Gay marriage arguments

[Teaos]

"So God creates people he hates from birth?"

Best question ever.

[Mikey]

Excuse me... I'm not a Christian, but my beliefs are NOT similar to the Atheists or Agnostics.

[Aaron]

Excuse me... I'm not a Christian, but my beliefs are NOT similar to the Atheists or Agnostics.

Dude, that chart is clearly directed at christian extremists. Come to think of it, I've never heard of a jewish group that was opposed to homsexuality. Though I could see the really conservative ones being that way, you know the guys with the ringlets?

[Teaos]

I think those people are called hesedic or something like that.

[Mikey]

Hassidic, with a guttural "H." And they are isolationist - I presume they would suppress or disallow homosexuality within their own community, but have never made an issue of homosexuality outside their community.

[Aaron]

Hassidic, with a guttural "H." And they are isolationist - I presume they would suppress or disallow homosexuality within their own community, but have never made an issue of homosexuality outside their community.

So their Amish Jews, basically.

[Duskofdead]

Hassidic, with a guttural "H." And they are isolationist - I presume they would suppress or disallow homosexuality within their own community, but have never made an issue of homosexuality outside their community.

This is precisely what makes your views similar to atheists or agnostics. Not in the sense that you don't believe in a god or don't have faith, but in that you are not going around imposing one moral order on everyone through legislation and de facto taboos and repercussions for moral points people don't have control over.

[Grundig]

Ah, the problem of evil. He can help, and chooses not to, in which case he's not omnibenevolent. Or he can't help, in which case he's not omnipotent. Or he doesn't realise there is a problem, in which case he's not omniscient.

Still a puzzler for the believers.

I know this quote is from pages ago, but I had to give you three cheers for putting that so eloquently. CHEER CHEER CHEER.

As far as gay marriage goes... I completely support it. I think one of the arguments against it is related to the 'slippery slope' type of logical fallacy. It goes something like, "If we allow same-sex marriages, then what's next? Polygamy? Marriage between men and pigs? Part-time marriage?" For my part, my answer to all that is that if two people (or animals, or bowls of soup) give consent to enter marriage, then they must be given the right to do so. Of course, we have to ask who's capable of giving consent and that's where the bickering can really get ugly.

[sunnyside]

What, so I'm a bad Christian if I'm not beating some gays with a tire iron or something? Or at least legislating against them? And at least the Christians aren't just killing gays outright like some other countries out there.

I don't think I'm going to be able to explain this in terms of Christian bashing. Because a lot of you rather like it and its trendy in the US and UK at the moment.

So lets try this for an example. Lets say that there was some BS law regarding pork producers and I started a thread about it. Then partway through we start going on like:

Person1: F*&$ THE JEWS!

Person2: Bastards always using their power to mess with people not doing dancing from their strings.

Person3: They and their sky fairy are just stupid.

Now, Mikey is a pretty reasonaly guy. For all I know he enjoys some pork chops now and then, or at least wouldn't support a ridiculous law even if it might shave a little off the cost of foods he does enjoy.

But how do you think the above would make him feel in regard to this issue? Do you think that will make him more likely to support Person1-3s cause?

Now granted this is just a web forum and you aren't trying to change someones position. But the crap in this thread leaks out all too often and I have to imagine it sets people who would otherwise be willing to live and let live against the cause.

[Tsukiyumi]

What, so I'm a bad Christian if I'm not beating some gays with a tire iron or something? Or at least legislating against them? And at least the Christians aren't just killing gays outright like some other countries out there.

I don't think I'm going to be able to explain this in terms of Christian bashing. Because a lot of you rather like it and its trendy in the US and UK at the moment.

So lets try this for an example. Lets say that there was some BS law regarding pork producers and I started a thread about it. Then partway through we start going on like:

Person1: F*&$ THE JEWS!

Person2: Bastards always using their power to mess with people not doing dancing from their strings.

Person3: They and their sky fairy are just stupid.

Now, Mikey is a pretty reasonaly guy. For all I know he enjoys some pork chops now and then, or at least wouldn't support a ridiculous law even if it might shave a little off the cost of foods he does enjoy.

But how do you think the above would make him feel in regard to this issue? Do you think that will make him more likely to support Person1-3s cause?

Now granted this is just a web forum and you aren't trying to change someones position. But the crap in this thread leaks out all too often and I have to imagine it sets people who would otherwise be willing to live and let live against the cause.

I apologize if I came off as anti-christian in any way, sunny. As I state in one of my MySpace blogs, I have no predjudice against any individuals of any faith; I merely don't believe organized religion is a positive element in society. I think private worship and personal study of religious texts are important things, but that blind trust and obedience to anyone else's interpretations of said texts is ludicrous at best. I am a spiritual person - but I believe that the truth of existence is more complex than we can currently comprehend. Our duty (espescially as persons of faith) is to expand our knowledge of the universe, and reality. To quote the Bible again, " ...to know, love, and serve the Lord..."

Knowledge is paramount, and any religion that supresses or holds back progress, either scientific or social, is an abomination.

[Teaos]

But since religion is such a large part of this it is hardly unfair to bring it in.

The majority of people I have meet who oppose it hide behind religion as the reason or family values which are defined by religion in many eyes.

[Tsukiyumi]

But since religion is such a large part of this it is hardly unfair to bring it in.

The majority of people I have meet who oppose it hide behind religion as the reason or family values which are defined by religion in many eyes.

I agree completely. I was trying to stress that we're attacking religious interpretation, not the individuals who believe in said religions.

[Aaron]

I agree completely. I was trying to stress that we're attacking religious interpretation, not the individuals who believe in said religions.

Try and explain that to an xtian/muslim or what have you. For alot of them, their faith is inseperable from themselves as a person. Which leads to the "we're being opressed" line of thinking.

[Aaron]

What, so I'm a bad Christian if I'm not beating some gays with a tire iron or something? Or at least legislating against them?

I'm sure that others who share your beliefs would conclude that, there are some very extreme individuals out there.

And at least the Christians aren't just killing gays outright like some other countries out there.

Mark Sheppard anyone? Xtians may not be killing gays enmasse in the US but it's not unheard of in the crappier parts of the world, like the Middle East, Former Yugoslavia and Africa.

And personally, were I gay and speaking for my wife who is Bi, I'd rather be killed outright than have to suffer through my entire life hiding for fear of having my house picketed or being publically ridiculed for not being "normal".

I don't think I'm going to be able to explain this in terms of Christian bashing. Because a lot of you rather like it and its trendy in the US and UK at the moment.

You realise that there is a difference between mocking the belief and mocking the person, right? The problem is that people of faith cannot seperate their faith from their person. So it leads to this:



Even my mother and father in law, two of the top ten religious wacko's I know are actually decent people if you seperate their faith from them. THe problem is that they can't.

So lets try this for an example. Lets say that there was some BS law regarding pork producers and I started a thread about it. Then partway through we start going on like:

Person1: F*&$ THE JEWS!

Person2: Bastards always using their power to mess with people not doing dancing from their strings.

Person3: They and their sky fairy are just stupid.

Now, Mikey is a pretty reasonaly guy. For all I know he enjoys some pork chops now and then, or at least wouldn't support a ridiculous law even if it might shave a little off the cost of foods he does enjoy.

But how do you think the above would make him feel in regard to this issue? Do you think that will make him more likely to support Person1-3s cause?

Now granted this is just a web forum and you aren't trying to change someones position. But the crap in this thread leaks out all too often and I have to imagine it sets people who would otherwise be willing to live and let live against the cause.

That's different than what is actually going on. Reread the thread.

[Graham Kennedy]

Here's what I would do about gay marriage.

Step 1) Keep the current system of non-religious civil unions. Expand this so that ANY adults can get a civil union with any others. I don't care if they are brother and sister, gay, straight, polygamous, whatever. Stand in front of the judge, sign your name, you're in a union with all due legal protections and rights.

Step 2) Remove all legal recognition from all religious marriages. Marry in a church or temple, and the law accords you no special legal rights or status whatsoever.

The benefits of this system are that marriage becomes a purely religious state. Each religion can then choose to allow or deny marriage to whomever they choose, on whatever religious grounds they like. Want to bar gays? Feel free. Want to disallow protestants from marrying catholics? Go ahead. Ditto for divorce; each religion has whatever divorce practices it likes, from saying "I divorce thee" three times right up to no divorce, ever, for no reason. Religions SHOULD love this, because it gives them total religious freedom.

On the other hand state sanctioned civil unions become purely and totally secular, and need bow to no religion.

And there's no reason why you can't "double dip" by getting married by a priest and then going to the judge after so you have both the religious status and the legal protections. No reason you couldn't dissolve one but not the other later on, come to that. And I see no reason why a priest couldn't qualify to perform civil unions too, and do both simultaneously - though if he does he should by law be bound to perform civil unions (but not marriages) on whomever wants them.

It's the best of both worlds; complete freedom of religion, and full civil rights.

You will never find a religious leader who supports this idea, though. Because all their screetching about wanting marriage to be special and wanting their religious freedom is just a front. What they REALLY want is to legislate their morality on everyone else. That's what this whole argument is really about.