Daniel's Reference To Gay Marriage

[Sheiky 0]

So if a gay guys demands anything, we must give in or else it's gay bashing?I know gays who voted against Prop 8 in California, are they just self-haters?

Where did my post imply any of that?You know as well as I do that the Mormon church and pretty much all the other religious groups don't support gay marriage because they don't like gay people, it's no secret. When black people were arguing for civil rights 70 years ago we had exactly the same arguments 'We're not racist, we just think black people are different from white people and should be segregated'. However you dress it up, you'd be extremely naive to think that the majority of people who disapprove of gay marriage do so because they don't like gay people plain and simple.

[BigLebowski 0]

I know gays who voted against Prop 8 in California, are they just self-haters?

I would love to talk to these people to see why they would do this.And to your point...people that have fought civil liberties (particularly African americans) didn't vote for it in Florida, but it had absolutely nothing to do with them comparing it to civil liberty battles. It seems that the most hypocritical people walking the face of this earth are self righteous religious people. The gay marriage fight is just another example of this. I am not saying I believe this is how you feel as it is a patently blanket statement, but I do believe this is how the vast majority of the religious right feels. We could argue about this all day as there is no way to prove it one way or the other. I would surmise the reason gays don't jump at the chance to "marry" when it is made available to them is simply because at this time they see no reason for it. Their personal unions are just fine with them right now. However, if it were to become an American right I believe we would see quite a bit more than 5% take the plunge. In fact, I think it would actually bring quite a few people out of the closet simply because at that point it would mean it is accepted to a degree we have not seen yet. Your argument makes it sounds like you think heterosexual double income couples should have no death benefits either...is that really the case? Are you campaigning against it because that is not the reason death benefits were originally instituted?FTR, I do not think your argument is the same as most that are against gay marriage. I think you are much closer to center than the vast majority. Probably has something to do with your interaction with someone who is GASP....gay.

[Balloon guy 158]

I would love to talk to these people to see why they would do this.

So you think I am wrong in making a blanket statement on why most people did this?

And to your point...people that have fought civil liberties (particularly African americans) didn't vote for it in Florida, but it had absolutely nothing to do with them comparing it to civil liberty battles.

But this blanket statement is okay

It seems that the most hypocritical people walking the face of this earth are self righteous religious people. The gay marriage fight is just another example of this. I am not saying I believe this is how you feel as it is a patently blanket statement, but I do believe this is how the vast majority of the religious right feels. We could argue about this all day as there is no way to prove it one way or the other.

And these are okay

I would surmise the reason gays don't jump at the chance to "marry" when it is made available to them is simply because at this time they see no reason for it. Their personal unions are just fine with them right now. However, if it were to become an American right I believe we would see quite a bit more than 5% take the plunge. In fact, I think it would actually bring quite a few people out of the closet simply because at that point it would mean it is accepted to a degree we have not seen yet.

And these

FTR, I do not think your argument is the same as most that are against gay marriage. I think you are much closer to center than the vast majority. Probably has something to do with your interaction with someone who is GASP....gay.

Last blanket statement. You have a belief, and you interject it into the debate...fine I think most people do. But if you pretend you aren't, you are fooling yourself.I have been an active member of the Christian community for over 20 year, the vast majority of people I've met and know are not remotely like the caractures you've imagined in your mind and from leftist writers who share your prejudices.

Your argument makes it sounds like you think heterosexual double income couples should have no death benefits either...is that really the case? Are you campaigning against it because that is not the reason death benefits were originally instituted?

No I was explaining why the law is there. Just like the driving at 16 and drinking at 21 laws, the laws have a reason, and of course there are examples for why the laws are not perfect, but that doesn't mean let's scrap the 16 driving age because Billy can handle a tractor at 14

[BigLebowski 0]

......

Those bolded lines are obviously my opinions. The fact you say you know gays who voted against prop 8 is not an opinion. I would like to know why these people voted against it. Didn't think it was a difficult question to understand and really had nothing to do with the rest of my post.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

Where did my post imply any of that?You know as well as I do that the Mormon church and pretty much all the other religious groups don't support gay marriage because they don't like gay people, it's no secret. When black people were arguing for civil rights 70 years ago we had exactly the same arguments 'We're not racist, we just think black people are different from white people and should be segregated'. However you dress it up, you'd be extremely naive to think that the majority of people who disapprove of gay marriage do so because they don't like gay people plain and simple.

So, you are against freedom of religion? You just compared Christians( and you lumped all Christians together) to bigots and racists after you misrepresented their positon. The Catholic Church is the largest Church in the country, and it is a sin to mistreat homosexuals according to the CoCC. The changing of the definition of marriage has at least a few good non-religious arguments, some of which have been mentioned in this thread. As I said earlier I don't think this issue is as important as many Churches are making it out to be(I believe churches have a lot more important and pressing issues they need to deal with). That said, I certainly don't think it is right to try and force Christains to recognize a lifestyle that is against their religion, which is what the gay lobby is striving to accomplish. Your statement was bigoted and misrepresented the position of a lot of Christians. I don't really think you are a bigot yourself, but you should be more careful.

[timwakefield 68]

I certainly don't think it is right to try and force Christains to recognize a lifestyle that is against their religion, which is what the gay lobby is striving to accomplish.

That is almost indescribably nonsensical. - We are not a Christian Nation.- Gay marriage would not take place in a church, unless that church wanted it.- Your argument that you think it's wrong to "force (insert any religious, social, political, geographic, or any other type of group) to recognize a lifestyle that is against their religion" is almost exactly the opposite of the intent of 'freedom of religion.' Nobody has the freedom to tell a person who they can or cannot marry because it offends them. - "I certainly don't think it is right to try to force KKK members to recognize inter-raicial marriage, since it goes against their stated religious beliefs, and that is what the civil rights movement is trying to accomplish." Explain to me how that statement is morally or politically different than yours.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

That is almost indescribably nonsensical. - We are not a Christian Nation.- Gay marriage would not take place in a church, unless that church wanted it.- Your argument that you think it's wrong to "force (insert any religious, social, political, geographic, or any other type of group) to recognize a lifestyle that is against their religion" is almost exactly the opposite of the intent of 'freedom of religion.' Nobody has the freedom to tell a person who they can or cannot marry because it offends them. - "I certainly don't think it is right to try to force KKK members to recognize inter-raicial marriage, since it goes against their stated religious beliefs, and that is what the civil rights movement is trying to accomplish." Explain to me how that statement is morally or politically different than yours.

What do they hope to gain by getting married? Can they not accomplish the same thing through civil unions, why is it necessary to change the definition of a word? Isn't it logical, that polygamy be next? I mean if you are bi-sexual should you be able to have one male and one female spouse? Or is monogamy the virtue that is pledged. You can't compare some immoral hate group with most of the American population. That is really by point, the gay lobby want Christians put in the same catagory as hate groups for not accepting their lifestyle. Churches could just choose to not recognize homosexual marriages or just ignore the issue altogether except within their congregations. On the other hand gays could just accept the term civil union and not insist on hijacking a word to push forward a political agenda.

[timwakefield 68]

What do they hope to gain by getting married? Can they not accomplish the same thing through civil unions, why is it necessary to change the definition of a word? Isn't it logical, that polygamy be next?

Why is polygamy the next "logical" step? A traditional marriage is between one man and one woman. A gay marriage is between one man and one man, or one woman and one woman. I completely fail to see how polygamy follows that. As far as what they hope to gain by getting married, well I would guess they are hoping to gain the same rights that heterosexual couples enjoy. Calling it a "civil union" just makes things complicated - if a "civilly united" couple would have all of the same rights and freedoms as a married couple, why call it something other than marriage, other than to simply remind everybody that they're not really united in the same way a heterosexual couple is? I have asked this question before (in this thread even) and have not gotten a response: Would you be opposed to the term "merriage" for homosexual unions, and if so, precisely how many letters must be changed for you to not be opposed? I am not being rhetorical.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

Why is polygamy the next "logical" step? A traditional marriage is between one man and one woman. A gay marriage is between one man and one man, or one woman and one woman. I completely fail to see how polygamy follows that.

Well, if you are going to change the definition of a word based on lifestyle choice then I think polygamy could be next. I mean you changed the sex why not change the number too?

I have asked this question before (in this thread even) and have not gotten a response: Would you be opposed to the term "merriage" for homosexual unions, and if so, precisely how many letters must be changed for you to not be opposed? I am not being rhetorical.

I don't think it is that complicated. Civil Unions would work fine. Changing the definition of a word is not as trivial as it may appear. I think most Christians, DN included, recognize that gays have been ostracised and worse for years. Many times this has been done in the name of religion. The fact is that this "gay bashing" has been done in opposition to Christian teaching. Jerry Falwell and many others have made incredibly ignorant and irresponsible statements regarding homosexuality and has given good reason to homosexuals to mistrust them. It would be easier for most Christians to treat the issue as DN does which is to just ignore biblical and traditional Christian teaching on the matter. DN is closer to understanding the issue than Falwell and his ilk. Christian should treat homosexuals with respect and in accordance to the most important commandment (the golden rule). They can not however accept the behavior as unsinful without ignoring biblical teaching and Christian tradition. Trying to force them to do so is to ask them to reject Christianity. This is what the gay lobby is pushing. I am not talking about your average homosexual, I am talking about the 'Gay Lobby'.

[irishguy 14]

It is not about gay people pushing a "political agenda" nor is it about gay people pushing Christians to accept something that they don't view was biblically accepted. It is about the government recognizing a union between two homosexuals the same as they recognize a union between two heterosexuals and by offering the same "benefits" of marriage but calling it something different reinforces the thought of "hey gays you are not equal to us". The fact that two drugged up eighteen year olds can get married at a drive-thru chapel pretty much shoots the sanctity of the term marriage in the arse imo

[timwakefield 68]

Changing the definition of a word is not as trivial as it may appear. I think most Christians, DN included, recognize that gays have been ostracised and worse for years. Many times this has been done in the name of religion. The fact is that this "gay bashing" has been done in opposition to Christian teaching. Jerry Falwell and many others have made incredibly ignorant and irresponsible statements regarding homosexuality and has given good reason to homosexuals to mistrust them. It would be easier for most Christians to treat the issue as DN does which is to just ignore biblical and traditional Christian teaching on the matter. DN is closer to understanding the issue than Falwell and his ilk. Christian should treat homosexuals with respect and in accordance to the most important commandment (the golden rule). They can not however accept the behavior as unsinful without ignoring biblical teaching and Christian tradition. Trying to force them to do so is to ask them to reject Christianity. This is what the gay lobby is pushing. I am not talking about your average homosexual, I am talking about the 'Gay Lobby'.

We are not a Christian Nation. Christians can feel however they want about it, and can condemn it or accept it however they like. I don't see why you think that should have any bearing on the law though. What if only Jews were opposed?And for about the 90th time my question about "merriage" has gone unanswered. I get the feeling that you and those with your views are intentionally ignoring it because it points to an obvious fallacy in your argument that the word itself is important. You could answer it now if you like, or continue to ignore it.

[Balloon guy 158]

Why is polygamy the next "logical" step? A traditional marriage is between one man and one woman. A gay marriage is between one man and one man, or one woman and one woman. I completely fail to see how polygamy follows that. As far as what they hope to gain by getting married, well I would guess they are hoping to gain the same rights that heterosexual couples enjoy. Calling it a "civil union" just makes things complicated - if a "civilly united" couple would have all of the same rights and freedoms as a married couple, why call it something other than marriage, other than to simply remind everybody that they're not really united in the same way a heterosexual couple is?

Why are those rights given to straight couples?Because they were determined to be superior to non straight couples?Because governments had too much money and wanted to give tax breaks?Or because the normal result of marriage is a famliy that has needs for these rights?The same normal result will never happen in gay couples...therefore they get the same rights as two good straight buddies who decide to remain bachelors...none.Why should the government give them what has been reserved for the purposes of children and families?

I have asked this question before (in this thread even) and have not gotten a response: Would you be opposed to the term "merriage" for homosexual unions, and if so, precisely how many letters must be changed for you to not be opposed? I am not being rhetorical.

Here's the thing..they are the ones demanding full equal rights as married couples. Including the word. They are the ones demanding schools teach about their lifestyles as young as 2nd grade. They are the ones not compromising.I've already said if they changed their demands and went more stealth and get the good stuff, tax breaks etc, they would win. But they aren't into this for rights, they are in for social engineering.

[akoff 0]

They are the ones demanding schools teach about their lifestyles as young as 2nd grade. They are the ones not compromising.I've already said if they changed their demands and went more stealth and get the good stuff, tax breaks etc, they would win. But they aren't into this for rights, they are in for social engineering.

They need a bullet....in the head. I have a 2nd grader. **** them.

[timwakefield 68]

Here's the thing..they are the ones demanding full equal rights as married couples. Including the word. They are the ones demanding schools teach about their lifestyles as young as 2nd grade. They are the ones not compromising.I've already said if they changed their demands and went more stealth and get the good stuff, tax breaks etc, they would win. But they aren't into this for rights, they are in for social engineering.

This argument is absolutely inseparable from the argument to let black children attend a white school, or for blacks and whites to marry, or for blacks to eat in public restaurants. "Here's the thing..they are the ones demanding full equal rights. Including the same schools. They are the ones demanding schools teach about their perverse and backwards history as young as 2nd grade. They are the ones not compromising.I've already said if they changed their demands and went for separate but equal they would win. But they aren't into this for rights, they are in for social engineering."

They need a bullet....in the head. I have a 2nd grader. **** them.

Oh. Actually you're right, that doesn't remind me of the civil rights struggle at all. Lets just lynch all the fags!

[Sheiky 0]

Why are those rights given to straight couples?Because they were determined to be superior to non straight couples?Because governments had too much money and wanted to give tax breaks?Or because the normal result of marriage is a famliy that has needs for these rights?The same normal result will never happen in gay couples...therefore they get the same rights as two good straight buddies who decide to remain bachelors...none.Why should the government give them what has been reserved for the purposes of children and families?Here's the thing..they are the ones demanding full equal rights as married couples. Including the word. They are the ones demanding schools teach about their lifestyles as young as 2nd grade. They are the ones not compromising.I've already said if they changed their demands and went more stealth and get the good stuff, tax breaks etc, they would win. But they aren't into this for rights, they are in for social engineering.

If that were true, then married couples would receive extra benefits when they have kids, and only when.Personally I think it's a joke that married couples get any benefits at all.

[Balloon guy 158]

If that were true, then married couples would receive extra benefits when they have kids, and only when.

Yea, because if there's one thing that history has shown, it's that govenments are effiecient when it comes to handing our benefits

Personally I think it's a joke that married couples get any benefits at all.

Either you are still living with your parents, or you are single.

[Balloon guy 158]

This argument is absolutely inseparable from the argument to let black children attend a white school, or for blacks and whites to marry, or for blacks to eat in public restaurants. "Here's the thing..they are the ones demanding full equal rights. Including the same schools. They are the ones demanding schools teach about their perverse and backwards history as young as 2nd grade. They are the ones not compromising.I've already said if they changed their demands and went for separate but equal they would win. But they aren't into this for rights, they are in for social engineering."

Actually it is completely seperable from the civi rights struggles of the 60s.Blacks had every aspect of their lives effected by Jim Crow laws (in largely democrat controlled states.)Blacks were not able to blendBlacks had severe economic hardships associated with thier raceBlacks had laws directly focused on their skin colorGays are able to blendGays have no laws restricting their movements, their ability to buy a house, or eat in a restaurantGays have higher economic successes than any other minority group in historyGays have no laws directed toward their choice of sex acts ( anymore)Next we can go over the born gay vs choose to be gay debate.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

It is not about gay people pushing a "political agenda" nor is it about gay people pushing Christians to accept something that they don't view was biblically accepted.

Well, yes it is. The "Gay Lobby" (I call them that because I think that is what they call themselves) is pushing a political agenda. I guess you could also say that there are several Christian groups pushing a political agenda. There are a large number of people who believe that it is just a matter of gay couples gaining benefits that are equal to those of heterosexual couples. But the reason that this issue is so prevalent in the news is because of the Gay Lobby and Christian Lobby.

It is about the government recognizing a union two homosexuals the same as they recognize a union between two heterosexuals and by offering the same "benefits" of marriage but calling it something different reinforces the thought of "hey gays you are not equal to us".

As long as the benefits are equal who cares what people think of them as long as they aren't mistreated. They aren't equal, one couple can reproduce and the other can't. Not saying here that one is "better" than the other, but they are certainly not the same.

The fact that two drugged up eighteen year olds can get married at a drive-thru chapel pretty much shoots the sanctity of the term marriage in the arse imo

I agree with this. The sanctity of marriage even in the Christian Community has been shot in the arse years ago. I still don't think you should change the definition of the word.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

We are not a Christian Nation. Christians can feel however they want about it, and can condemn it or accept it however they like. I don't see why you think that should have any bearing on the law though. What if only Jews were opposed?And for about the 90th time my question about "merriage" has gone unanswered. I get the feeling that you and those with your views are intentionally ignoring it because it points to an obvious fallacy in your argument that the word itself is important. You could answer it now if you like, or continue to ignore it.

I wasn't ignoring the question, I thought I answered when I stated that I think civil unions would do the trick. No need to change the definition of a word, or invent a new word such as 'merriage'. I think that both sides are too caught up fighting over the word marriage. Both have hidden agendas. I am not married, so I am not familiar with the extent of benifits provided to married couples. If the law changes, could two frat brothers decide to get married right out of college to save on income tax, ect.?

[irishguy 14]

Well, yes it is. The "Gay Lobby" (I call them that because I think that is what they call themselves) is pushing a political agenda. I guess you could also say that there are several Christian groups pushing a political agenda. There are a large number of people who believe that it is just a matter of gay couples gaining benefits that are equal to those of heterosexual couples. But the reason that this issue is so prevalent in the news is because of the Gay Lobby and Christian Lobby.

The term pushing a "political agenda" makes it sound underhanded to me (which is likely not your intention). Asking for equality in the eyes of the government isn't pushing an agenda to me.

As long as the benefits are equal who cares what people think of them as long as they aren't mistreated. They aren't equal, one couple can reproduce and the other can't. Not saying here that one is "better" than the other, but they are certainly not the same.

Lots of heterosexual couples aren't able to reproduce, some hetero couples choose not to reproduce, that stats for blended family's are a world of difference than they were years ago so this argument fails in this day and age imo. Also regardless of the marital issue gay people have been having children for years.

I agree with this. The sanctity of marriage even in the Christian Community has been shot in the arse years ago. I still don't think you should change the definition of the word.

I think an argument could be made that the meaning/intent of the word has changed enough over the years without even including homosexuals into the discussion.

[vbnautilus 48]

It is not about gay people pushing a "political agenda" nor is it about gay people pushing Christians to accept something that they don't view was biblically accepted.

Gay people are absolutely pushing a political agenda. Which it is in their interest and rights to do. I think in this case the two sides have very different views about what is at stake, so it's really "about" different things for each side, and the battle is partly over that issue itself.

It is about the government recognizing a union between two homosexuals the same as they recognize a union between two heterosexuals and by offering the same "benefits" of marriage but calling it something different reinforces the thought of "hey gays you are not equal to us".

I think its more than that. It's not just "the government" recognizing it... the government is us. It's a cultural shift in acceptance of these types of relationships, which should not be minimized as being a mere legal technicality. I had the fortune last week of meeting with a prominent researcher on morality and moral emotions who enlightened me on some things that relate to this discussion. When researchers look at what people consider moral and how they make moral judgements, there are several criteria people use to make these decisions, which can be nicely grouped into five factors: • fairness/reciprocity (its good to be fair, the golden rule, etc) • harm avoidance (its good to not hurt people)• ingroup loyalty (its good to be loyal)• authority/respect (its good to respect to authority)• purity/disgust (things that are disgusting are bad and some things are sanctified and shouldn't be defiled)Now different people (and different cultures) emphasize these five principles to different extents. Looking at conservatives and liberals it turns out they are pretty similar when it comes to placing importance on things related to fairness and harm avoidance, but they begin to diverge when it comes to the other three categories. Conservatives are very concerned with ingroup loyalty, authority, and purity -- liberals not so much. The other thing is that people for the most part make their moral judgements based on emotions... and then use reason to justify those emotions. For example, almost everyone says that sex between a brother and sister is bad, but most people have a hard time articulating why when faced with a situation that doesn't involve the possibility of offspring. There's just a visceral reaction we have to it on the disgust/purity axis. I think homosexuality is the same way. For historical/evolutionary reasons (some of which are clear and some of which I think are not) the vast majority of people have a disgust reaction to the idea of homosexual sex. It just feels wrong. (It's here where I think the comparison to racism breaks down). Now does this feeling mean that it actually is wrong and we should stop it from happening? This is where we are finding divergence in our culture. Those who place high priority on the disgust/purity dimension (typically in the form of religious ideology but not necessarily so) feel strongly that something so "impure" should not be elevated to the level of public approval. Those who don't care about that see it in terms of fairness/reciprocity and emphasize that its unfair for gays not to have equal rights. My personal position is somewhere in between. I don't place high emphasis on the disgust issue, however I do think there may be information in that reaction that should not be entirely ignored. Nature does have a wisdom to it. Here is the guy I referred to in his TED talk:http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonatha...moral_mind.html

[Nimue1995 1]

How about only giving married couples tax breaks for children living at home? That would get the government out of the marriage business entirely, would make it fair for those families including gays who do have children living at home, and we could basically make marriage what it should be - a religious rite not a government right.

[akoff 0]

This argument is absolutely inseparable from the argument to let black children attend a white school, or for blacks and whites to marry, or for blacks to eat in public restaurants. "Here's the thing..they are the ones demanding full equal rights. Including the same schools. They are the ones demanding schools teach about their perverse and backwards history as young as 2nd grade. They are the ones not compromising.I've already said if they changed their demands and went for separate but equal they would win. But they aren't into this for rights, they are in for social engineering."Oh. Actually you're right, that doesn't remind me of the civil rights struggle at all. Lets just lynch all the fags!

Ok i have had coffee, made a few bucks and have a clear head now. There is no place for teaching kids about being gay. I am not going to argue if they have choice or if they are wired that way. It doesn't matter for this arguement...it would be fun having BG enlighten you on it though!!Our schools are to educate. We have already taken all types of religion away from schools, right or wrong it is gone, we certainly don't need to teach sexual preferences to advocate the position of a fringe group. The fags don't need to be lynched, I am cool with ignoring them and dealing with the issue at home. Where it belongs!! Kids can be taugh whatever the parent deems is proper. I wouldn't propose to be the person to tell you what to teach your kids....but I sure as hell don't want some government body authorizing the teaching of my kids about homosexuality. I will take care of that, thanks.

[timwakefield 68]

Gays are able to blend

I don't know what that means. Do you mean they're easily able to pretend they're not gay?

Gays have no laws restricting their movements, their ability to buy a house, or eat in a restaurant

Sure, but that doesn't mean they're welcome.

Gays have higher economic successes than any other minority group in history

Good for them.

Gays have no laws directed toward their choice of sex acts ( anymore)

Only five years ago.

[timwakefield 68]

I will take care of that, thanks.

Yes, I'm sure you will teach them that it's repugnant and sinful and they should be shunned. God forbid somebody try to teach your kids to be accepting of people different from them.Also I really don't understand the part about teaching "2nd graders" about homosexuality. People are arguing for the right to marry, not the right to teach 2nd graders about it [cue response from fringe homosexual group trying to have it taught in schools].Once again, separate but equal is a fallacy because it's not equal, and it also implies superiority. I thought we learned that.