Author Topic: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"  (Read 59925 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16169
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #315 on: May 10, 2012, 09:59:10 PM »
There's a pretty key problem with the religious argument on this issue;
Every citizen of the United States is not a 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.

The unfortunate truth is we're a multi-cultural people living under a dominant Christian culture, majority or not. Also a government based on religious and cultural tolerance but also on Western Christian values...so yeah.
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22207
  • Bad Craziness
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #316 on: May 10, 2012, 10:05:40 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.
While I disagree with the practical ramifications of his view, I get his point and it's reasonable.  And for others questioning the discriminatory nature of this, here's the equal rights aspect of this.

At a statutory level, we're all allowed to marry, and not allowed to marry the same people.  That is a member of the opposite sex who's of legal age, and nobody else.  That applies to whites, blacks and gays.  Think of it this way: straight people aren't allowed to marry members of the same sex, either.  That's what prevents this from being a legal example of discrimination.  The argument regarding interracial marriage would run afoul of it because only one class would be effected by it, whereas in the current model, all classes are prohibited from same sex marriage.  Dig?


I overlook your depravity barto because you hooked me up with fourth row at TA show  :lol
As you should, ya bastard!  That was a better seat than the one I wound up with.    :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 TL

  • Posts: 2788
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #317 on: May 10, 2012, 10:09:54 PM »
The unfortunate truth is we're a multi-cultural people living under a dominant Christian culture, majority or not. Also a government based on religious and cultural tolerance but also on Western Christian values...so yeah.
The dominance of Christian culture in the United States makes even more important the government's role of protecting less dominant groups. While obviously not how it always happens in practice, the government is supposed to be neutral, and protect all groups of people. This would include not allowing a religious view that negatively impacts homosexuals to be imposed on them in a strictly legal matter.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3473
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #318 on: May 10, 2012, 10:10:37 PM »
Barto: it does discriminate against a class of people.  Homosexuals.

That reasoning could indeed be used to defend banning interacial marriages.  Interracial marriages are not allowed.  By anyone, regardless of race.  White or Black.  See?  No discrimination.

But it is discriminating against interracial couples that want to get married, just like it is discrimination against homosexuals that want to get married.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

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 #319 on: May 10, 2012, 10:11:37 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.
While I disagree with the practical ramifications of his view, I get his point and it's reasonable.  And for others questioning the discriminatory nature of this, here's the equal rights aspect of this.

At a statutory level, we're all allowed to marry, and not allowed to marry the same people.  That is a member of the opposite sex who's of legal age, and nobody else.  That applies to whites, blacks and gays.  Think of it this way: straight people aren't allowed to marry members of the same sex, either.  That's what prevents this from being a legal example of discrimination.  The argument regarding interracial marriage would run afoul of it because only one class would be effected by it, whereas in the current model, all classes are prohibited from same sex marriage.  Dig?
It's exactly the same situation. Whites and blacks are both allowed to marry, but nobody's allowed to marry people of a different race. All races are allowed to marry, but they're also all prohibited from interracial marriage.

This is actually very close to the actual defense used to uphold the constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws in the 1860's. Both blacks and whites were equally punished for engaging in interracial marriage, they decided, so there was nothing unfair about it. We all know this logic is inherently flawed now, so why are we still using it?
« Last Edit: May 10, 2012, 10:33:57 PM by theseoafs »

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22207
  • Bad Craziness
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #320 on: May 10, 2012, 10:28:33 PM »
It's exactly the same situation. Whites and blacks are both allowed to marry, but nobody's allowed to marry people of the same race. All races are allowed to marry, but they're also all prohibited from interracial marriage.
You're right. 

After re-reading Bosk's position, I suspect that the distinction was that the law codified the specific races that weren't allowed to marry.  Technically speaking, a law that didn't allow interracial marriage at all would be be distinctly different than a law that barred white women from marrying black men, which is probably what the law would have said.

@Eric: it doesn't discriminate against a class of individuals based on their race.  I agree with you that the practical effect might accomplish that anyway, which is why I disagree with that particular interpretation, but it's not discriminatory as law. 
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 skydivingninja

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11549
  • Gender: Male
  • SDN>SDV
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #321 on: May 11, 2012, 12:30:18 AM »
I don't see how this amendment does anything other than strip away rights both heterosexual and homosexual couples previously had and continues to deny rights homosexuals haven't had in this state (like its been said before, unnecessary because there was already a ban on same-sex marriage).  Granting those rights to people doesn't harm anyone, it isn't some kind of movement looking to take over the world, its about a group of citizens who want to marry a consenting adult that they love, or at least enter into some kind of domestic union with them (again, either homo- or heterosexual).  theseoaf's post about the similarities between this situation and former bans on interracial marriage (the last time NC amended their constitution on the marriage issue) is spot on. 

Constitutional amendments can be repealed and I hope that happens to this one. 

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Back for the Attack
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40897
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #322 on: May 11, 2012, 04:22:46 AM »
The NC Attorney General was against this amendment because he thought it was a poorly written law and because it will be challenged  at great expense to the state.  His opinion on this had nothing to do with "legalizing" gay marriage, because AGAIN, that wasn't an option here.  There is already a statute here against gay marriage.

The supporters wanted it to be an amendment so that it couldn't be so easily overturned by an activist judge who wanted to do so.  It will be a pain in the ass to get this thing to go away.

And again, although I am personally in favor of gay marriage, that had nothing to do with my disdain for this amendment, because the possibility of gay marriage was not on the table here in North Carolina.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline robwebster

  • Posts: 5011
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #323 on: May 11, 2012, 05:49:31 AM »
Ah! Glad to see this reopened! Not been posting much - not my specialist subject, I'm not really the right person to argue this corner - but been reading intently.

Just to clarify a point though. When the Bible says homosexuality "causes death." I'm not going to quibble (yet!), but only 'cos you could say the same of anything if you wait long enough. Is there anything less... feathery than that to go on? Because that seems like a fairly important statement to unpack.

And, Rick - I think it's important to remember that the people who are making life difficult... not everyone who votes, not by a long chalk, 'cos I'm sure there was more bigotry in those ballot boxes than at a BNP rally; but to take the Bible as gospel, many of those voters genuinely believe they're saving their neighbours from death. Which I think is still misguided, but I'd argue it's important to make the distinction that they're not necessarily coming from a position of bigotry, nor instinctive hatred, but often from a position where they're making these votes simply because their God says that it's the right thing; and who are we to question the word of a higher power?

I'm not sanctioning the point of view... just, empathising. Never happier to live in the UK, though. The CoE seems quite a few miles ahead of the general curve.

Offline soundgarden

  • Posts: 912
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #324 on: May 11, 2012, 07:20:28 AM »
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.

But its not an argument of stripping away rights.  Its an argument of never having the right in the first place.  Blacks weren't initially "stripped" of the rights to marry whites.  Civil rights weren't "stripped" away from there; they were denied only to be eventually extended.  This is all that homosexuals are asking; that the rights afforded to them under the constitution be extended.

Of course there are always subsets of people you can't marry; but that changed so many times over history.  Why can't it change again?

Offline Rick

  • Posts: 560
  • Gender: Female
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #325 on: May 11, 2012, 07:29:14 AM »
And, Rick - I think it's important to remember that the people who are making life difficult... not everyone who votes, not by a long chalk, 'cos I'm sure there was more bigotry in those ballot boxes than at a BNP rally; but to take the Bible as gospel, many of those voters genuinely believe they're saving their neighbours from death. Which I think is still misguided, but I'd argue it's important to make the distinction that they're not necessarily coming from a position of bigotry, nor instinctive hatred, but often from a position where they're making these votes simply because their God says that it's the right thing; and who are we to question the word of a higher power?

I'm not sanctioning the point of view... just, empathising. Never happier to live in the UK, though. The CoE seems quite a few miles ahead of the general curve.

I know. I'm glad I'm in the UK too. I'm also aware that I'm a strange representative of LGBT as I'm actually predominantly heterosexual anyway. I am, however, very much in favour of deconstructing all notions of kyriarchy in society, and gaining full openness and equality. As I've said in this thread - the issue isn't about *me* - I don't live in the USA, I don't wish to marry a man or a woman, ever, as I think marriage is ludicrous ASIDE from offering legal benefits. However, under current laws, civil partnerships don't offer equal benefits, therefore committed gay couples are being denied rights that are incredibly easy for heterosexual couples to obtain. There is no 'sanctity of marriage' to defend as no-one can actually give a definitive explanation of what the 'purpose' of marriage is, aside from being an archaic custom rooted in patriarchy that has evolved over the centuries to become some... thing that couples who are allowed to marry like to deny to couples of a different sexuality to them because they are aware that they're a majority and are in a position of privilege. I want equal marriage laws for those who *do* want to marry, just as I would defend the rights of people to do a lot of things that I don't personally want to do (including, for example, the free practice of religious faith...) that don't infringe upon the freedoms of others. I don't particularly see any need for churches to have to rescind their policy on same-sex couples having religious ceremonies in churches - I think it's valid that they can say that it is disagreeable to their faith - but it is definitely ridiculous that they be allowed to prevent same-sex couples being married in secular ceremonies and attaining the exact same legal rights as heteronormative couples.

As I've stated across many posts in this thread - I don't see these people as being intentionally malicious and bubbling with bilious hate; I understand that it is their 'belief' that it is right/wrong, however what I want them to understand is that all faith is their own personal interpretation of a text document (with a very suspicious history of editing, and that's even before you get into any areas of epistemology and ontology, etc), and to deny people the same rights as you is harmful - especially when it's claiming to have external objective clarity about a text; which is dangerously totalitarian. I don't want people to renounce their faith nor their opinions - one course of action actively causes proven harm, the other doesn't - I want people to consider the certainty of their interpretations before they go out into the world and deny other people a right to full equality as fellow human beings. I fully understand the rationale behind religious people's choices in this matter; but in no way whatsoever as as human being can I sit back and feel comfortable as their opinions (borne from swathes of faulty inductive reasoning and poor logic) become enshrined in law.

I've posted a lot in this thread, and any subsequent posts I make will probably just be quotations of things I've already posted, as I've literally covered most things now across almost 20 posts.


Offline robwebster

  • Posts: 5011
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #326 on: May 11, 2012, 08:21:26 AM »
Robust argument, good points, great post! Grand stuff all round.

I agree, I'll never approve of the views from a personal perspective, but I think they're entitled to hold them - just not to impose them upon society. I understand that for a religious lawmaker, you can't divorce the two, but I don't know to what extent we can change that. I'm basically happy for a Christian church to refuse to bless any union it wants - as long as everyone's accepted and equal as soon as they leave those walls.

I've said this before, but I'd like to see heterosexual atheists getting civil partnerships. Completely secularise the process of union, and make marriage the exclusive preserve of the church. If every heterosexual atheist couple got the exact same document and rights as every homosexual couple, I think you'd draw even more attention to how mad it is to base civil rights (sorry, bosk!) on lines drawn by religious doctrines. And if it also encourages the churches to re-evaluate their own outlook, all the better.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6870
  • You can't spell "America" without "Erica"
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #327 on: May 11, 2012, 08:22:15 AM »
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

Understandable, which is why I and some others have taken great pains to explain ourselves and fully and as compassionately as possible (and why those who merely casually throw out labels have been asked to excuse themselves from the discussion).  At some point, I would hope that you take the time to realize that there is in fact nothing malicious in stating that certain actions are sinful when it is done in a caring way.  And if your kneejerk reaction is still, "whether you are trying to be kind and inoffensive or not, I am still going to find it offensive," then we both just have to realize that some things in life just aren't going to sit well with us sometimes, and that's just the way it is.  I cannot change God's truth, so if me speaking it in a kind, malicious way is offensive when I try everything within my power to be inoffensive about it, then in essence, I have to let go and accept the fact that some will simply be offended by things I cannot change, just as some may be offended by my skin color, my race, my marital status, or what have you.  Hopefully, at the end of the day, we accept our differences despite those misgivings, and move on.

I'm not telling anyone they're 'wrong' in what they think - I'm telling them that they're malicious in their expression.

When you (not necessarily "you" personally) shut down discussion and not permit one side of a debate to express their opinions or beliefs, whether by directly telling them they don't have a right to those beliefs or by namecalling and unfairly attaching labels, you are still indirectly telling them they are wrong in what they think and attempting to bully them into not speaking what they have every right to speak (again, provided they do their best to speak it in a respectful way). 

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. \

I completely agree, which is why I defend your right to be able to speak your opinion.  And from my side of the debate, the same holds true.  I understand that certain practices are sinful, and to not speak out and attempt to discuss the issue civilly would, in my opinion, be an injustice, so I cannot in good conscience leave those ideas unchallenged.
"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

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6870
  • You can't spell "America" without "Erica"
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #328 on: May 11, 2012, 08:31:42 AM »
I've said this before, but I'd like to see heterosexual atheists getting civil partnerships. Completely secularise the process of union, and make marriage the exclusive preserve of the church. If every heterosexual atheist couple got the exact same document and rights as every homosexual couple, I think you'd draw even more attention to how mad it is to base civil rights (sorry, bosk!) on lines drawn by religious doctrines. And if it also encourages the churches to re-evaluate their own outlook, all the better.

;)  No worries.  And I get where you (and others who have said similar things) are coming from.  Coming off the bigger topic of "gay marriage" for a moment, and going back to the NC Amendment, it somewhat speaks to that issue, I think.  I will take Hef's word for it that it is a completely screwed up amendment.  I haven't looked at it myself, and probably won't.  I'm not necessarily applauding or condemning it because I don't know enough specifics to really speak intelligently about it, other than in the broad context of the arguments I have made.  But one thing that is intriguing about it is that, as mentioned, it apparently also does not grant a set of those special privileges that are attendant to marriage to heterosexual domestic partnerships either.  Broadly speaking, while I know this position doesn't fly amongst the general populace, I think they got that part right since heterosexual sex outside of marriage is also sinful.  Hence, I do not believe the government should put its stamp of approval and grant special privileges to individuals in that sort of relationship.  Anyway, I digress a bit, but your post just got me thinking in that direction.
"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 eric42434224

  • Posts: 3473
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #329 on: May 11, 2012, 08:35:03 AM »
We shouldnt be discussing "sinful" and "government approval" in the same sentence.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline soundgarden

  • Posts: 912
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #330 on: May 11, 2012, 08:36:46 AM »
Then the discussion shifts to whether the government has the obligation to govern through morals of a certain group.

edit...eric beat me to it

Offline Nick

  • Call Kenny Loggins
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 19063
  • Gender: Male
  • Cause you're in the danger zone
    • My Radio Show!
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #331 on: May 11, 2012, 08:37:39 AM »
Say what you will about North Carolina, this was in my local paper this morning...

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 Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13793
  • Gender: Male
  • whahibrido pickingant in action...
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #332 on: May 11, 2012, 08:43:32 AM »
I cannot change God's truth

I find this interesting, because I think that it's part of the problem a lot of people are having.  To you and many other religious people, "God's truth" is an absolute.  This is how it is, this is what I believe, and that's that.  Understandable, people are very passionate about their beliefs.  But not everybody believes that.

I assume that if there was another religion whose deity's "truth" was that heterosexuallity was sinful, and enough of them managed to push that "truth" into some kind of law, resulting in heterosexuals not being afforded the benefits of marriage, it clearly wouldn't be welcomed by hetero Christians who believe differently.  So with all due respect, when I see Christians say things like this, while I understand that this is truly what they believe, it always makes me feel like the rest of the world is expected to get behind it as well, whether or not that is their belief system.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6870
  • You can't spell "America" without "Erica"
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #333 on: May 11, 2012, 08:47:34 AM »
We shouldnt be discussing "sinful" and "government approval" in the same sentence.

Okay, then don't.  Nobody said you have to.

Then the discussion shifts to whether the government has the obligation to govern through morals of a certain group.

Well, somewhat, I suppose.  But I think comment did a good job of addressing that in his post.
"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: 560
  • Gender: Female
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #334 on: May 11, 2012, 08:57:39 AM »
I cannot change God's truth

I understand that certain practices are sinful

;)

claiming to have external objective clarity about a text; which is dangerously totalitarian.


Barthes' Death of the Author - https://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/barthes06.htm
« Last Edit: May 11, 2012, 10:45:48 AM by Rick »

Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13793
  • Gender: Male
  • whahibrido pickingant in action...
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #335 on: May 11, 2012, 09:02:04 AM »

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #336 on: May 11, 2012, 09:02:39 AM »
I think what you're not understanding, snapple, is the fact that you're defending people who voted to strip civil rights from a group of fellow citizens

With all due respect Barry (and I believe you are aware of the fact that I do have a tremendous amount of personal respect for you notwithstanding drastically different religious and political views), by using that sort of rhetoric, you are shutting down any possibility whatsoever of having any sort of discussion on the issue at hand.  I know that is not your intention, but by creating a de facto label and pigeonholing anyone who is against gay marriage as "anti civil rights," you are in effect demonizing and marginalizing anyone who might disagree with you.  And whether your position is correct or not, that is not what this forum is for.  In my years of running this forum, I have seen a number of people take some pretty offensive views on a variety of topics, and those views have occurred on both sides of the political and/or religious spectrums (spectra?).  But provided the person presents those views without violating forum rules, they are permitted to express them without being directly or indirectly attacked for holding those views.  I don't mean to single you out, but (1) unlike some others who have posted in the thread, you posted your post in such a way that I could form an articulate, meaningful response to it without just getting pissed off and getting into a further argument about the issue, and (2) I know from my interactions with you that you are mature enough to understand and respect where I am coming from even if you disagree.


I've been trying for 45 minutes to formulate a response to this post.    "Demonized"  ???   "Marginalized"  ??? "attacking"  ???    That's what you got out of what I wrote?  Wow, man. 





Offline Rick

  • Posts: 560
  • Gender: Female
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #337 on: May 11, 2012, 09:14:16 AM »
I think what you're not understanding, snapple, is the fact that you're defending people who voted to strip civil rights from a group of fellow citizens

With all due respect Barry [...]

I've been trying for 45 minutes to formulate a response to this post.    "Demonized"  ???   "Marginalized"  ??? "attacking"  ???    That's what you got out of what I wrote?  Wow, man.

For the record, I'm in full support of kirksnosehair here, despite the fact his username is silly and missing an apostrophe. This is all about majorities with privileged positions. A belief that something is 'right' doesn't give one the right to impose that belief on a subset of the population at your will when it limits their freedoms and only causes harm, and no actual benefit is generated.

Consider:
"As a [person with X belief], I know that straight/christian/black [delete as applicable] people should not be allowed to live in houses, as it is objectively immoral in the grand designs of the universe".
« Last Edit: May 11, 2012, 09:24:06 AM by Rick »

Offline SeRoX

  • DTF.org Offical Obsessed Member
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2078
  • Gender: Male
  • The VoiceMaster
    • James LaBrie
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #338 on: May 11, 2012, 09:18:36 AM »
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.

As a gay, there are some points I agree with you but mostly not. I mean, I examine LGBT comunities and their works. I think they need to renew themselves. But you sound like a small group in the majority just must be quiet and do whatever majority wants. Oh well, it doesn't work that way, you know. Just because majority wants that way it would be unfair for others.

Aside from the LGBT persons, a country has many small groups with different beliefs, different choices, different lives who want their rights, who have life to live.  So when they rise up for something, do they actually need to be elimaneted for the majority sake?
Quote from: Plasmastrike
SeRoX is right!
Quote from: Nihil-Morari
SeRoX is DTF's JLB!
As usual, SeRoX is correct.

Offline skydivingninja

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11549
  • Gender: Male
  • SDN>SDV
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #339 on: May 11, 2012, 09:20:29 AM »
I've said this before, but I'd like to see heterosexual atheists getting civil partnerships. Completely secularise the process of union, and make marriage the exclusive preserve of the church. If every heterosexual atheist couple got the exact same document and rights as every homosexual couple, I think you'd draw even more attention to how mad it is to base civil rights (sorry, bosk!) on lines drawn by religious doctrines. And if it also encourages the churches to re-evaluate their own outlook, all the better.

;)  No worries.  And I get where you (and others who have said similar things) are coming from.  Coming off the bigger topic of "gay marriage" for a moment, and going back to the NC Amendment, it somewhat speaks to that issue, I think.  I will take Hef's word for it that it is a completely screwed up amendment.  I haven't looked at it myself, and probably won't.  I'm not necessarily applauding or condemning it because I don't know enough specifics to really speak intelligently about it, other than in the broad context of the arguments I have made.  But one thing that is intriguing about it is that, as mentioned, it apparently also does not grant a set of those special privileges that are attendant to marriage to heterosexual domestic partnerships either.  Broadly speaking, while I know this position doesn't fly amongst the general populace, I think they got that part right since heterosexual sex outside of marriage is also sinful.  Hence, I do not believe the government should put its stamp of approval and grant special privileges to individuals in that sort of relationship.  Anyway, I digress a bit, but your post just got me thinking in that direction.

It doesn't just not grant them, it takes them away.  People who were in civil unions/domestic partnerships no longer have those benefits and aren't recognized as being together in any way.  That's part of what makes the amendment so sickening, especially when the ballot only said "Marriage between a man and a woman is the only recognized domestic union in this state," and most of the supporters either didn't pick up on that or believed, as you do, that its sinful for those kinds of unions to exist and that the law shouldn't be giving them special privileges. 

The problem with both issues is (and stop me if you've heard this one :P) the whole separation between church and state thing getting ignored.  We were never a country founded on religion, and we shouldn't use religion to make policy decisions.  So many people have been hurt because of the privileges stripped away from them, at least in part because of religion (though a senator's wife also said that the amendment was necessary in order for the caucasaian race to survive but let's not go there :P).  Overall it just annoys me that 61% of the people in my state chose bigotry instead of tolerance, and did incredible harm to the state's unmarried families, elderly, women, and economy. 

Offline Nick

  • Call Kenny Loggins
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 19063
  • Gender: Male
  • Cause you're in the danger zone
    • My Radio Show!
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #340 on: May 11, 2012, 09:24:13 AM »
I've said this before, but I'd like to see heterosexual atheists getting civil partnerships. Completely secularise the process of union, and make marriage the exclusive preserve of the church. If every heterosexual atheist couple got the exact same document and rights as every homosexual couple, I think you'd draw even more attention to how mad it is to base civil rights (sorry, bosk!) on lines drawn by religious doctrines. And if it also encourages the churches to re-evaluate their own outlook, all the better.

;)  No worries.  And I get where you (and others who have said similar things) are coming from.  Coming off the bigger topic of "gay marriage" for a moment, and going back to the NC Amendment, it somewhat speaks to that issue, I think.  I will take Hef's word for it that it is a completely screwed up amendment.  I haven't looked at it myself, and probably won't.  I'm not necessarily applauding or condemning it because I don't know enough specifics to really speak intelligently about it, other than in the broad context of the arguments I have made.  But one thing that is intriguing about it is that, as mentioned, it apparently also does not grant a set of those special privileges that are attendant to marriage to heterosexual domestic partnerships either.  Broadly speaking, while I know this position doesn't fly amongst the general populace, I think they got that part right since heterosexual sex outside of marriage is also sinful.  Hence, I do not believe the government should put its stamp of approval and grant special privileges to individuals in that sort of relationship.  Anyway, I digress a bit, but your post just got me thinking in that direction.

It doesn't just not grant them, it takes them away.  People who were in civil unions/domestic partnerships no longer have those benefits and aren't recognized as being together in any way.  That's part of what makes the amendment so sickening, especially when the ballot only said "Marriage between a man and a woman is the only recognized domestic union in this state," and most of the supporters either didn't pick up on that or believed, as you do, that its sinful for those kinds of unions to exist and that the law shouldn't be giving them special privileges. 

The problem with both issues is (and stop me if you've heard this one :P) the whole separation between church and state thing getting ignored.  We were never a country founded on religion, and we shouldn't use religion to make policy decisions.  So many people have been hurt because of the privileges stripped away from them, at least in part because of religion (though a senator's wife also said that the amendment was necessary in order for the caucasaian race to survive but let's not go there :P).  Overall it just annoys me that 61% of the people in my state chose bigotry instead of tolerance, and did incredible harm to the state's unmarried families, elderly, women, and economy. 

So much I'm skipping just to make a minor point, but separation of church and state is a phrase found nowhere in the constitution. The first amendment prohibits the establishment of a religion and was put in there to avoid state run churches like the ones in Europe people were escaping from. While we might not agree where people are getting their beliefs from, it is totally reasonable for people to make a policy decision based on their religion as that is where they get their sense of right/wrong from.

I very much disagree with people making decisions based on the bible or faith, but it's not like we can expect people to throw out everything they believe when they make a decision.
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 skydivingninja

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11549
  • Gender: Male
  • SDN>SDV
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #341 on: May 11, 2012, 09:31:37 AM »
I'm aware the phrase is not in the constitution, but it is an important concept that every US history student learns about.  I understand that someone can consult with their bible or faith or magical power ring when making a decision to help them do what they think is morally right, but I think laws that are put in place BECAUSE of religion isn't in the spirit of the first amendment.  Amendment one is such a thing. 

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6870
  • You can't spell "America" without "Erica"
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #342 on: May 11, 2012, 09:35:07 AM »
I've been trying for 45 minutes to formulate a response to this post.    "Demonized"  ???   "Marginalized"  ??? "attacking"  ???    That's what you got out of what I wrote?  Wow, man. 

Barry, don't worry too much about it.  As I tried to say in my post, and perhaps not very effectively, is that you were not by any stretch the problem in that thread, but you had such a nice, concise statement of one of the issues others had been taking to the extreme that your post jumped out as an easy example to make my point.  I think the bigger issue is understood now, as things seem to be a bit more under control in the thread, so I think it's fine. Sorry for appearing to react so strongly to your specific post.  Feel free to respond or PM me if you want to further discuss.


It doesn't just not grant them, it takes them away.  People who were in civil unions/domestic partnerships no longer have those benefits and aren't recognized as being together in any way. 

No, I get it.  That is indeed a HUGE problem.  And I'm not trying to say that specifically what this amendment did or how it did it was right.  I'm just saying, it's interesting that it tackled the issue much more broadly.  Again, I'm not necessarily defending the amendment. 

The problem with both issues is (and stop me if you've heard this one :P) the whole separation between church and state thing getting ignored.

Yes, and I do not believe that "separation of church and state" is an accurate (or beneficial) way of describing the balance between the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.  Nor do I believe complete separation of church and state is desireable.  But, again, I think comment did a great job in his post of explaining how "church" and "state" do intersect in very real and practical ways.

though a senator's wife also said that the amendment was necessary in order for the caucasaian race to survive but let's not go there :P

Wow.  Okay, yeah, I see issues.  That's just stupid.  :facepalm:  So much for progress. 

Overall it just annoys me that 61% of the people in my state chose bigotry instead of tolerance

Okay, but now this is where you are crossing the line that I set out above earlier in the thread.  It is simply NOT okay to lump all people who may have voted for the amendment into one group and label them "bigoted."  Many may have been, and that example of the senator's wife is a good example.  But don't just casually throw that label around just because you disagree with the voters.
"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 Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13793
  • Gender: Male
  • whahibrido pickingant in action...
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #343 on: May 11, 2012, 09:35:54 AM »
I very much disagree with people making decisions based on the bible or faith, but it's not like we can expect people to throw out everything they believe when they make a decision for themselves.

Offline Nick

  • Call Kenny Loggins
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 19063
  • Gender: Male
  • Cause you're in the danger zone
    • My Radio Show!
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #344 on: May 11, 2012, 10:07:10 AM »
I very much disagree with people making decisions based on the bible or faith, but it's not like we can expect people to throw out everything they believe when they make a decision for themselves.

I get what you're saying, but what democracy is is basically the sum of people's personal beliefs into public law, and if most people are of a certain faith, then naturally the public policies will reflect that, however much I personally dislike that it's not like it doesn't make sense.
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 Rick

  • Posts: 560
  • Gender: Female
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #345 on: May 11, 2012, 10:35:12 AM »
Overall it just annoys me that 61% of the people in my state chose bigotry instead of tolerance

Okay, but now this is where you are crossing the line that I set out above earlier in the thread.  It is simply NOT okay to lump all people who may have voted for the amendment into one group and label them "bigoted."  Many may have been, and that example of the senator's wife is a good example.  But don't just casually throw that label around just because you disagree with the voters.

Bigotry is the state of mind of a "bigot", a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who exhibits intolerance or animosity toward members of a group.

In interests of fairness, I present opposing views on this for delectation.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/05/11/gay-marriage-debate-bigot_n_1509246.html (vote in the poll to see the arguments)

Technically, I don't actually see 'bigotry' as such a bad term to use. Yes, it's strong language, but this is a polarising issue where one expects such rhetoric to be used anyway; it's nowhere near as strong and offense as stating that gay acts are sinful; because that invokes universal notions of right/wrong that close off debate, whereas to say 'bigotry' won out doesn't necessarily denote that the speaker is calling all the people 'bigots' as individuals - but merely the 'bigoted' idea won out. skydivingninja definitely did not call everyone who voted in that fashion 'bigots'; a less knee-jerk reading of his post shows that clearly. If clinging to a personal interpretation of the universe through a single book* to base your opinion on in regard to ensure that your own privileged position is maintained at the cost of keeping others as unequal 'citizens' and doling them harm (when to vote in the opposite way would not cause any proven harm) isn't bigoted behaviour, then what IS bigotry?



* = obviously not everyone who voted in this way did so for Christian religious reasons - those who did it just because they think homosexuals deserve to be unequal second-class citizens are obviously distinct, but the behaviour may be no less 'bigoted'.

What religion (or lack thereof) are you affiliated with? : Agnostic.

What is your stance on:

- Gay Marriage: I am opposed to gay marriage.

Nick - saw this in the roll-call thread. Care to explain your personal secular opposition to gay marriage?
« Last Edit: May 11, 2012, 12:13:18 PM by Rick »

Offline skydivingninja

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11549
  • Gender: Male
  • SDN>SDV
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #346 on: May 11, 2012, 11:21:42 AM »
It doesn't just not grant them, it takes them away.  People who were in civil unions/domestic partnerships no longer have those benefits and aren't recognized as being together in any way. 

No, I get it.  That is indeed a HUGE problem.  And I'm not trying to say that specifically what this amendment did or how it did it was right.  I'm just saying, it's interesting that it tackled the issue much more broadly.  Again, I'm not necessarily defending the amendment. 
Yeah I know you weren't explicitly defending it, I was just letting you know the implications of the amendment since you admitted that you didn't know much about it. 

Overall it just annoys me that 61% of the people in my state chose bigotry instead of tolerance

Okay, but now this is where you are crossing the line that I set out above earlier in the thread.  It is simply NOT okay to lump all people who may have voted for the amendment into one group and label them "bigoted."  Many may have been, and that example of the senator's wife is a good example.  But don't just casually throw that label around just because you disagree with the voters.
[/quote]

Believe me after someone got banned for referring to another member as a bigot, I don't throw it around casually, and I thought for a bit about my post before I hit that button.  But Rick's definition kinda hits the nail on the head.  There's intolerance and definite animosity towards homosexuals and those views to me can best be summed up as bigotry.  Its a strong word, yes, but it fits.  I can see that I made a blanket statement though, and that's my mistake.  In case you haven't noticed, I have strong feelings on this issue and I'm not usually one to make blanket statements like that.  Sorry.  After all, there were a lot of supporters of this amendment who just plain didn't understand what the amendment actually did besides solidify the same-sex marriage ban, and maybe they weren't trying to be malicious, but there is enough hate towards homosexuals in the state to the point where I felt the term was justified in describing the views of a majority of people who supported amendment one. 

Also, here's a good video/rant about same sex marriage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD-INsIbVcw&feature=youtu.be

Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5585
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #347 on: May 11, 2012, 11:47:38 AM »
Wow, I was just going to link to that video. Nerdfighters!

And I wanted to comment on Bosk's logic that all people have the same rights to marriage. You say that we all have the same right: the right to marry one consenting woman. The debate over whether that statement is valid or not comes from the different understandings of marriage. Many people who disagree with you would say that marriage is about marrying the person you love, regardless of sex. In that case, people are being denied rights.

Offline TL

  • Posts: 2788
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #348 on: May 11, 2012, 03:54:08 PM »
Since it seems to have been glossed over;

Having a vote on minority rights and deciding minority rights by majority rule is never a good idea.
Yes, obviously if a politician practices a certain religion, it will enter into their decision making process. However, it's critical that even if a plurality or majority of people in a country follow a particular religious belief, that their religious views not be forced on the minority. At a certain point, the government needs to maintain a certain neutrality, and defend the rights of all of its citizens, not just the rights of the majority.

The government can't force a religion to recognize or perform gay marriage, but no religion should be able to effect the legal government definition either.

Offline soundgarden

  • Posts: 912
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #349 on: May 11, 2012, 03:57:13 PM »
Bosk:

I was thinking today; that EVEN in societies where the religion was homogenized there were still civil liberties that weren't spread equally.  People found ways to deny liberties from within scripture itself (ie, people were not "catholic enough" in medieval Spain, women not "hidden enough" in Saudi Arabia).  Frankly, thats the reason why denominations of Christianity emerged.

I'm beating a horse here, but CLEARLY a theocracy NEVER works.  Its one thing, as Nick stated, to expect that people would have their religious morals seep into their legal policies; its another thing to actively push for it.  The only government that can possibly work, EVEN in a religiously homogenous society is one that absolutely keeps religion out. 

It is in fact for YOUR best interest to fight against ANY religion to influence the government.