Author Topic: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"  (Read 68106 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8582
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #280 on: May 10, 2012, 07:58:04 PM »
This isn't about having your own beliefs - everyone is entitled to that.  This is about stripping away the basic civil rights of others, which rather based on one's religious beliefs or not, I find wholly unacceptable.

Here's where I disagree with it being an issue of stripping away civil rights:

First, I do not believe the rights of anyone in this scenario are any different than anyone else's.  People in this country have always had the right to marry only a certain subset of people (excluding the period in this nation's history where people of certain races could not marry people of other races, which, thankfully, is gone, so let's not throw that red herring on the table, please).  Regardless of my sexual orientation, I have ALWAYS been permitted to marry only adult women who are (1) over the age of consent and (2) are not presently married to someone else.  No matter how much I might desire otherwise, I have never been permitted to marry a man, a person who is underaged, or a person who is married to someone else.  This is true regardless of my sexual orientation, and those rights would be no different no matter what my sexual orientation.  Consequently, there is no difference in rights.  And it logically flows that a right that has never existed cannot in fact be stripped away.

Second, the concept of "rights" is always limited by other competing concerns.  Rights are never completely unlimited.  For example, rights are limited by our concepts of what is or is not moral conduct.  In this case, engaging in homosexuality (as opposed to one's sexual orientation) is immoral, as defined by the Bible.  You may disagree with that moral standard.  I think comment, in his post, articulated very well why some hold that moral standard and allow that standard to dictate their lives.  I don't mean to disregard others' beliefs on whether or not they think that is a proper moral standard, but for the sake of this particular point, whether one agrees that that is the correct moral standard or not is immaterial.  The point is simply that a lot of people hold that moral standard and believe it is an absolute, objective (not subjective) moral standard because it is from God.  Consequently, I believe that the government should not affirmatively endorse immoral conduct by giving it a recognized special status (i.e., recognizing it as marriage).  I am not saying the government should take action in outlawing homosexual conduct.  But I am saying the government should not take action in granting special relationship status either. 

That is, in a nutshell, why I believe it is not an issue of stripping away civil rights.  I do not like the way I have worded it, because it sounds cold and unfeeling in a way that does not completely represent how I feel on the subject.  I wish I had comment's (and jammindude's) gift for articulating my viewpoint in a way that conveys both the viewpoint I feel is correct as well as the compassion I feel behind that view.  I simply do not possess that ability, but I've explained it the best I can, and hopefully it is at least understandable.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #281 on: May 10, 2012, 08:02:16 PM »
And I also find it funny how politic matter turns into a religious matter. Politic decision is one thing, good or bad but using people's beliefs in this is completely another thing that can't be acceptable. 

I think comment did a very good job two posts above yours of explaining why religious beliefs cross over into the political realm.

Do other persons sins mean you personally die?

Quote
Second, the concept of "rights" is always limited by other competing concerns.  Rights are never completely unlimited.

The competing concern isn't a moral one, as you make it out to be, but a physical one. A lot of our rights protect someone even when we agree they've acted immorraly. Illegally obtained evidence is thrown out, even though due to the fact that it's evidecne and being thrown out, it's proof of immoral action.



Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 14428
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #282 on: May 10, 2012, 08:05:29 PM »
Quote
Likewise I find it disheartening when those who claim to be Christian fail to demonstrate the compassion and understanding that Christ teaches.

WAIT, seriously? You are saying that NOT accepting a certain people is being Christlike?  That NOT treating others as you would like to be treated is Christlike?
[/quote author=soundgarden link=topic=32240.msg1284800#msg1284800 date=1336685447]


Not saying that at all, the opposite in fact. I thought it was pretty clear. Liberals who SAY they are open minded and enlightened but then turn around and use thier 'enlightenment' to bash all who oppose thier 'evolved' view of the world are just as guilty as those who CLAIM to be Christian but then turn around and fail to demonstrate any example of the compassion and understanding that Christ teaches his followers to do. BOTH are hippocrites and BOTH ARE the problem.......
« Last Edit: May 10, 2012, 08:10:31 PM by gmillerdrake »
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline Rick

  • Posts: 568
  • Gender: Female
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #283 on: May 10, 2012, 08:11:36 PM »
Rule thread:
Quote
5. Keep your language reasonable. Repeated and inappropriate usage of explicit language is forbidden. Violators will be warned before any serious action is taken. No racially offensive posts. No posts that are derogatory toward gender or sexual preference. No posts that use slang terms for any race, sexual preference, or religious background. Includes signatures.

By the way, can some clarify for me how it's within the rules for people to post that the behaviour I'm going to be engaging in all of next week when I'm staying at my boyfriend's is 'sinful', 'immoral', and 'causes death'? It's most definitely really offensive.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2012, 08:17:10 PM by Rick »

Offline TheOutlawXanadu

  • The Original Unseasoned Fan
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6525
  • Gender: Male
  • The Original Unseasoned Fan
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #284 on: May 10, 2012, 08:16:45 PM »
However; as long as it’s still legal to value the Bible and vote there will always be people who believe that sexual immorality brings death and without a sense of malice towards other Americans, vote their values.
A couple of questions here:

1) Am I understanding it correctly that Christians believe sin leads to death? So a less sinful person will live longer than a more sinful person? Or am I wrong?

2) If what I said above is correct, do Christians also believe that one's own sin can lead to others' death?
:TOX: <-- My own emoticon!

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23659
  • Bad Craziness
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #285 on: May 10, 2012, 08:19:18 PM »
Consequently, there is no difference in rights.  And it logically flows that a right that has never existed cannot in fact be stripped away.
I get your position, and while I disagree with your moral basis for it, won't argue with your opinion on the matter.  I will point out a flaw in your reasoning, though.  While gay folk might not have ever had a right which has been stripped away, they've been denied rights that are afforded to others.  Rights denied are the same as rights taken away. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8582
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #286 on: May 10, 2012, 08:23:04 PM »
Rule thread:
Quote
5. Keep your language reasonable. Repeated and inappropriate usage of explicit language is forbidden. Violators will be warned before any serious action is taken. No racially offensive posts. No posts that are derogatory toward gender or sexual preference. No posts that use slang terms for any race, sexual preference, or religious background. Includes signatures.

By the way, can some clarify for me how it's within the rules for people to post that the behaviour I'm going to be engaging in all of next week when I'm staying at my boyfriend's is 'sinful', 'immoral', and 'causes death'? It's most definitely really offensive.

1.  Depends on context, much like how it is an insult to mislabel someone a bigot if done in an inflammatory way, but not nearly as much when someone takes the time to tactfully explain their personal feelings that some things are bigoted, as you took the time to do in the chat thread earlier.  Gay bashing, slurs, and things that are intended to be insults are obviously off limits.  Carefully-worded posts that are created to be non-offensive and are not personal attacks are not off-limits simply because some people reading them may take offense.  Otherwise, I would have closed a lot more threads for religion/Christian-bashing.  After all, it could definitely be said that a lot of people in this thread have insulted religious folk for their views, right?  Anyhow, all I'm saying is that context matters, intent matters (to a degree), and no rule set is perfect.

2.  "Preference" and "behavior" are not the same thing. 
« Last Edit: May 10, 2012, 08:31:55 PM by bosk1 »
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8582
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #287 on: May 10, 2012, 08:26:43 PM »
I will point out a flaw in your reasoning, though.  While gay folk might not have ever had a right which has been stripped away, they've been denied rights that are afforded to others.  Rights denied are the same as rights taken away. 

I understand what you are saying, but I do not believe it is a denial of a right, which is the first step in my reasoning above:  That my gay friend has precisely the same rights I do, and can marry exactly the same subset of people I can. 
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 14428
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #288 on: May 10, 2012, 08:26:59 PM »
1) Am I understanding it correctly that Christians believe sin leads to death? So a less sinful person will live longer than a more sinful person? Or am I wrong?



I am by no means a Christian scholar...I've been a "Christian" for 9 years and have 'studied' the Bible fairly regularly...keep in mind that one of the things I find fascinating and that solidifies the Bible's divine nature to me is the fact that each individual can understand and interpret verses as it pertains to them...on thier spiritual walk. That also can lead to a lot of confusion as well and can be considered a 'down' side.
  But my fairly simple answer to your question is that the 'death' that the New Testament speaks about is not the physical death that we suffer. It is speaking towards a spiritual death...teaching how sin will impede one's spiritual progress and set up a barrier between you and God. A lot of the 'sin' in the world is self serving, selfish type behavior....not lending one's self into 'giving' your life over to your savior and understanding that relationship....Sin gets in the way. So the way I understand it is like I said, the 'death' being alluded to is not when your heart stops beating...it's what comes after, what fate or death will your spirit hold?
  Again, I am by far an 'expert' so take my opinion for what it's worth....just one guys opinion. I don't
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #289 on: May 10, 2012, 08:27:47 PM »
You cannot "extend" the "right" for two members of the same-sex to "marry"  because marriage is inherently procreative and thus inherently heterosexual. To ask that "marriage" be "extended" for homosexuals would be analogous to asking to repeal the Pythagorean theorem and would be a joke at best and a straightforward assault on the foundations of morality at worst. As stated by the website that helped propel the passage of the bill, defenders of same-sex "marriage" here are committed blindly to the irrational position that marriage is simply about "loving couples making a public commitment of their love." Marriage certainly provides an opportunity for a couple in love to declare their commitment to each other, but the government doesn’t regulate marriage to provide a forum for public commitment simply because two people love each other. Marriage is unique because it is the social institution we recognize to channel the biological drive of men and women with its inherent capacity to produce children into the ideal family units. Marriage provides the best opportunity of ensuring that any children produced by that sexual union are known by and cared for by their biological parents, and that benefits us all. It is because of children that government regulates and licenses marriage.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2012, 08:33:03 PM by Omega »
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8582
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #290 on: May 10, 2012, 08:29:54 PM »
You cannot "extend" the "right" for two members of the same-sex to "marry"  because marriage is inherently procreative and thus inherently heterosexual.

No, it isn't.  And while you are entitled to believe that, you've been asked to stay out of the debate because your posts on the subject have violated forum rules.  And I can tell you for certain that if you derail the discussion again, you will be shown the door, so I would advise you to stay out of this one.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23659
  • Bad Craziness
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #291 on: May 10, 2012, 08:30:24 PM »

 How far do we allow rights to be stripped from one group of citizens because another group of citizens has a different set of beliefs?  That's not fair, particularly when granting those rights hurts no one.

It may not 'hurt anyone' but the fact of the matter is that 'the people have spoken' whether you or anyone likes it or not. It's ridiculous that when a vote doesn't go 'your' way that suddenly those who voted to pass whatever law are 'idiots' or whatever deragotory term you'd like to place there. Quite frankly I find it ironic that a LARGE portion of liberal minded people are going off on the voters who overwhelmingly passed the law when liberals pride themselves on being so tolerant and open minded. Likewise I find it disheartening when those who claim to be Christian fail to demonstrate the compassion and understanding that Christ teaches.
  It's the states and the voters in that states right to vote for and pass whatever laws they want. That's that, and for me that's the way it should stay, a State decision...no matter the outcome.  If the support for gay marriage was as large and as popular as it is portrayed or wants to believe it is, then these states would be passing the laws. The last 32 votes nationwide concerning gay marriage have been voted against. That should give an indication on where our country stands on the issue. Polls schmolls, the proof is in the vote and gay marriage is consistently voted against. That's a fact.
     The gay/lesbian "community" is a very small percentage of the population....and frankly my ONLY problem with the entire movement is the fact that a small percentage of the population is trying to tell the Majority percentage what to do....and when it doesn't go thier way they throw a "tantrum" about it and say how evil everyone is. Heck, even California consistently votes not to allow gay marriage...it takes a judge who thinks his beliefs supersede the 'majorities' to annul that vote time and time again....which it won't be long before that happens in NC. 
  With further education the support may come...but to want to snap your fingers and demand that 'poof'.....we get our way when society isn't there just yet.....sorry. I think that the gay and lesbian movement should realize that despite the large amount of media and Hollywood support that there is still a long way to go for them. That's just the truth of the matter.

I've got a couple of problems with this.  For one thing, the will of the people is only part of the equation.  That will also has to be lawful, both to the Constitution and to existing federal law.  While it's easy to say that if 51% of the people want something, then it's right, there are other processes that have to occur and that's the same for both sides.  Judicial review is one of those processes, and both sides of the debate have equal access to it and use it extensively.  Your side is no different in this respect. 

Also, you say that this is a small percentage of the population trying to impose it's will on the larger part, and I think you're mistaken.  I don't think the homos are trying to impose their will on anybody.  I think they're trying to gain the same privileges and benefits that are afforded to others.  It's more likely the case that the majority is trying to impose it's will on the minority, and while that can sometimes be considered the basis for democracy, it has also been the cause of a great deal of suffering throughout history.  Part of the reason for the aforementioned judicial review is to prevent that very thing from occurring.  It's a very important concept, and I can think of several examples where legitimate judicial review would have saved millions of lives. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 10342
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #292 on: May 10, 2012, 08:30:41 PM »
Rule thread:
Quote
5. Keep your language reasonable. Repeated and inappropriate usage of explicit language is forbidden. Violators will be warned before any serious action is taken. No racially offensive posts. No posts that are derogatory toward gender or sexual preference. No posts that use slang terms for any race, sexual preference, or religious background. Includes signatures.

By the way, can some clarify for me how it's within the rules for people to post that the behaviour I'm going to be engaging in all of next week when I'm staying at my boyfriend's is 'sinful', 'immoral', and 'causes death'? It's most definitely really offensive.

1.  Depends on context, much like how it is an insult to mislabel someone a bigot if done in an inflammatory way, but not nearly as much when someone takes the time to tactfully explain their personal feelings that some things are bigoted, as you took the time to do in the chat thread earlier.  Gay bashing, slurs, and things that are intended to be insults are obviously off limits.  Carefully-worded posts that are created to be non-offensive and are not personal attacks are not off-limits simply because some people reading them may take offense.  Otherwise, I would have closed a lot more threads for religion-bashing.

2.  "Preference" and "behavior" are not the same thing. 
I would like to politely add to that....that from what I have read.   Most people have been saying that THE BIBLE regards homosexuality as sinful and immoral.   That's as much a fact as saying "Birth of a Nation has racist overtones."    I don't recall anyone leveling a personal attack upon anyone. 

I don't recall anyone saying it "causes death" in any way.   I think the Christian thinking is that it ultimately risks your *eternal* life...but I don't recall anyone insinuating that "the act of homosexuality will cause you to be immediately stricken down"...
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline Rick

  • Posts: 568
  • Gender: Female
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #293 on: May 10, 2012, 08:43:12 PM »
Rule thread:
Quote
5. Keep your language reasonable. Repeated and inappropriate usage of explicit language is forbidden. Violators will be warned before any serious action is taken. No racially offensive posts. No posts that are derogatory toward gender or sexual preference. No posts that use slang terms for any race, sexual preference, or religious background. Includes signatures.

By the way, can some clarify for me how it's within the rules for people to post that the behaviour I'm going to be engaging in all of next week when I'm staying at my boyfriend's is 'sinful', 'immoral', and 'causes death'? It's most definitely really offensive.

1.  Depends on context, much like how it is an insult to mislabel someone a bigot if done in an inflammatory way, but not nearly as much when someone takes the time to tactfully explain their personal feelings that some things are bigoted, as you took the time to do in the chat thread earlier.  Gay bashing, slurs, and things that are intended to be insults are obviously off limits.  Carefully-worded posts that are created to be non-offensive and are not personal attacks are not off-limits simply because some people reading them may take offense.  Otherwise, I would have closed a lot more threads for religion-bashing.

2.  "Preference" and "behavior" are not the same thing. 

1. To call a person a 'bigot' is to express a personal opinion. To classify something immoral and sinful is to invoke ideas of universal laws which make it incredibly difficult to engage in rational debate with that person thereafter. One can articulate logically and rationally their thought process leading them to deem why they think what the other said is bigoted, whereas if the only response one can get out of someone who claims homosexuality is sinful/immoral is that "I think that God thinks it is", then that is just an argument that says "I think it is" and doesn't offer any actual reasoning - the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, and an appeal to authority doesn't actually go any way at all towards explaining why. Honestly - every time I see such things written - it's painful.

2. Preference for a type of behaviour...?

You cannot "extend" the "right" for two members of the same-sex to "marry"  because marriage is inherently procreative and thus inherently heterosexual. To ask that "marriage" be "extended" for homosexuals would be analogous to asking to repeal the Pythagorean theorem and would be a joke at best and a straightforward assault on the foundations of morality. As stated by the website that helped propel the passage of the bill, defenders of same-sex "marriage" here are committed blindly to the irrational position that marriage is simply about "loving couples making a public commitment of their love." Marriage certainly provides an opportunity for a couple in love to declare their commitment to each other, but the government doesn’t regulate marriage to provide a forum for public commitment simply because two people love each other. Marriage is unique because it is the social institution we recognize to channel the biological drive of men and women with its inherent capacity to produce children into the ideal family units. Marriage provides the best opportunity of ensuring that any children produced by that sexual union are known by and cared for by their biological parents, and that benefits us all. It is because of children that government regulates and licenses marriage.

I am not even joking: as I read this post, I literally felt more physically nauseated the further through it I got. I'm not gonna add any more.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2012, 08:49:59 PM by Rick »

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23659
  • Bad Craziness
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #294 on: May 10, 2012, 08:44:19 PM »
I will point out a flaw in your reasoning, though.  While gay folk might not have ever had a right which has been stripped away, they've been denied rights that are afforded to others.  Rights denied are the same as rights taken away. 

I understand what you are saying, but I do not believe it is a denial of a right, which is the first step in my reasoning above:  That my gay friend has precisely the same rights I do, and can marry exactly the same subset of people I can.
Do due process issues make your head hurt as much as mine?  :lol

I definitely understand your point.  The problem is that at a practical level your gay friend can't by his very nature marry the same subset of people*.  If the government were to institute a practice whereas anybody willing to watch a 30 minute video on good citizenship were entitled to a tax break on their next return, you wouldn't be denying a blind man any specific right, but you'd be instituting a benefit to which he was not eligible on a practical level because of his handicap.  (sorry, I kind of suck at coming up with good examples and metaphors)


*Interestingly, if your gay friend were to marry against his own nature to gain those benefits, he'd be committing a much greater affront to your ideal concept of marriage than had he married another gay person out of love. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 14428
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #295 on: May 10, 2012, 08:51:39 PM »

 How far do we allow rights to be stripped from one group of citizens because another group of citizens has a different set of beliefs?  That's not fair, particularly when granting those rights hurts no one.

It may not 'hurt anyone' but the fact of the matter is that 'the people have spoken' whether you or anyone likes it or not. It's ridiculous that when a vote doesn't go 'your' way that suddenly those who voted to pass whatever law are 'idiots' or whatever deragotory term you'd like to place there. Quite frankly I find it ironic that a LARGE portion of liberal minded people are going off on the voters who overwhelmingly passed the law when liberals pride themselves on being so tolerant and open minded. Likewise I find it disheartening when those who claim to be Christian fail to demonstrate the compassion and understanding that Christ teaches.
  It's the states and the voters in that states right to vote for and pass whatever laws they want. That's that, and for me that's the way it should stay, a State decision...no matter the outcome.  If the support for gay marriage was as large and as popular as it is portrayed or wants to believe it is, then these states would be passing the laws. The last 32 votes nationwide concerning gay marriage have been voted against. That should give an indication on where our country stands on the issue. Polls schmolls, the proof is in the vote and gay marriage is consistently voted against. That's a fact.
     The gay/lesbian "community" is a very small percentage of the population....and frankly my ONLY problem with the entire movement is the fact that a small percentage of the population is trying to tell the Majority percentage what to do....and when it doesn't go thier way they throw a "tantrum" about it and say how evil everyone is. Heck, even California consistently votes not to allow gay marriage...it takes a judge who thinks his beliefs supersede the 'majorities' to annul that vote time and time again....which it won't be long before that happens in NC. 
  With further education the support may come...but to want to snap your fingers and demand that 'poof'.....we get our way when society isn't there just yet.....sorry. I think that the gay and lesbian movement should realize that despite the large amount of media and Hollywood support that there is still a long way to go for them. That's just the truth of the matter.

I've got a couple of problems with this.  For one thing, the will of the people is only part of the equation.  That will also has to be lawful, both to the Constitution and to existing federal law.  While it's easy to say that if 51% of the people want something, then it's right, there are other processes that have to occur and that's the same for both sides.  Judicial review is one of those processes, and both sides of the debate have equal access to it and use it extensively.  Your side is no different in this respect. 

Also, you say that this is a small percentage of the population trying to impose it's will on the larger part, and I think you're mistaken.  I don't think the homos are trying to impose their will on anybody.  I think they're trying to gain the same privileges and benefits that are afforded to others.  It's more likely the case that the majority is trying to impose it's will on the minority, and while that can sometimes be considered the basis for democracy, it has also been the cause of a great deal of suffering throughout history.  Part of the reason for the aforementioned judicial review is to prevent that very thing from occurring.  It's a very important concept, and I can think of several examples where legitimate judicial review would have saved millions of lives.

Whether or not the 'majorities' stance is right or wrong is not the issue. The way our system is set up it boils down to majority rules, and it's the majorities will that is imposed. That's it. I understand that the last few generations are used to getting a trophy for coming in last place so it's easy to understand how pouting about something not going your way has become an avenue of protest, but ulitmately it's up to the minority to educate, gain support, build thier stance up in a way where the majority is 'overtaken'. "Legitimate" judicial review is one thing...saving lives as you say, but to me if a state votes not to have gay marriage then that should be that. No judge should be able to come in and say, "that isn't fair". For me the burden is on the gays and lesbians to 'educate' the American public.....my issue is that when something doesn't go 'thier' way, instead of re-grouping and trying to figure out a better way to go about it they essentially whine and cry about it. It's offputting.
  Let me just clarify something real quick....I've made no secret about the fact I'm Christian. That being said, my view and opinion on gay marriage has 'evolved' over the past few years. I wouldn't have even listened to the idea in the past. Now, I do think that gays and lesbians who are committed to a monogomous relationship should gain the same priveledges as 'married' couples, and in the states that allow gay marriage....it should be a no brainer, they get to be married and the rights that come with it. States with no gay marrage, I still thing there should be the dreaded 'civil union' option to give them rights. 
  But if the state doesn't allow gay marriage and consistently votes it down then guess what....no gay marriage in that state. There's where the burden lies on the gays/lesbians to try and make thier case and get whichever state to 'change'. But when a state votes it down or against it....ACCEPT it and figure out a way to change it....
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8582
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #296 on: May 10, 2012, 08:55:11 PM »
To classify something immoral and sinful is to invoke ideas of universal laws which make it incredibly difficult to engage in rational debate with that person thereafter. One can articulate logically and rationally their thought process leading them to deem why they think what the other said is bigoted, whereas if the only response one can get out of someone who claims homosexuality is sinful/immoral is that "I think that God thinks it is", then that is just an argument that says "I think it is" and doesn't offer any actual reasoning - the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, and an appeal to authority doesn't actually go any way at all towards explaining why.

No, I do not think it shuts down debate at all.  My foundational premise that I am arguing from is that there is immutable, universal law.  You may not have articulated it, but you also have a foundational premise you are arguing from, which is essentially (and forgive me if this isn't entirely accurate, but I am merely paraphrasing where I believe you are arguing from for the sake of this illustration) something along the lines of either (1) there is no universal law, so people should be free to do what they like as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others, or (2) the only universal law is that people should be free to do what they like as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.  And that's fine.  That creates a paradigm that shapes your argument.  My paradigm is different, and shapes my argument.  I cannot change your foundational premise, and I am not attempting to.  You cannot change mine.  The goal is not (and perhaps should not) be to change each other's foundational world view.  But we can still have discussion about how that worldview shapes our arguments, and see how the conclusions we come to may be similar in some areas and different in others.  And, perhaps in doing so, even though our foundational worldviews may still differ, that discussion and debate may still change our arguments and conclusions such that we end up closer together than when we started.  Perhaps not.  Either way, productive discussion can be had.  And if it appears we canNOT have productive discussion on an issue after a quick foray into discussion shows that our worldviews simply clash too much, that's okay too.  Rather than discuss this particular issue with one another, you can I (the hypothetical "you and I," not necessarily bosk1 and Rick) can simply choose to cease our discussion with one another and instead discuss with others where we find the discussion more productive, and in the process, not belittle each other simply because we failed to come to common ground.  It's called "agreeing to disagree." 
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8582
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #297 on: May 10, 2012, 08:57:34 PM »
Do due process issues make your head hurt as much as mine?  :lol 

Yes!  And perhaps even more so.  :lol

*Interestingly, if your gay friend were to marry against his own nature to gain those benefits, he'd be committing a much greater affront to your ideal concept of marriage than had he married another gay person out of love. 

How so?  I am not following you.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23659
  • Bad Craziness
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #298 on: May 10, 2012, 09:06:33 PM »

 How far do we allow rights to be stripped from one group of citizens because another group of citizens has a different set of beliefs?  That's not fair, particularly when granting those rights hurts no one.

It may not 'hurt anyone' but the fact of the matter is that 'the people have spoken' whether you or anyone likes it or not. It's ridiculous that when a vote doesn't go 'your' way that suddenly those who voted to pass whatever law are 'idiots' or whatever deragotory term you'd like to place there. Quite frankly I find it ironic that a LARGE portion of liberal minded people are going off on the voters who overwhelmingly passed the law when liberals pride themselves on being so tolerant and open minded. Likewise I find it disheartening when those who claim to be Christian fail to demonstrate the compassion and understanding that Christ teaches.
  It's the states and the voters in that states right to vote for and pass whatever laws they want. That's that, and for me that's the way it should stay, a State decision...no matter the outcome.  If the support for gay marriage was as large and as popular as it is portrayed or wants to believe it is, then these states would be passing the laws. The last 32 votes nationwide concerning gay marriage have been voted against. That should give an indication on where our country stands on the issue. Polls schmolls, the proof is in the vote and gay marriage is consistently voted against. That's a fact.
     The gay/lesbian "community" is a very small percentage of the population....and frankly my ONLY problem with the entire movement is the fact that a small percentage of the population is trying to tell the Majority percentage what to do....and when it doesn't go thier way they throw a "tantrum" about it and say how evil everyone is. Heck, even California consistently votes not to allow gay marriage...it takes a judge who thinks his beliefs supersede the 'majorities' to annul that vote time and time again....which it won't be long before that happens in NC. 
  With further education the support may come...but to want to snap your fingers and demand that 'poof'.....we get our way when society isn't there just yet.....sorry. I think that the gay and lesbian movement should realize that despite the large amount of media and Hollywood support that there is still a long way to go for them. That's just the truth of the matter.

I've got a couple of problems with this.  For one thing, the will of the people is only part of the equation.  That will also has to be lawful, both to the Constitution and to existing federal law.  While it's easy to say that if 51% of the people want something, then it's right, there are other processes that have to occur and that's the same for both sides.  Judicial review is one of those processes, and both sides of the debate have equal access to it and use it extensively.  Your side is no different in this respect. 

Also, you say that this is a small percentage of the population trying to impose it's will on the larger part, and I think you're mistaken.  I don't think the homos are trying to impose their will on anybody.  I think they're trying to gain the same privileges and benefits that are afforded to others.  It's more likely the case that the majority is trying to impose it's will on the minority, and while that can sometimes be considered the basis for democracy, it has also been the cause of a great deal of suffering throughout history.  Part of the reason for the aforementioned judicial review is to prevent that very thing from occurring.  It's a very important concept, and I can think of several examples where legitimate judicial review would have saved millions of lives.

Whether or not the 'majorities' stance is right or wrong is not the issue. The way our system is set up it boils down to majority rules, and it's the majorities will that is imposed. That's it. I understand that the last few generations are used to getting a trophy for coming in last place so it's easy to understand how pouting about something not going your way has become an avenue of protest, but ulitmately it's up to the minority to educate, gain support, build thier stance up in a way where the majority is 'overtaken'. "Legitimate" judicial review is one thing...saving lives as you say, but to me if a state votes not to have gay marriage then that should be that. No judge should be able to come in and say, "that isn't fair". For me the burden is on the gays and lesbians to 'educate' the American public.....my issue is that when something doesn't go 'thier' way, instead of re-grouping and trying to figure out a better way to go about it they essentially whine and cry about it. It's offputting.
  Let me just clarify something real quick....I've made no secret about the fact I'm Christian. That being said, my view and opinion on gay marriage has 'evolved' over the past few years. I wouldn't have even listened to the idea in the past. Now, I do think that gays and lesbians who are committed to a monogomous relationship should gain the same priveledges as 'married' couples, and in the states that allow gay marriage....it should be a no brainer, they get to be married and the rights that come with it. States with no gay marrage, I still thing there should be the dreaded 'civil union' option to give them rights. 
  But if the state doesn't allow gay marriage and consistently votes it down then guess what....no gay marriage in that state. There's where the burden lies on the gays/lesbians to try and make thier case and get whichever state to 'change'. But when a state votes it down or against it....ACCEPT it and figure out a way to change it....
While it's obviously an extreme example, the importance is still the same.  If those fine, God-fearing people of Alabama enact a law that says it's OK to hang coloreds from cherry trees on the third Thursday of each month, would the majority opinion validate the law?  You use the expression "'legitimate' judicial review."  I say that's an invalid stance.  It is what it is, which is a review against existing law, and it's legitimacy mustn't be judged on the decision they reach.  A state cannot pass a law that doesn't coexist with constitutional or enacted federal law, no matter how many people wish it to, and the opportunity to establish that coexistence has already been legitimized. 

You say that the gay people should work on education to meet their end.  I say that their opposition should work on amending the US Constitution to meet theirs (assuming it's actually found to be in conflict, which it probably isn't). 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #299 on: May 10, 2012, 09:08:57 PM »

 How far do we allow rights to be stripped from one group of citizens because another group of citizens has a different set of beliefs?  That's not fair, particularly when granting those rights hurts no one.

It may not 'hurt anyone' but the fact of the matter is that 'the people have spoken' whether you or anyone likes it or not. It's ridiculous that when a vote doesn't go 'your' way that suddenly those who voted to pass whatever law are 'idiots' or whatever deragotory term you'd like to place there. Quite frankly I find it ironic that a LARGE portion of liberal minded people are going off on the voters who overwhelmingly passed the law when liberals pride themselves on being so tolerant and open minded. Likewise I find it disheartening when those who claim to be Christian fail to demonstrate the compassion and understanding that Christ teaches.
  It's the states and the voters in that states right to vote for and pass whatever laws they want. That's that, and for me that's the way it should stay, a State decision...no matter the outcome.  If the support for gay marriage was as large and as popular as it is portrayed or wants to believe it is, then these states would be passing the laws. The last 32 votes nationwide concerning gay marriage have been voted against. That should give an indication on where our country stands on the issue. Polls schmolls, the proof is in the vote and gay marriage is consistently voted against. That's a fact.
     The gay/lesbian "community" is a very small percentage of the population....and frankly my ONLY problem with the entire movement is the fact that a small percentage of the population is trying to tell the Majority percentage what to do....and when it doesn't go thier way they throw a "tantrum" about it and say how evil everyone is. Heck, even California consistently votes not to allow gay marriage...it takes a judge who thinks his beliefs supersede the 'majorities' to annul that vote time and time again....which it won't be long before that happens in NC. 
  With further education the support may come...but to want to snap your fingers and demand that 'poof'.....we get our way when society isn't there just yet.....sorry. I think that the gay and lesbian movement should realize that despite the large amount of media and Hollywood support that there is still a long way to go for them. That's just the truth of the matter.

I've got a couple of problems with this.  For one thing, the will of the people is only part of the equation.  That will also has to be lawful, both to the Constitution and to existing federal law.  While it's easy to say that if 51% of the people want something, then it's right, there are other processes that have to occur and that's the same for both sides.  Judicial review is one of those processes, and both sides of the debate have equal access to it and use it extensively.  Your side is no different in this respect. 

Also, you say that this is a small percentage of the population trying to impose it's will on the larger part, and I think you're mistaken.  I don't think the homos are trying to impose their will on anybody.  I think they're trying to gain the same privileges and benefits that are afforded to others.  It's more likely the case that the majority is trying to impose it's will on the minority, and while that can sometimes be considered the basis for democracy, it has also been the cause of a great deal of suffering throughout history.  Part of the reason for the aforementioned judicial review is to prevent that very thing from occurring.  It's a very important concept, and I can think of several examples where legitimate judicial review would have saved millions of lives.

Whether or not the 'majorities' stance is right or wrong is not the issue. The way our system is set up it boils down to majority rules, and it's the majorities will that is imposed. That's it.

Well, not really, because there exists a constitution, which guarantees certain rights, and protects the views and beliefs of minorities. 

For example, if in 1995 1% more of the population of Québéc voted for secession, that wouldn't matter.  There exists a constitution in Canada, and regardless of what the majority would've ruled, unilateral secession would've been unconstitutional.
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23659
  • Bad Craziness
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #300 on: May 10, 2012, 09:11:36 PM »
Do due process issues make your head hurt as much as mine?  :lol 

Yes!  And perhaps even more so.  :lol

*Interestingly, if your gay friend were to marry against his own nature to gain those benefits, he'd be committing a much greater affront to your ideal concept of marriage than had he married another gay person out of love. 

How so?  I am not following you.
I figured years of being forced to understand it might have blunted you to it's annoyance.  Fortunately, in my case it's merely an aspect of an interest.

My point about your gay friend was that I would consider a loveless sham marriage to be a bigger blight on the institution than a loving marriage between two men.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Rick

  • Posts: 568
  • Gender: Female
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #301 on: May 10, 2012, 09:13:22 PM »

You may not have articulated it, but you also have a foundational premise you are arguing from, which is essentially (and forgive me if this isn't entirely accurate, but I am merely paraphrasing where I believe you are arguing from for the sake of this illustration) something along the lines of either (1) there is no universal law, so people should be free to do what they like as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others, or (2) the only universal law is that people should be free to do what they like as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.  And that's fine.  That creates a paradigm that shapes your argument. 

No - I am arguing from neither of those foundational premises at all.

"This man, on one hand, believes that he knows something, while not knowing [anything]. On the other hand, I – equally ignorant – do not believe [that I know anything]"

I know nothing. Absolutely nothing. Socrates. All I have are my skills of rationality and logic to show how I have reached conclusions, and the entire process is entirely transparent and open to Popper's falsification. In terms of my own conduct, I generally try to follow Kant's  "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law" as I find the CI to be a lot less logically limiting than Jesus' Golden Rule of "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise". It's also flawed too, but in most cases wherein one is to make an ethical decision, it serves well to avoid causing harm. The issue I have in the instance we are talking about is that to label homosexual acts as universally immoral and sinful is hurtful and offensive, whereas when I engage in sch acts with a consensual partner it hurts absolutely no-one - I'm not telling anyone they're 'wrong' in what they think - I'm telling them that they're malicious in their expression. Anyone claiming something is sinful/immoral is claiming to KNOW something universally 'true'.

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8582
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #302 on: May 10, 2012, 09:20:18 PM »
My point about your gay friend was that I would consider a loveless sham marriage to be a bigger blight on the institution than a loving marriage between two men.

Oh, I see.  My short answer is that it depends.  That is certainly possible.  HOWEVER (short version), this is another issue where the English language I think is deficient in its use of the word "love."  There are three different Greek words in the Bible that are translated "love" in English.  One is the type of self-sacrificing love where one says, "I am committed to this person's best interests no matter how I emotionally feel about them at any given moment in time, and I will give myself to doing my best for them no matter what."  It is the kind of love that I believe generates the phrase "love is a decision."  It is where we have decided to give ourselves to someone whether it feels good or emotionally hurts.  The second type of love is best described as "affection."  The third is erotic, or sexual love. 

The type of love that is described in the Bible most often in connection with marriage is the first.  It is what leads to long-lasting commitment, and it can exist in the absence of the other two kinds of love.  The other two are good and beneficial, but not necessary at all times.  So, with that in mind, in the hypothetical situation above, a marriage between a gay man and a woman could be VERY loving, even if he is not initially turned on by her because of his sexual preference.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8582
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #303 on: May 10, 2012, 09:22:20 PM »

You may not have articulated it, but you also have a foundational premise you are arguing from, which is essentially (and forgive me if this isn't entirely accurate, but I am merely paraphrasing where I believe you are arguing from for the sake of this illustration) something along the lines of either (1) there is no universal law, so people should be free to do what they like as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others, or (2) the only universal law is that people should be free to do what they like as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.  And that's fine.  That creates a paradigm that shapes your argument. 

No - I am arguing from neither of those foundational premises at all.

"This man, on one hand, believes that he knows something, while not knowing [anything]. On the other hand, I – equally ignorant – do not believe [that I know anything]"

I know nothing. Absolutely nothing. Socrates. All I have are my skills of rationality and logic to show how I have reached conclusions, and the entire process is entirely transparent and open to Popper's falsification. In terms of my own conduct, I generally try to follow Kant's  "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law" as I find the CI to be a lot less logically limiting than Jesus' Golden Rule of "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise". It's also flawed too, but in most cases wherein one is to make an ethical decision, it serves well to avoid causing harm. The issue I have in the instance we are talking about is that to label homosexual acts as universally immoral and sinful is hurtful and offensive, whereas when I engage in sch acts with a consensual partner it hurts absolutely no-one - I'm not telling anyone they're 'wrong' in what they think - I'm telling them that they're malicious in their expression. Anyone claiming something is sinful/immoral is claiming to KNOW something universally 'true'.


I see.  But despite my being mistaken about your foundational world view (as I call it for the sake of this discussion), my point is still the same that we can still either choose to try to have productive discussion despite our drastically different foundational world view and still perhaps find some common ground in our conclusions, or we can choose not to and still not have it be the end of the world.  :)
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Rick

  • Posts: 568
  • Gender: Female
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #304 on: May 10, 2012, 09:30:12 PM »

You may not have articulated it, but you also have a foundational premise you are arguing from, which is essentially (and forgive me if this isn't entirely accurate, but I am merely paraphrasing where I believe you are arguing from for the sake of this illustration) something along the lines of either (1) there is no universal law, so people should be free to do what they like as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others, or (2) the only universal law is that people should be free to do what they like as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.  And that's fine.  That creates a paradigm that shapes your argument. 

No - I am arguing from neither of those foundational premises at all.

"This man, on one hand, believes that he knows something, while not knowing [anything]. On the other hand, I – equally ignorant – do not believe [that I know anything]"

I know nothing. Absolutely nothing. Socrates. All I have are my skills of rationality and logic to show how I have reached conclusions, and the entire process is entirely transparent and open to Popper's falsification. In terms of my own conduct, I generally try to follow Kant's  "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law" as I find the CI to be a lot less logically limiting than Jesus' Golden Rule of "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise". It's also flawed too, but in most cases wherein one is to make an ethical decision, it serves well to avoid causing harm. The issue I have in the instance we are talking about is that to label homosexual acts as universally immoral and sinful is hurtful and offensive, whereas when I engage in sch acts with a consensual partner it hurts absolutely no-one - I'm not telling anyone they're 'wrong' in what they think - I'm telling them that they're malicious in their expression. Anyone claiming something is sinful/immoral is claiming to KNOW something universally 'true'.


I see.  But despite my being mistaken about your foundational world view (as I call it for the sake of this discussion), my point is still the same that we can still either choose to try to have productive discussion despite our drastically different foundational world view and still perhaps find some common ground in our conclusions, or we can choose not to and still not have it be the end of the world.  :)

You've moved the goalposts there somewhat, bosk. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever in engaging in potentially productive discussions with people with an entirely opposing worldview. My issue is it's seen as 'OK' for people to say "homosexual acts ARE immoral/sinful" as it is entirely disrespectful and offensive.

 (see also my post here: https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=32240.msg1284935#msg1284935)

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 10342
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #305 on: May 10, 2012, 09:36:41 PM »
My point about your gay friend was that I would consider a loveless sham marriage to be a bigger blight on the institution than a loving marriage between two men.

Oh, I see.  My short answer is that it depends.  That is certainly possible.  HOWEVER (short version), this is another issue where the English language I think is deficient in its use of the word "love."  There are three different Greek words in the Bible that are translated "love" in English.  One is the type of self-sacrificing love where one says, "I am committed to this person's best interests no matter how I emotionally feel about them at any given moment in time, and I will give myself to doing my best for them no matter what."  It is the kind of love that I believe generates the phrase "love is a decision."  It is where we have decided to give ourselves to someone whether it feels good or emotionally hurts.  The second type of love is best described as "affection."  The third is erotic, or sexual love. 

The type of love that is described in the Bible most often in connection with marriage is the first.  It is what leads to long-lasting commitment, and it can exist in the absence of the other two kinds of love.  The other two are good and beneficial, but not necessary at all times.  So, with that in mind, in the hypothetical situation above, a marriage between a gay man and a woman could be VERY loving, even if he is not initially turned on by her because of his sexual preference.

I would like to add that, the type of commitment love that bosk is talking about is "Agape"...which the Bible portrays as the greatest of all love.   I draw that conclusion from the fact that it is that word "Agape" that is used in connection with Jesus sacrifice. 
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline Rick

  • Posts: 568
  • Gender: Female
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #306 on: May 10, 2012, 09:38:54 PM »
Addendum to my post above ^

If an atheist were to write a post addressing a Christian stating: "The Bible IS 100% fictional, and there IS no god and if you beleive in it then you ARE wrong" - it would logically be following the same rules as a Christian who states "homosexual acts ARE sinful/immoral because the Bible says so" - both cases are personal opinions based upon their own empirical observations of both the world around them and the Bible. Interpretations expressed poorly: They are also both offensive.

Again, see the link to the post I posted in the previous post.

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #307 on: May 10, 2012, 09:43:13 PM »
First, I do not believe the rights of anyone in this scenario are any different than anyone else's.  People in this country have always had the right to marry only a certain subset of people (excluding the period in this nation's history where people of certain races could not marry people of other races, which, thankfully, is gone, so let's not throw that red herring on the table, please).  Regardless of my sexual orientation, I have ALWAYS been permitted to marry only adult women who are (1) over the age of consent and (2) are not presently married to someone else.  No matter how much I might desire otherwise, I have never been permitted to marry a man, a person who is underaged, or a person who is married to someone else.  This is true regardless of my sexual orientation, and those rights would be no different no matter what my sexual orientation.  Consequently, there is no difference in rights.  And it logically flows that a right that has never existed cannot in fact be stripped away.
I don't understand, bosk, why interracial marriage isn't comparable, or how it would be a "red herring". One could very well argue for the prohibition of interracial marriage using this exact logic.

The question is whether the law is just simply because it's always been that way; lord knows that isn't the case. A whole mess of extremely unfair laws have been overturned in the last couple hundred years, and proponents of gay marriage simply see this issue as the next law in that vein.

@Rick: I don't think you're being entirely fair right now (and this is coming from someone that is completely, unabashedly, 100% on your side). Most people in this thread (Omega excepted) have been saying that "The Bible teaches X" matter-of-factly. Maybe you take offense to what The Bible teaches, which is fine, but nobody here has been acting offensively.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23659
  • Bad Craziness
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #308 on: May 10, 2012, 09:46:33 PM »
Addendum to my post above ^

If an atheist were to write a post addressing a Christian stating: "The Bible IS 100% fictional, and there IS no god and if you beleive in it then you ARE wrong" - it would logically be following the same rules as a Christian who states "homosexual acts ARE sinful/immoral because the Bible says so" - both cases are personal opinions based upon their own empirical observations of both the world around them and the Bible. Interpretations expressed poorly: They are also both offensive.
I've actually said worse about Christianity around here than that.  As was said, it's about context.

More importantly, why do you care if bible thumpers find your behavior immoral and sinful?  This is the opinion of people who's values you don't believe anyway.  If another gay person said that, then I could understand the offense.  Frankly, I take great satisfaction that some of the people who find you immoral likely find me completely depraved.    :lol
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline yeshaberto

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8976
  • Gender: Male
  • Somebody Get Me A Doctor! - VH
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #309 on: May 10, 2012, 09:52:33 PM »
I overlook your depravity barto because you hooked me up with fourth row at TA show  :lol

Offline TL

  • Posts: 2792
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #310 on: May 10, 2012, 09:54:45 PM »
There's a pretty key problem with the religious argument on this issue;
Not every citizen of the United States is Christian (and even within some sects of Christianity, there are many people who support gay marriage). It's a multi-cultural nation. It's the duty of the government to protect all of its nation's citizens. Imposing a specific religious moral on everyone runs counter to the very meaning of what it's supposed to mean to be American.

It works both ways. The government, for example, can't force any religious organization to recognize gay marriage. If a church refused to perform a gay marriage, they would be within their rights to do so. However, we're talking about marriage in the sense of the state recognized, legal aspect. There are many spousal benefits that loving, committed homosexual couples are currently being denied. In free society, the government allows religions to practice their beliefs, but at the same time, needs to ensure that no religion is imposing their beliefs on others against their will.

Strictly from a legal standpoint, it is a rights issue, and rights issues should never be decided by majority rule. Civilized society is supposed to ensure that minority groups are protected.

Offline Nick

  • Call Kenny Loggins
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 19211
  • Gender: Male
  • Cause you're in the danger zone
    • My Radio Show!
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #311 on: May 10, 2012, 09:56:43 PM »
I overlook your depravity barto because you hooked me up with fourth row at TA show  :lol

Didn't you learn from the last time? You make a joke like that and next thing you know Omega will be bringing up how you play favorites in every thread. :p
For the best online progressive radio: ProgRock.com
For the best in progressive news, reviews, and interviews: SonicPerspectives.com
For a trove of older podcasts and interviews: WPaPU.com
Awesome Majesty Pendant Club: Member #1

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3771
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #312 on: May 10, 2012, 09:56:58 PM »
Should women and men be granted equal rights?  Are there specific rights that are afforded to women and not men?  And vice-versa?  Perhaps there is a different angle to view this....not as a sexual orientation equal rights  issue, but of a gender equal rights issue.  A man has the right to marry a woman, why cant a woman have that same right?  And vice-versa?
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #313 on: May 10, 2012, 09:58:01 PM »
I will point out a flaw in your reasoning, though.  While gay folk might not have ever had a right which has been stripped away, they've been denied rights that are afforded to others.  Rights denied are the same as rights taken away. 

I understand what you are saying, but I do not believe it is a denial of a right, which is the first step in my reasoning above:  That my gay friend has precisely the same rights I do, and can marry exactly the same subset of people I can.

So in the few cases where this has occurred, where do you stand? Like in California, where gay marriage was made legal, gay men were allowed to marry, and then Prop 8 (?) made it illegal again. I believe the courts have ruled that this is unconstitutional, since it's taking away rights that were given. I think the same applies for the Defense of Marriage Act? but I can't remember.


Offline Rick

  • Posts: 568
  • Gender: Female
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #314 on: May 10, 2012, 09:58:18 PM »
Addendum to my post above ^

If an atheist were to write a post addressing a Christian stating: "The Bible IS 100% fictional, and there IS no god and if you beleive in it then you ARE wrong" - it would logically be following the same rules as a Christian who states "homosexual acts ARE sinful/immoral because the Bible says so" - both cases are personal opinions based upon their own empirical observations of both the world around them and the Bible. Interpretations expressed poorly: They are also both offensive.
I've actually said worse about Christianity around here than that.  As was said, it's about context.

More importantly, why do you care if bible thumpers find your behavior immoral and sinful?  This is the opinion of people who's values you don't believe anyway.  If another gay person said that, then I could understand the offense.  Frankly, I take great satisfaction that some of the people who find you immoral likely find me completely depraved.    :lol

I care because I don't think any human has the right to label anything as 'immoral' or 'sinful'. It's about cultivating a decent level of reciprocal respect between all those participating in any form of discourse. I care because each and every time these things are said and left unchallenged, the more ingrained they are as being 'acceptable' when they are actually really dangerous ideas that perpetuate a lot of harm toward quite a substantial amount of the population. It's about utilitarianism, and not about any modicum of offense I take personally at an individual's negative reactions toward my actions.