Gay Marriage

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by revrew

Rather, it is YOU who want to force me to live by your ethics. 1st, I do believe homosexuality advocates are trying to use the power of government to compel Americans to accept homosexuality as ethical. But even if that were not true:

Actually it's not. I'm not asking you to become a homosexual, I'm not asking you to accept homosexuality, I'm not asking you to even acknowledge them in public. Your ethics are in no way being compromised at all. You can go to Church every Sunday thinking homosexuality is a sin and not participating in it.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean that everyone in the country has to accept it as ethical. I find adultery unethical but don't feel it needs to be made illegal. I don't feel that the country allowing people to cheat on their spouses is compelling me to accept that ethical position. I worry about my own relationships, not everyone else's.

Originally Posted by revrew

You want me to fund tax benefits and all kinds of other government privileges for the support of homosexual relationships. Right now, I do not. But under your preferred law, I would. And why? Why would I do this? Because you can show its a benefit to society and an institution worth protecting? No, but because YOUR ethics and sense of fairness dictate it.

Again, allowing someone to do something doesn't indicate support. The government I'm sure doesn't support the KKK getting up and vilifying blacks and Jews. But they are still given the same right to free speech as the person who uses their speech to express love and kindness. You don't have to ethically support two members of the same-sex getting married just as you don't have to support a member of the KKK spewing hate.

As for tax benefits, like you said, that's another matter all together. Whether government should be giving these benefits to married couples. It really shouldn't have anything to do with your sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, gender, eye color, and so on. I feel if you are giving a right to something out, it should be not discriminate.

Originally Posted by revrew

Government, as I said before, is run by ethics. All laws are ethics. It's just a matter of whose ethics. And yes, I prefer mine to yours.

I agree with this. The difference is that I don't feel like my ethics should impede the lifestyle choices of other consenting adults that have no effect on me. You feel it important that you control the lives of others. I on the other hand am perfectly happy living my own life.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

But let me engage you on your ground.

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

VS.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

Are you picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution to believe?

[Sun Tzu]

Originally Posted by revrew

Rather, it is YOU who want to force me to live by your ethics.

I didn't read every post of this thread, but is someone here seriously asking revrew to become gay and then marry another gay person?

[Raiders Army]

I've been tossing this one in my head over the weekend:

Say you're in charge of a college dorm and you have two situations. In one with two male roommates, one of them comes to you and tells you he doesn't want to share a room with a gay guy. Is he a bigot? I would daresay most would say that he is.

In the other situation, a hetero male and female are rooming together and the female comes to you and tells you she doesn't want to share a room with a hetero guy. Is she a bigot? I think most would think that she has a point.

Should we examine our roles for men and women and create unisex showers, bathrooms, etc. because we are so ethically evolved? I think that's where we're going. Starship Troopers FTW.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

The wolves? In 1960, if you opposed civil rights, I hope you'd be looked upon the same way.

Not that you're prone to exaggeration or hyperbole. . .

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Should we examine our roles for men and women and create unisex showers, bathrooms, etc. because we are so ethically evolved? I think that's where we're going. Starship Troopers FTW.

I think in both of your scenarios the issue is that men are fundamentally dirty creatures. And their inability to control their sexual urges, when one is the (potential) target of such urges, is unsettling.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by revrew

Blackadar, your argument is garbage. It's a theological straw man/circular argument that begins with the assumption Christians cherry pick, then drums up a host of bad theology to prove that Christians cherry pick.

Yeah, using the exact Bible verses is such a straw man. Oh wait, that doesn't mean what you think it means.

If you want to tell me why those verses either (1) don't mean what they say or (2) don't apply anymore, please feel free to do so. I've heard them used in quite a few churches over the years in the context of not marrying a non-believer (I'll be the first one to agree that they have to be twisted for inter-racial marriage), so I'm all ears for you to tell me why Baptist, Catholic and (I think) Pentecostal preachers were so incorrect.


I do love how you think you're the victim if two gay guys that you've never met get married. It takes a lot of hubris to get from here to there.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I've been tossing this one in my head over the weekend:

Say you're in charge of a college dorm and you have two situations. In one with two male roommates, one of them comes to you and tells you he doesn't want to share a room with a gay guy. Is he a bigot? I would daresay most would say that he is.

In the other situation, a hetero male and female are rooming together and the female comes to you and tells you she doesn't want to share a room with a hetero guy. Is she a bigot? I think most would think that she has a point.

Should we examine our roles for men and women and create unisex showers, bathrooms, etc. because we are so ethically evolved? I think that's where we're going. Starship Troopers FTW.

That scenario really doesn't prove anything because it's a fictional scenario. In no college environment would would a hetero male and female be forced into a living situation against their choice whereas a hetero male and a gay male could be. I think I'm on your side here, but that comparison makes no sense.

The only thing it underscores to me is that there are seemingly ingrained human emotions and behaviors that may come from heredity, environment or other factors that make us have certain feelings or fears.

Let's ask another version of the question that's also unlikely. What if a gay male and a hetero female share a room together and the female tells you she doesn't want to share a room with a hetero guy? Is she a bigot, or has she been ingrained to believe that males her ago are curious and might jump anything that moves, gay or not?

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Yeah, using the exact Bible verses is such a straw man. Oh wait, that doesn't mean what you think it means.

If you want to tell me why those verses either (1) don't mean what they say or (2) don't apply anymore, please feel free to do so. I've heard them used in quite a few churches over the years in the context of not marrying a non-believer (I'll be the first one to agree that they have to be twisted for inter-racial marriage), so I'm all ears for you to tell me why Baptist, Catholic and (I think) Pentecostal preachers were so incorrect.

In response to this general thread of questioning, I've created a thread to address the theology issues: Understanding the Bible 101: Old Testament (OT) law and New Testament (NT) "law" - Front Office Football Central

[spleen1015]

Something I have always wondered is if people look at human attraction the same way that I do.

There are many things about about women that are attractive to me. Some things are bigger attractions for me than others. For example, tan lines. Other men might be attracted to women with lots of freckles.

I believe that the same 'thing' that makes me attracted to tan lines or you freckles is the same 'thing' that makes men attracted to men, women to women. I think it is just part of what makes us human.

[larrymcg421]

I think the biggest problem with the civil unions-government, marriage-religion plan is how do you make that happen? Marriage is handled on a state level, so each state would have to come up with that plan or you'd have some states calling it marriage for everyone and some calling it civil unions for everyone. SCOTUS may well rule that states can't prohibit marriage on the basis of sex, but they are not going to rule that a state can't call their institution marriage.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by revrew

Log in the eye a good point, but your characterization of "the religious right" is an overgeneralization. Besides, the "focus" comes because we're also having a public, political debate about changing laws.

And honestly, if there was a major movement afoot in the church in America to rescue heterosexual marriage from the ills that befall it, independent of homosexuality ... would you even know about it?

It's easy to cast stones at straw men you build yourself.

Bullshit. You're internalizing the idea of a movement to save heterosexual marriage - as in, "let's save it within the church," so that's supposedly something I wouldn't know about, while at the same time we KNOW there's an external movement to SAVE MARRIAGE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF THE GAYS.

It's not about strawmen. It's about the fact that there's no overt national push to change the law to affirmatively strengthen the institution in the face of the challenges it already faces. There IS an overt national push to formalize in law a second-class citizenry.

Straw man, my ass.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I think the biggest problem with the civil unions-government, marriage-religion plan is how do you make that happen? Marriage is handled on a state level, so each state would have to come up with that plan or you'd have some states calling it marriage for everyone and some calling it civil unions for everyone. SCOTUS may well rule that states can't prohibit marriage on the basis of sex, but they are not going to rule that a state can't call their institution marriage.

Or someone could just step in and realize there is no basis to deny citizens of their besic rights because of their sexual orientation.


why people are opposed to same sex marriage on the grounds of religion is beyond me. Doesn't effect them one bit yet they are arrogant enough to think they have the right to dictate what others, not of the same beliefs or sects, do with their lives.

[DanGarion]

There are two huge points no one has brought up yet in this discussion.

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

and

But what about the gay female cows on lungs farm?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

There are two huge points no one has brought up yet in this discussion.

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

and

But what about the gay female cows on lungs farm?

LESBIAN COW ORGY PORN!!!!!

[ISiddiqui]

lungs is part of the gay agenda... obviously .

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Not that you're prone to exaggeration or hyperbole. . .

You can handwave it away, but future generations will look upon this the same way we do at the South and civil rights movement. Pretend this is a battle about anything other "ickiness".

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

You can handwave it away, but future generations will look upon this the same way we do at the South and civil rights movement. Pretend this is a battle about anything other "ickiness".

Basically. Also recall that Southern Christians said slavery was approved by the Bible and what Christians now say about that - same thing will happen with homosexuality. Think of us in the gay equality churches as akin to the abolitionist churches of the 1850s .

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Or someone could just step in and realize there is no basis to deny citizens of their besic rights because of their sexual orientation.


why people are opposed to same sex marriage on the grounds of religion is beyond me. Doesn't effect them one bit yet they are arrogant enough to think they have the right to dictate what others, not of the same beliefs or sects, do with their lives.

GAY MARRIAGE WILL BE TAUGHT TO THEIR CHILDREN IN SCHOOL!

[lungs]

Leave my lesbian cows out of it!

Actually I've got one group of cows that could perhaps apply to the child molester thread. 9 month old bull getting himself some action from the older ladies.

[Sun Tzu]

Originally Posted by Lathum

why people are opposed to same sex marriage on the grounds of religion is beyond me. Doesn't effect them one bit yet they are arrogant enough to think they have the right to dictate what others, not of the same beliefs or sects, do with their lives.

This +infinity

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

That scenario really doesn't prove anything because it's a fictional scenario. In no college environment would would a hetero male and female be forced into a living situation against their choice whereas a hetero male and a gay male could be. I think I'm on your side here, but that comparison makes no sense.

Well, at the end of Eurotrip...

BTW, we're finally watching Justified and one of the Marshals is the protagonist's buddy. Sorry to threadjack.

The only thing it underscores to me is that there are seemingly ingrained human emotions and behaviors that may come from heredity, environment or other factors that make us have certain feelings or fears.

Let's ask another version of the question that's also unlikely. What if a gay male and a hetero female share a room together and the female tells you she doesn't want to share a room with a hetero guy? Is she a bigot, or has she been ingrained to believe that males her ago are curious and might jump anything that moves, gay or not?

I think a lot of this is social patterning. Women are distrustful of men and their motives. But then again, what do I know. I've been happily married since I've been 22 (I'm 40 now). It's interesting to see what ramifications these decisions we're making today will have in the future. For what it's worth, I strongly believe that we should shatter the stereotypes and think "outside the box" when it comes to these things. This is how we evolve (or devolve in some opinions).

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Or someone could just step in and realize there is no basis to deny citizens of their besic rights because of their sexual orientation.


why people are opposed to same sex marriage on the grounds of religion is beyond me. Doesn't effect them one bit yet they are arrogant enough to think they have the right to dictate what others, not of the same beliefs or sects, do with their lives.

You're preaching to the choir. I was just responding to those that were floating a compromise measure.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

You're preaching to the choir. I was just responding to those that were floating a compromise measure.

I now, and while I appreciate revrews replys, he doesn't seem interested in addressing this question.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by lungs

Leave my lesbian cows out of it!

Actually I've got one group of cows that could perhaps apply to the child molester thread. 9 month old bull getting himself some action from the older ladies.

hanging out with the cowgars is he?

[lungs]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

hanging out with the cowgars is he?

His sexual exploits are going to be vastly different once he gets on a trailer and heads to California to be put into stud.

He'll be engaging in sexual acts with castrated male cows out there. 'Tis how bull semen is collected for artificial insemination

Oh the horror.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by lungs

His sexual exploits are going to be vastly different once he gets on a trailer and heads to California to be put into stud.

He'll be engaging in sexual acts with castrated male cows out there. 'Tis how bull semen is collected for artificial insemination

Oh the horror.

Give him some Playcattle magazines and he'll be done in no time

[JediKooter]

Speaking of gay marriage: EXCLUSIVE: Actor Jim Nabors marries his longtime male partner - Hawaii News Now - KGMB and KHNL

Probably not the most shocking news to a lot of people.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Speaking of gay marriage: EXCLUSIVE: Actor Jim Nabors marries his longtime male partner - Hawaii News Now - KGMB and KHNL

Probably not the most shocking news to a lot of people.

Well, golly...

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

Well, golly...

That's what Goober said...

[Blackadar]

Here we are a year and a half later and gay marriage rights has an unbroken streak of success in the courts. Even conservative judges are onboard and it's funny to listen to them destroy the justifications bigots (or those advocating bigotry) use to try to prevent it.

Listen to Judge Richard Posner destroy arguments against gay marriage.

Fun to look back on this thread and see the same justifications offered here to try to prevent it utterly DESTROYED in court by both liberal and conservative judges.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Here we are a year and a half later and gay marriage rights has an unbroken streak of success in the courts. Even conservative judges are onboard and it's funny to listen to them destroy the justifications bigots (or those advocating bigotry) use to try to prevent it.

Listen to Judge Richard Posner destroy arguments against gay marriage.

Fun to look back on this thread and see the same justifications offered here to try to prevent it utterly DESTROYED in court by both liberal and conservative judges.

I use to be against it, honestly. I thought Civil Unions were more than enough to satisfy the privileges (joint property, medical power of attorney) gay people wanted. But then I thought: why would I want the government interfering with two parties entering into a contract, which is what marriage is from a legal point-of-view? At that point, I decided that there is no point in my being against it.

I don't know if this makes sense, but it does in my head!

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I use to be against it, honestly. I thought Civil Unions were more than enough to satisfy the privileges (joint property, medical power of attorney) gay people wanted. But then I thought: why would I want the government interfering with two parties entering into a contract, which is what marriage is from a legal point-of-view? At that point, I decided that there is no point in my being against it.

I don't know if this makes sense, but it does in my head!

Makes perfect sense. Kudos to you for your awakening.

[JediKooter]

I like how they are trying to use the argument that marriage is for having kids...Well then, any couple that is infertile or say an older couple that are beyond the child bearing years, would also not qualify to be married by that argument.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I use to be against it, honestly. I thought Civil Unions were more than enough to satisfy the privileges (joint property, medical power of attorney) gay people wanted. But then I thought: why would I want the government interfering with two parties entering into a contract, which is what marriage is from a legal point-of-view? At that point, I decided that there is no point in my being against it.

I don't know if this makes sense, but it does in my head!

It does. I think that most people have had to come around on this. I think because no one gave it much thought until the 70s and then in the 80s the AIDS scare took precedence. Survival was a bigger deal than civil unions or marriage. So I think most everyone has had to make a personal journey to realize what is the right thing to do here. Sadly, some people seem incapable of making that journey due to their own personal fears, biases or their desire to instill their beliefs on everyone else.

Personally, because my sister came out while I was still in my teens, I never had a problem with civil unions. Made sense to me. One of the biggest fears/myths/biases back in the day was that gays were promiscuous (putting it nicely). I figured that if they could get hitched, then that might solve that issue. How can you castigate a group for being a bunch of sex crazed fiends and not give them the mechanism to prove you differently? That never made sense to me. And since I don't see marriage as solely a religious institution (BECAUSE IT'S NOT!!!), it wasn't hard to make the leap from civil unions to marriage. Plus, "separate but equal" never made sense to me either, so calling hetero couples "married" and homo couples "civil unions" seemed like an attempt to make one superior to the other.

Of course, I might have thought differently had my sister not come out. But probably not much as I've always thought that consenting sexual relationships between adults is not the business of the government to regulate and what goes for one should go for all.

[Logan]

I think back to when I was opposed to gay marriage, I was a young idiot.

That's not to say other people who still don't support it are also idiots, but I was an idiot about many things caused by immaturity.