is really not fair either.
Permalink
| March 28, 2013, 6:32 pm
Quoting John Daniels
I am strongly against calling it marriage. Marriage is a right for a Man and a Women, not for a man and a man or for a women and a women.
--John

Amen!!
Permalink
| March 28, 2013, 10:44 pm
 Group admin 
The thing is, the only reason it's illegal is because of religious reasons.
Any student of history should know that any religion + government = bad.


Permalink
| March 28, 2013, 11:12 pm
Quoting Ru Corder
The thing is, the only reason it's illegal is because of religious reasons.
Any student of history should know that any religion + government = bad.


Agreed. However, I dislike this argument. Those against your point could just say point out athiest tyrants.

I find its more down to human nature than to religion when it comes to dictators and the like.
Permalink
| March 29, 2013, 5:23 am
Personally, I don't give a stuff either way.

I have noticed, however, a bit of a misconception.

See, the institution of 'marriage' is a religious one. The legal structure by the same name is administrative.

The various proposed legal adjustments only apply to the latter.

Changing the laws relating to it won't have any effect on churches and so forth, and will amount to book-keeping tweaks.

Thus, any panic is needless.


At least, that's how I understand it.


Could be wrong; if I am, well, that WOULD be cause for panic. Seperation of church and state is supposed to go both ways, after all.



But then, governments never really care about individual rights. Only reason they're all looking at this is because it gives them another way to control what people can do and how they do it.

Probably a bit of bread-and-circuses involved too. Nice moral panic to distract the proletariat from the way their governments are driving them off a financial cliff.
Permalink
| March 30, 2013, 7:28 am
If God created us, and he created people who love the same gender as they have, why would He be against letting the marry?

I'm not religious or anything, so I think everyone should be able to marry the adult he/she loves, because that's what love is about.
I hope my English is good enough to understand.
Permalink
| March 30, 2013, 12:35 pm
Areetsa's point about this just distracting us from the real problems at hand is a good one. What difference does this issue actually make to me? None. Any importance the issue of same-sex marriage may have pales in comparison to the fact that I will have to help pay off a $16-trillion (and counting!) debt. Our military actions are also a cause for concern.
Permalink
| March 30, 2013, 6:34 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Timo The Dutchman
If God created us, and he created people who love the same gender as they have, why would He be against letting the marry?

I'm not religious or anything, so I think everyone should be able to marry the adult he/she loves, because that's what love is about.
I hope my English is good enough to understand.
If god created Satan then Satanism is O.K., because you are doing something told to you by a creation of god.

Permalink
| March 30, 2013, 7:58 pm
 Group admin 
I'm strongly against it. I feel its just wrong, but I have other reasons that are less-feeling-based.

Encouraging it and legalizing it or whatever, really destroys the basis of marriage. And once marriage has been undefined, the moral (and the general) situation in the world is going to degrade even more. Think of Sodom and Gamorra. A perverted city, to be destroyed by fire and brimstone.... wouldn't want that happening to the US, now would we? ;)
Permalink
| March 31, 2013, 10:04 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Flare .
to be destroyed by fire and brimstone.... wouldn't want that happening to the US, now would we? ;)

Can we vote on that?
Permalink
| March 31, 2013, 12:38 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting John Daniels
because they have the right under the constitution of the United States of America,

--John

Maybe it does say that, but how will that help French Same sex couples or British or Japanese ones?
Its hardly a point worth mentioning.
Permalink
| March 31, 2013, 1:01 pm
Quoting Flare .
I'm strongly against it. I feel its just wrong, but I have other reasons that are less-feeling-based.

Encouraging it and legalizing it or whatever, really destroys the basis of marriage. And once marriage has been undefined, the moral (and the general) situation in the world is going to degrade even more. Think of Sodom and Gamorra. A perverted city, to be destroyed by fire and brimstone.... wouldn't want that happening to the US, now would we? ;)

Except it'd be an administrative and legal change, and have no effect on the religious institution of the same name.

As far as moral degeneracy goes, have you checked 4chan lately?
Permalink
| March 31, 2013, 11:17 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Areetsa C
Except it'd be an administrative and legal change, and have no effect on the religious institution of the same name.

As far as moral degeneracy goes, have you checked 4chan lately?


4chan has no significant impact on the mass majority of human beings.
Permalink
| April 1, 2013, 2:38 am
Quoting Flare .

4chan has no significant impact on the mass majority of human beings.

All that goat pr0n has to come from somewhere.
Permalink
| April 1, 2013, 6:52 am
Quoting Space Gypsy .
You got me. That was a bad example.
Different cultures find different things stupid.
The Roman Empire encouraged homosexuality. Christianity did not as a protest against the Romans.
Christians are against it because God intended for marriage to be between a man and a woman.

Permalink
| April 1, 2013, 8:46 am
Quoting Timo The Dutchman
If God created us, and he created people who love the same gender as they have, why would He be against letting the marry?

I'm not religious or anything, so I think everyone should be able to marry the adult he/she loves, because that's what love is about.
I hope my English is good enough to understand.
And again, He intended for marriage to be between a man, and a woman.

Permalink
| April 1, 2013, 8:49 am
Quoting Flare .
I'm strongly against it. I feel its just wrong, but I have other reasons that are less-feeling-based.

Encouraging it and legalizing it or whatever, really destroys the basis of marriage. And once marriage has been undefined, the moral (and the general) situation in the world is going to degrade even more. Think of Sodom and Gamorra. A perverted city, to be destroyed by fire and brimstone.... wouldn't want that happening to the US, now would we? ;)
Amen!

Permalink
| April 1, 2013, 8:55 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Sean Kenney
Quoting Space Gypsy .
You got me. That was a bad example.
Different cultures find different things stupid.
The Roman Empire encouraged homosexuality. Christianity did not as a protest against the Romans.
Christians are against it because God intended for marriage to be between a man and a woman.
As the mighty and powerful Chris Phipson, I declare there is no god, but marriage equality should never be allowed anyways.

Phipson has spoken.

Permalink
| April 1, 2013, 9:42 am
Quoting Chris Phipson
Quoting Sean Kenney
Quoting Space Gypsy .
You got me. That was a bad example.
Different cultures find different things stupid.
The Roman Empire encouraged homosexuality. Christianity did not as a protest against the Romans.
Christians are against it because God intended for marriage to be between a man and a woman.
As the mighty and powerful Chris Phipson, I declare there is no god, but marriage equality should never be allowed anyways.

Phipson has spoken.
ok Deuce, or whichever phipson you are :P

Permalink
| April 1, 2013, 11:03 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Chris Phipson
As the mighty and powerful Chris Phipson, I declare there is no god, but marriage equality should never be allowed anyways.

Phipson has spoken.


And as the even more might and powerful Chris Phipson, I declare that there is a god, but "marriage equality" should never be allowed anyways.

Phipson has spoken.
Permalink
| April 1, 2013, 1:31 pm
Even though I am of a Christian background, I pass no judgement on it. People can do whatever the heck they want to do. I really have nothing against it.
Permalink
| April 2, 2013, 12:26 pm
Marriage is between a man and woman. You can't take 2 dudes and call them married. If you put a sign on a cow that says horse, does that make it a horse? I don't care if a state wants to offer the same benefits for others. I just don't think this should be a federal issue; each state should vote for themselves.
Permalink
| April 2, 2013, 12:49 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
.... each state should vote for themselves.


Agreed. Its called the United STATES of America, not The Obama Socialist Democratic Republic of America, the states should have more freedom to make laws inside of their states and not be forced by the large government to do things - thats how it was intended by the Founding Fathers.
Permalink
| April 2, 2013, 12:55 pm
Quoting michael k.
Marriage is between a man and woman. You can't take 2 dudes and call them married. If you put a sign on a cow that says horse, does that make it a horse? ....

Yes, in other words, it redefines the definition of marriage.

-LB Jr.

Permalink
| April 2, 2013, 1:18 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Lego Builders
-LB Jr.


Hey! Are you old enough to be in this group?
Permalink
| April 2, 2013, 1:30 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting David Wang
Even though I am of a Christian background, I pass no judgement on it. People can do whatever the heck they want to do. I really have nothing against it.

Well, I am a Christian. And it is an abomination against God. I have scriptures. Leviticus 20:13 Leviticus 18:22 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Romans 1:26-27 ...
Permalink
| April 2, 2013, 1:32 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Flare .

Hey! Are you old enough to be in this group?

And are you quite old enough to stop posting your comments over and over?
Permalink
| April 2, 2013, 1:38 pm
Quoting Lego Builders
Yes, in other words, it redefines the definition of marriage.

-LB Jr.

If we re-define it, where do we draw the line? If a man wants to marry two women, "well that's his right isn't it?". And if a cat lady wants to marry her cats, what about that? Where does it end?
Permalink
| April 2, 2013, 1:42 pm
Why the heck do we have to discuss this on a Lego site? It has nothing to do with legos or anything on here. I'm really getting sick of this fad, and I hope it dies soon. This is when I start moving away from a website or community.
Permalink
| April 2, 2013, 3:05 pm
(i personally think this is weird for a lego site too)

Im against it, i have nothing against ga y people as human beings. im friends with a few myself.

but i dont support marriage of the kind. mostly because im Catholic and i believe in man and woman stuff. and that adoption isnt right because i child deserves to be brought up under a mother and father.


Permalink
| April 2, 2013, 4:15 pm
Quoting Flare .

Hey! Are you old enough to be in this group?

Yes.

-LB Jr.
Permalink
| April 2, 2013, 7:01 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting F-ZERO's #1 Fanatic
Why the heck do we have to discuss this on a Lego site? It has nothing to do with legos or anything on here. I'm really getting sick of this fad, and I hope it dies soon. This is when I start moving away from a website or community.

If you don't want to discuss it, don't discuss it. No one's making you.
As a rule I generally try not to discuss politics on the internet, but if other people want to, let them have at it.
Permalink
| April 2, 2013, 7:15 pm
Quoting Ru Corder
If you don't want to discuss it, don't discuss it. No one's making you.
As a rule I generally try not to discuss politics on the internet, but if other people want to, let them have at it.

Exactly.
Permalink
| April 2, 2013, 7:16 pm
Quoting michael k.
If we re-define it, where do we draw the line? If a man wants to marry two women, "well that's his right isn't it?". And if a cat lady wants to marry her cats, what about that? Where does it end?

I don't think it should be changed at all.

-LB Jr.
Permalink
| April 2, 2013, 7:58 pm
I am a Christian and I have absolutely no problem with it. The United States of America is a FREE country, or so they say, so theoretically people should be able to marry whoever they want to marry no matter the gender. Now if u live in a country that is under dictatorship that is another story as the principle of dictatorship is to have absolute control over the people.
Permalink
| April 2, 2013, 9:23 pm
Quoting Monsterlego ,
(i personally think this is weird for a lego site too)

Im against it, i have nothing against ga y people as human beings. im friends with a few myself.

but i dont support marriage of the kind. mostly because im Catholic and i believe in man and woman stuff. and that adoption isnt right because i child deserves to be brought up under a mother and father.


That, with all due respect is contradictory in itself. The kids that aren't adopted then might not be brought up by a mother and father :/
Permalink
| April 2, 2013, 9:28 pm
Quoting Grant W.
I am a Christian and I have absolutely no problem with it. The United States of America is a FREE country....

What is your definition of a "free country?"

-LB Jr.
Permalink
| April 3, 2013, 1:13 pm
Quoting Grant W.
The United States of America is a FREE country,

So your principle is that you should be able to do whatever you want, since we're free. Taking you statement to an extreme, murder should be ok then, since it's a free country.
Permalink
| April 3, 2013, 1:17 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
So your principle is that you should be able to do whatever you want, since we're free. Taking you statement to an extreme, murder should be ok then, since it's a free country.

There's a big difference between marrying someone and killing someone.
We should be allowed to do what we want as long as it doesn't harm or take advantage of other people.
The government has no business telling anyone who they can and can't marry.
Permalink
| April 3, 2013, 1:49 pm
Quoting Ru Corder
There's a big difference between marrying someone and killing someone.
We should be allowed to do what we want as long as it doesn't harm or take advantage of other people.
The government has no business telling anyone who they can and can't marry.

So polygamy is ok?
Permalink
| April 3, 2013, 1:56 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
So polygamy is ok?

Why not? Do you want to take away that right from a woman that wants to be married to a man that is already married?
Permalink
| April 3, 2013, 2:12 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
So polygamy is ok?

If it's completely consensual from all parties involved, why should it concern us?
Permalink
| April 3, 2013, 2:13 pm
So then what IS marriage? Any number of parties who want to live together?
Permalink
| April 3, 2013, 2:42 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
So polygamy is ok?

Actually, I think that's fine too. Marriage should be granted to anyone who has the reasoning capacity to consent to it.
Permalink
| April 3, 2013, 3:14 pm
Quoting Ru Corder
Definitely for it.
Even if you find it morally wrong, are you not at all disturbed that the government is denying people such a basic right?

The government gives certain benefits to married couples. Do you really want the government benefiting people for an immoral act?
Permalink
| April 3, 2013, 7:35 pm
Lets look at this logically. Thou not the most religious of Christians I am still one but I find it useful to disconnect from religion momentarily when discussing this topic. Ignore ur religious bias's and think about this slowly for a moment.
If I wanted to take this up with a court and make same gender marriage legal theoretically I should be able to make it legal. This makes it unusual why it has not been made legal already.
Someone wanting same gender marriage could proclaim in court that they follow the jane doe religion and that it allows same gender marriage. As there is free religion in the country of the United States of America they would have to allow this person to marry someone of the same gender because people in this country can choose any relgion they choose. Not allowing same gender marriage to this person would theoretically be violating their religion. As Same gender marriage does not violate any of the United States' standing written laws it would therefore theoretically have to be made legal throughout the country if this case were to take place in the Supreme Court. Of course this doesn't take into account the Religious bias's judges and the members of juries have which have nothing to do with the government anyway.
Permalink
| April 3, 2013, 8:10 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
The government gives certain benefits to married couples. Do you really want the government benefiting people for an immoral act?

Immoral in who's oppinion? Terrorists blowing up a building may not be immoral to them, they might think that they are serving their god however we perceive their actions as immoral. The act of same gender marriage really isn't even bad at all. What does it even matter if two people of the same gender want to marry each other. It doesn't concern anyone but those people. Its just unusual to us so some people deem it wrong.
Permalink
| April 3, 2013, 8:17 pm
Quoting Grant W.
Immoral in who's oppinion? Terrorists blowing up a building may not be immoral to them, they might think that they are serving their god however we perceive their actions as immoral. The act of same gender marriage really isn't even bad at all. What does it even matter if two people of the same gender want to marry each other. It doesn't concern anyone but those people. Its just unusual to us so some people deem it wrong.

Immorality does not depend on opinion. What morals are may be debated, and my opinion may be wrong, but absolute morals do exist.
Permalink
| April 3, 2013, 9:16 pm
Quoting Grant W.

Why does this even belong in court? If you want it lega l, it should be put on a ballot, or done legislatively in each state, not with judicial activis m forcing their opinion on the whole country.
Permalink
| April 3, 2013, 10:36 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
Why does this even belong in court? If you want it lega l, it should be put on a ballot, or done legislatively in each state, not with judicial activis m forcing their opinion on the whole country.

He was using that as an example on how these things should be thought out logically, coldly even, not based on feelings or religious obligations.
Permalink
| April 3, 2013, 10:38 pm
Quoting Ru Corder
He was using that as an example on how these things should be thought out logically, coldly even, not based on feelings or religious obligations.

I know.
Permalink
| April 3, 2013, 10:52 pm
Quoting michael k.
So your principle is that you should be able to do whatever you want, since we're free. Taking you statement to an extreme, murder should be ok then, since it's a free country.

It would be, except that everyone else has a right to not be murdered that overrides your right to murder people.

You may also want to recall that not everyone lives in Ameriland.


Bully for us, too, the way you guys are sabotaging your own economy.
Quoting Freeling ++
Well, I am a Christian. And it is an abomination against God. I have scriptures. Leviticus 20:13 Leviticus 18:22 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Romans 1:26-27 ...

Killed any fortune-tellers lately?
Wearing clothing of mixed fabrics?
When was the last time you sacrificed a goat?

Contrary to what you may believe, you're not supposed to pick and choose from scripture.

The thing about Leviticus is it's basically a demonstration that morality can't be legislated.

IIRC it all went out the window after Bethlehem.

So: if you're going to use Leviticus as a source for "Thou Shalt Not XYZ", you're going to have to accept all the stuff it has to say about A, B and C as well.

As for Corinthians, it says right there:
"...And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

If they're comfortable enough doing it to want to get married, it's a safe bet they aren't going to stop any time soon.

Not really much point stopping them then, eh?

Not unless you're going to start stabbing, in which case I'll have to have a very sharp and pointed conversation with you.

Dead men don't repent very often.


In conclusion, don't cherry-pick verses to support your points.
It makes you dishonest and your failings in turn reflect unfavourably on everyone else.
Permalink
| April 4, 2013, 7:13 am
Quoting Areetsa C

The thing about Leviticus is it's basically a demonstration that morality can't be legislated.
Oh, then why do we have laws against things like murder and theft?

Permalink
| April 4, 2013, 6:25 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Oh, then why do we have laws against things like murder and theft?

Those've got nothing to do with morality.

African tribes who think a round of ethnic cleansing would be a good way to pass a slow evening have laws against murder and theft.

If people are running around murdering and stealing, you'll get other people running around taking revenge, and that leads to a huge mess for everyone involved.


Thus why the first thing any state does is establish a monopoly on force, so the government is the only group with the ability to run around murdering and stealing.
Great for the state, not so much for the individuals.

On the other hand, if someone tries to murder you, you can die content with the knowledge that the government will arrest them (probably) and lock them away for fifty years (unless they're black or famous, in which case they get out early.)
Permalink
| April 4, 2013, 11:45 pm
 Group admin 
This is getting out of hand. I'm locking this.

LCV, please don't open any more specific politics thread without prior permission. Thanks.
Permalink
| April 5, 2013, 3:48 am
Group moderators have locked this conversation.
Other topics
Fun Chat #116 Updated today
Word Association Game! Updated yesterday
student teen kid toy play lego child video game hobby blocks construction toy legos fun games



LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop The TFOL Private Club (Partially restored by L.C.V.)Star Wars


You Your home page | LEGO creations | Favorite builders
Activity Activity | Comments | Creations
Explore Explore | Recent | Groups
MOCpages is an unofficial, fan-created website. LEGO® and the brick configuration are property of The LEGO Group, which does not sponsor, own, or endorse this site.
©2002-2014 Sean Kenney Design Inc | Privacy policy | Terms of use