Jump to content
turtletech

Opinions on gay Marriage?

Do you support Gay marriage?  

142 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think it should be legal?

    • Yes
      84
    • No
      50
    • Civil Unions, not marriage.
      9


Recommended Posts

A couple of things:

 

-There are no "bad guys" in this thread, not so far as I'm concerned at least.

-TAK, you are correct in stating that there's a difference between a lack of support and acting against something. That is not in contention, at least not by me.

-However, both of you claim to not judge homosexuals, but then list off reasons you think that it isn't right, good, or normal. This is a contradiction. By your own indirect admission, you do indeed judge them and find them wanting. It may be a fairly benign judgement, but it is there.

-There's a running joke these days that every single homophobe in the world has a gay freind, or at least claims to have one. I'm not saying you fall into that category, just don't expect the claim to help your argument or how people percieve it.

 

 

What I and at least a few others have been trying to do is get you to think about your position. So far, the arguments the two of you have presented in defense of your opinion have been fairly easily refuted. After which you've mostly retreated to just saying that it quite simply is your opinion.

 

When this happens, it is time to reevaluate your stance. Not necessarily time to change it, you could find that you believe in it even more strongly after being challenged. But if you find you cannot rationalize your opinion, how did you come to hold the opinion in question? And are the reasons you did so actually valid?

 

I know I claimed to not judge them. I don't. Those weren't mean words in any way. I didn't mean them in a rude way. I was posting them as my reasons for my opinion. I have said many times that the Bible states gay marriage to not be... well how do I say this without sounding like a jerk? I guess... right. I also don't have a gay friend, but I could. Honestly, I personally know flaming potato. Not just on the forums. He's my friend in real life. So I do know that he has a bisexual friend. After all I have said, I'll say thanks that at least somebody doesn't think we're the bad guys, and that there are more than two opinions. I'm not a homophobe either, and I don't understand why you think I don't have a rational opinion. I'm not asking this in an aggressive way, but how is my opinion not rational? And about the last part of your post, the Bible is "valid", so yes, I have a valid reason.

Edited by TacticalAK47

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daishan you are right, in some ways. When I find out when someone is gay I am completely fine with it. I do not juge them other than thinking them as gay. When a gay tell s me they are I think in my mind " ok they are gay, I do not agree with there decision but I will not make actions to lower our friendship or there esteem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know I claimed to not judge them. I don't. Those weren't mean words in any way. I didn't mean them in a rude way. I was posting them as my reasons for my opinion. I have said many times that the Bible states gay marriage to not be... well how do I say this without sounding like a jerk? I guess... right. I also don't have a gay friend, but I could. Honestly, I personally know flaming potato. Not just on the forums. He's my friend in real life. So I do know that he has a bisexual friend. After all I have said, I'll say thanks that at least somebody doesn't think we're the bad guys, and that there are more than two opinions. I'm not a homophobe either, and I don't understand why you think I don't have a rational opinion. I'm not asking this in an aggressive way, but how is my opinion not rational? And about the last part of your post, the Bible is "valid", so yes, I have a valid reason.

Maybe he does, maybe he does not, but it does not matter either way. I brought up the running joke because it is commonly claimed, impossible to prove, and largely irrelevant. Mentioning it is not likely to earn you any sympathy or understanding, and may in fact have the opposite effect. Its a bit like declaring yourself worth listening to because you're a genius with an IQ of 150.

 

In any event, I'm sorry, but the bible is not a valid reason on its own. There are many other things that the bible condemns and promotes that don't match up with modern society. I'm not saying that it cannot form a basis, but you need to justify why the portion of it concerning homosexuality applies to modern life, but the bits that condemn to death kids who disrespect their elders are ignored. That last little gem is actually only a few paragraphs away from the bit where it condemns homosexuals to death. (Ancient hebrews really liked the death penalty apparently)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe he does, maybe he does not, but it does not matter either way. I brought up the running joke because it is commonly claimed, impossible to prove, and largely irrelevant. Mentioning it is not likely to earn you any sympathy or understanding, and may in fact have the opposite effect. Its a bit like declaring yourself worth listening to because you're a genius with an IQ of 150.

 

In any event, I'm sorry, but the bible is not a valid reason on its own. There are many other things that the bible condemns and promotes that don't match up with modern society. I'm not saying that it cannot form a basis, but you need to justify why the portion of it concerning homosexuality applies to modern life, but the bits that condemn to death kids who disrespect their elders are ignored. That last little gem is actually only a few paragraphs away from the bit where it condemns homosexuals to death. (Ancient hebrews really liked the death penalty apparently)

 

 

I know the Bible itself isn't a reason, but if you're a Christian, (I am) what is IN the Bible is true. I know there's so many versions of it, but my church has one that we believe is the closest one there is. A lot of lesbian people had horrible things happen to them when they were children. Things done by a man. This sometimes makes them not attracted to men because they were traumatized. Gays have other reasons sometimes. Not all homosexuals want to be the way they are. Not all of the homosexuals were born that way. Sometimes its things from their childhood that happened. Also, I'm not saying all gay and lesbian people have had something happen to them. But many of them have. I'm sorry, but it's not natural for them to be the way they are. I also don't agree with executing homosexuals like someone else had claimed I wanted to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know the Bible itself isn't a reason, but if you're a Christian, (I am) what is IN the Bible is true. I know there's so many versions of it, but my church has one that we believe is the closest one there is. A lot of lesbian people had horrible things happen to them when they were children. Things done by a man. This sometimes makes them not attracted to men because they were traumatized. Gays have other reasons sometimes. Not all homosexuals want to be the way they are. Not all of the homosexuals were born that way. Sometimes its things from their childhood that happened. Also, I'm not saying all gay and lesbian people have had something happen to them. But many of them have. I'm sorry, but it's not natural for them to be the way they are. I also don't agree with executing homosexuals like someone else had claimed I wanted to do.

Most Christians believe that the bible contains a reflection of the truth. That its contents are subject to the same kind of distortion and bias that can come from someone else telling you about something they saw. Very, very few christians throughout history, even at the hight of the church's power, believed the bible was literally word for word the truth.

 

In any event, what version are you speaking of? Unless it cut out all of Leviticus (except specifically the part about homosexuality) perhaps 25% of the rest of the old testament, and about 10% of the new testament, there's still going to be some elements that need justification in the context of today's society. And even then, you would have to justify why the parts I mention were thrown out but the bit about homosexuality was kept. You can handwave central tenets of the religion, but actual social policy needs a better vetting process.

 

P.S. The bit about it not being natural is debatable. Frankly however, that which is natural for us is far more often than not nasty, brutish, and horrible for those enduring it. I don't want things to be natural, and I suspect that you don't either, not really. I suggest looking at things as they are, not as how you think they are meant to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I guess me and flamingpotato are now the bad guys. I don't understand why nobody gets that there are more kinds of people than anti-gays and gay supporters. There are different kinds. I'm not anti-gay, but I don't support it either. By "not supporting" it, I mean that I wouldn't go out of my way to vote for it, (Not saying that in a "lazy" way) but I won't go out of my way to ruin it for homosexuals. I said a while back, I could be friends with a gay person. I wouldn't judge them for their ways, I just wouldn't support it. Again, I'm not "not supporting it" like an anti-homosexual person, I just don't believe that it's right. Also, I know that the earth won't become completely homosexual. It was just an example of why I don't think it's right. Flamingpotato, was a bit graphic in his post, but it's true.

 

Edit: Flamingpotato is right. You don't have to be in favor of gay marriage, but you can still be friends with gay people. You don't have to hate them.

 

The issue with the whole "not supporting it" stance is that the discrimination is already happening.

 

Let's say, hypothetically, that some country in the middle of nowhere made genocide legal. So it starts happening, and a vote comes up to make genocide illegal. Person A says "I'm going to vote against this! I love genocide!" and Person B says "I don't support it, but I'm not going to vote for it." Do you see how Person B is effectively supporting the status quo?

 

How about a more realistic example: interracial marriage. I'm sure you haven't read the entire thread (where I have mentioned this before), but gay marriage was legal when the country was founded. It wasn't illegal until the introduction of the marriage license, which was specifically introduced to ban interracial marriage. Of course, interracial marriage is now legal, but at one point, there were plenty of people with the position like yourself- "I don't oppose interracial marriage, but I wouldn't vote for allowing it." Does that sound silly to you?

 

As I mentioned in my last post, there is no valid reason that I've seen anyone present to not change the legal definition of marriage. It's already independent of any religion's definition of marriage, so you aren't violating anyone's religion by doing so. All you're doing is granting the same legal rights to people with beliefs other than your own, which I don't see as a bad thing.

Edited by Python890

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The issue with the whole "not supporting it" stance is that the discrimination is already happening.

 

Let's say, hypothetically, that some country in the middle of nowhere made genocide legal. So it starts happening, and a vote comes up to make genocide illegal. Person A says "I'm going to vote against this! I love genocide!" and Person B says "I don't support it, but I'm not going to vote for it." Do you see how Person B is effectively supporting the status quo?

 

How about a more realistic example: interracial marriage. I'm sure you haven't read the entire thread (where I have mentioned this before), but gay marriage was legal when the country was founded. It wasn't illegal until the introduction of the marriage license, which was specifically introduced to ban interracial marriage. Of course, interracial marriage is now legal, but at one point, there were plenty of people with the position like yourself- "I don't oppose interracial marriage, but I wouldn't vote for allowing it." Does that sound silly to you?

 

As I mentioned in my last post, there is no valid reason that I've seen anyone present to not change the legal definition of marriage. It's already independent of any religion's definition of marriage, so you aren't violating anyone's religion by doing so. All you're doing is granting the same legal rights to people with beliefs other than your own, which I don't see as a bad thing.

 

That's a good example, but really, come on. That has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Not voting for it or against it does not affect homosexuals in any way. I'm simply not participating in it. That doesn't help or hurt anybody. No, it doesn't sound "silly" to me.

 

 

Daishain, if I said what version of the Bible, it would start a whole new argument on religion. I don't think I'm comfortable mentioning which version I believe in.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a good example, but really, come on. That has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

 

How does it have nothing to do with what we're talking about? It's exactly alike- two groups of people that the government is unwilling to issue marriage licenses for. The only difference is that interracial marriage agrees with your religious view of what marriage should be like, and gay marriage doesn't.

 

Not voting for it or against it does not affect homosexuals in any way. I'm simply not participating in it. That doesn't help or hurt anybody. No, it doesn't sound "silly" to me.

 

Turning a blind eye to the issue does affect homosexuals. Consider malaria in Africa- Bill Gates has done a phenomenal job getting aid there. If, instead of giving his support for it, he were indifferent on the issue- what effect would that have? Obviously, it would mean that they would not be getting the aid they need.

 

Indifference is a choice, and it does affect others. Especially when you would (hypothetically) have an opportunity to do something as trivial as vote on the issue.

 

I think we can agree that homosexuals do not have the same rights regarding marriage. I'm interested in hearing any argument that justifies any position aside from "people should have equal rights." Do you have one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It actually doesn't affect them in a real life or death situation such as malaria. (I would help anybody in a life or death situation. Gay or not.) I do believe in equal rights for everybody. I'm just not going to turn my back on my religious beliefs (not just opinions) just to vote for gay marriage. That makes my church sound really crappy. It's not, but I just don't want to get too far into religious reasons. I hope everyone knows that I have nothing against homosexuals. We're all human. I just won't participate in voting for something I won't believe in. (I'm not quite old enough to vote. But I'm still old enough to have a legitimate debate.) I don't mean any of this in a bad way. It might seem like that, but it isn't. About it having nothing to do with it, I got slammed for using an example that you may have seen. I said that I knew it wouldn't happen, but I still got slammed for it. Your example will never happen either, but you're not getting slammed for it. Talk about equality. It seems like that's not happening with me. Just saying. There's only one member who doesn't share my beliefs, that hasn't treated me like the "bad guy". I don't feel like a victim or anything, just seems ironic that you think everyone should be treated fairly, and I'm completely getting slammed by most people on here. Not pointing fingers, but look at the posts a bit back. Some people were ticked at me.

Edited by TacticalAK47

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, not life or death. But lack of action is still impeding on other people's liberties and equality. It is quite obvious that you do not believe in equal rights for everybody, otherwise you would (given the legal ability) vote for equal rights. If it is your religious beliefs that are keeping you from wanting equal rights for homosexuals, and you would otherwise be okay with it, than perhaps your religious beliefs may need some re-evaluation.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It actually doesn't affect them in a real life or death situation such as malaria. (I would help anybody in a life or death situation. Gay or not.) I do believe in equal rights for everybody. I'm just not going to turn my back on my religious beliefs (not just opinions) just to vote for gay marriage.

 

I understand what you're saying, but this is what I was getting at with this post. My entire point is that there are already 2 different definitions of marriage, so why make decisions about one using influence from another? You're free to have your belief that homosexuals shouldn't be married, and your church is entirely welcome to not include homosexuals in marriage if they don't want to. But if we're talking about equal rights, with 'rights' being respected by the government, then what justification is there for not issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples?

 

That makes my church sound really crappy. It's not, but I just don't want to get too far into religious reasons. I hope everyone knows that I have nothing against homosexuals. We're all human. I just won't participate in voting for something I won't believe in. (I'm not quite old enough to vote. But I'm still old enough to have a legitimate debate.) I don't mean any of this in a bad way. It might seem like that, but it isn't. About it having nothing to do with it, I got slammed for using an example that you may have seen. I said that I knew it wouldn't happen, but I still got slammed for it. Your example will never happen either, but you're not getting slammed for it. Talk about equality. It seems like that's not happening with me. Just saying. There's only one member who doesn't share my beliefs, that hasn't treated me like the "bad guy". I don't feel like a victim or anything, just seems ironic that you think everyone should be treated fairly, and I'm completely getting slammed by most people on here. Not pointing fingers, but look at the posts a bit back. Some people were ticked at me.

 

There's a lot of stuff here, so I'll just share a couple thoughts:

 

I only care what someone has to say and their justifications for saying it. I don't care about age.

 

Equal rights is not anywhere near the same thing as "everyone treated the same" or even "everyone treated nicely." People can disagree with you any way they want, and while I certainly prefer that it be done respectfully, even disrespectful treatment is a far cry from the government denying you equal rights.

 

I'm not treating you like the "bad guy," I'm treating you like someone who has stated an opinion with inadequate justification for such an opinion. I'm interested in understanding others' viewpoints, and to be honest, statements of "I don't believe homosexuals should be legally allowed to marry because it disagrees with my religion" are logically followed directly by "I believe my religion should dictate legal decisions," which is a dangerous game to get into. I believe most people who aren't in favor of gay marriage (yes, including those who are "indifferent") arrived at that conclusion through their religion or emotional reaction to the topic, and are trying to rationalize that conclusion. The process should be the other way around- the facts should be examined, and a conclusion should be decided from those facts. As I mentioned, I haven't seen anyone provide solid reasoning behind any position other than supporting gay marriage. I'd still be very interested in hearing such reasoning if it exists, so don't take my criticism of your opinion as anything other than me prying for critical thinking or reasoning behind your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if I'd be okay with it either way. I'm not sure because I've always been in my church. I think that homosexuals deserve equal rights, I'm just not going to be a part in helping or hurting them. I'll leave that to the voters. Also, do you have a sense of what's okay and what's not? You don't tell people that their religious beliefs need some "re-evaluation"! I guess we've dug ourselves a whole in the topic of religion, so I'll tell you something. God does not change just because the world does.

Edited by TacticalAK47

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know if I'd be okay with it either way. I'm not sure because I've always been in my church. I think that homosexuals deserve equal rights, I'm just not going to be a part in helping or hurting them. I'll leave that to the voters. Also, do you have a sense of what's okay and what's not? You don't tell people that their religious beliefs need some "re-evaluation"! I guess we've dug ourselves a whole in the topic of religion, so I'll tell you something. God does not change just because the world does.

 

I said if your religious beliefs interfere with your other beliefs, than they may need some reevaluation. I'm not entirely sure how that is offensive. To me it just seems logical. I didn't say you need to leave your church or anything, but maybe consider how you interpret everything you hear at the Church. And let's not forget that not helping is indeed hurting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I said if your religious beliefs interfere with your other beliefs, than they may need some reevaluation. I'm not entirely sure how that is offensive. To me it just seems logical. I didn't say you need to leave your church or anything, but maybe consider how you interpret everything you hear at the Church. And let's not forget that not helping is indeed hurting.

 

 

 

I realize that some people take what they learn in church literally. that is why the crusades happened. ( Knights would spread their religion with great force across the 1500 lands.) He does not need to reevaluate. you need to understand the vast amount of religions that are not the same as your beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. I get that the world changes, but my church, and the bible don't. I'm sorry if that bothers you, but thats how it is. If you don't go to church, you wont understand what I mean. We domt stretch the rules of my religion. Thats not how it works. If you see it as "hurting" gays, im sorry. Im not intentionally hurting them. Im won't just ban my religion just to put in one vote. Now tell me, does that seem logical? My church doesn't say you "can't" for anything, but they don't encourage you to do anything you want. There are things that we don't do. That makes sound bad, but its not like you think.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know if I'd be okay with it either way. I'm not sure because I've always been in my church. I think that homosexuals deserve equal rights, I'm just not going to be a part in helping or hurting them. I'll leave that to the voters.

 

I feel it's important to point out that you would be a voter (if you were old enough). Staying home from the vote would be no different than saying "I don't care what happens."

 

Also, do you have a sense of what's okay and what's not? You don't tell people that their religious beliefs need some "re-evaluation"!

 

You say you think homosexuals deserve equal rights, but you also seem to imply that you don't want to be a part of it because of your religion. I think it's fair to say that when religion interferes with your rational decisions, it's not unreasonable to evaluate why it is you believe what you believe. It's not to say that you're right or wrong, just that there's some conflict in your beliefs and opinions that warrants a bit of thinking about.

 

I guess we've dug ourselves a whole in the topic of religion, so I'll tell you something. God does not change just because the world does.

 

A bit off topic- but it's ironic you should say that, because throughout the course of history, what has been "acceptable to god" has changed as the world changes.

Edited by Python890

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really, what has been "acceptable to God" hasn't changed. Would he really give in and change just because we wanted him to? No! He wouldn't. About voting, I can't control what happens in this country, and you know what? I hope that they can legally marry, but I'm not going to help it happen. I'm not saying that in a rude way, but I follow my religion and I'm not going to try to stretch the rules. I don't think our church has said, "Don't vote for gay marriage." We just believe that marriage is to be with a man and a woman. And come on!? I make "rational decisions". We can't completely know what all of the reasons are, but we can have something that we call "faith". Ever heard of it? Look up the definition and you will see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really, what has been "acceptable to God" hasn't changed. Would he really give in and change just because we wanted him to? No! He wouldn't.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_testament

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa_Inquisition

 

http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-...ory.html#page=1

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/30/world/eu...?pagewanted=all

 

I hope I don't need more examples. An education in history (including what Pope Francis has done thus far) should suffice.

 

Of course, there are two ways you can go with this:

 

1. "God didn't want them to do that!" - in which case, I would ask why they thought what they were doing (in the Crusades, Inquisitions, etc) was right? It's because the church at the time said it was necessary. Now, if the church at their time isn't infallible, what makes you think the churches of our time are?

 

2. "That was the free will of man, not God!" - okay, so then why would the church's current views not be seen as "free will of man" and not "the word of God"?

 

Again, this subject is a bit off topic, but even the most religious people I know can recognize that things acceptable to religions change as society does. They tend to go with the whole "Bible as a metaphor for everything under the sun" reasoning, but they do at least recognize that the church changes as time goes on, just like everything else does.

 

About voting, I can't control what happens in this country, and you know what? I hope that they can legally marry, but I'm not going to help it happen. I'm not saying that in a rude way, but I follow my religion and I'm not going to try to stretch the rules.

 

So, again, this goes back to my post (have you read it?) here. Why do you insist on pressing your religious definition of marriage onto the legal one?

 

I don't think our church has said, "Don't vote for gay marriage." We just believe that marriage is to be with a man and a woman. And come on!? I make "rational decisions". We can't completely know what all of the reasons are, but we can have something that we call "faith". Ever heard of it? Look up the definition and you will see.

 

Believing in things for no reason other than being told that you should believe in them doesn't stand up to the level of scrutiny I require for opinions I hold. It might for you.

Edited by Python890

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really, what has been "acceptable to God" hasn't changed. Would he really give in and change just because we wanted him to? No! He wouldn't. About voting, I can't control what happens in this country, and you know what? I hope that they can legally marry, but I'm not going to help it happen. I'm not saying that in a rude way, but I follow my religion and I'm not going to try to stretch the rules. I don't think our church has said, "Don't vote for gay marriage." We just believe that marriage is to be with a man and a woman. And come on!? I make "rational decisions". We can't completely know what all of the reasons are, but we can have something that we call "faith". Ever heard of it? Look up the definition and you will see.

Actually, I am of the opinion that god should indeed change his standards over time, knowing that humanity is changing and growing, much like any good leader/ruler/parent/guardian. but that's largely beside the point.

 

What has DEFINITELY changed, is what humanity thinks god's standards are. There are millions of different iterations of the Christian faith, and absolutely none of the ones that exist today are anything like the ones that existed back when the faith was founded. If you aren't prepared to accept the possibility that your version of the Christian faith might still need some work to bring it closer to the truth, you've crossed a dangerous line.

 

Faith simply means that you accept something as true without sufficient evidence to prove it. That does not mean it does not require rationalization. If people fail to test their faith from time to time, what they have is not religion, but a cult.

 

If you can accept that, think about this. The overall trend as the Christian faith has evolved has been to move away from the incredibly violent and antisocial behavior suggested by the old testament, and towards a form of humanitarianism built around the core teachings of Jesus. The book of Leviticus in particular, which contains the damning passage against homosexuality, is being increasingly ignored as completely irrelevant to modern society.

 

Perhaps humanity is moving towards the truth god wishes for us to accept, perhaps we're moving away, it is tough to say. One thing's for sure though, if the god described by the old testament is the one in charge, we'd be seeing a hell of a lot of divine wrath right now.

 

As for your continued stance that you're simply not willing to help out, but would like to see it happen. I'm sorry to say, that's not how it works in a democratic system. Every individual that fails to make their opinion known is effectively allowing the opposing side an extra vote, since they have that much less to overcome. Even in choices where you don't like either outcome, you need to decide which is preferable to you, and support it.

Edited by Daishain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but I can't tell you all of the reasons. You wouldn't get them, and it would give away my religion. A lot of people are jerks about things like that, and I don't want my personal stuff on the internet. This is a hard conversation for me to have. I'm sorry you guys don't like my beliefs, but they won't change.

Edited by TacticalAK47

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I find it funny or just plain odd that people can use a religious justification for an interpersonal and/or political issue.

 

Though it can be said that the ability of politicians to exploit this otherwise pointless issue for their own political gain is a measure of political skill.

 

"The schemes of heaven are infinitely more complex than the schemes of man."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alright, fine. Either way I don't think I would support it. If you look at Flamingpotatoes somewhat graphic post a while back, you will see my reason. Men and women are supposed to marry and have children.

And again, I rather wish they would slow down on that front. The population of the earth needs to start shrinking for a bit, or at least cease its expansion.

 

Regardless, what makes you think this issue has any bearing whatsoever on that front? Keep the ban, and you've got a group of people leading generally lonely lives, not forming relationships with the opposite gender, and not having children. Get rid of the ban, and the same group of people at least have a shot at not leading lonely lives, are still not forming relationships with the opposite gender, and still not having children. If anything, the latter choice would boost overall childbirth rates by a little bit, since homosexual couples are likely to start adopting, and taking pressure off of that front.

 

The only legislative means by which you could change the situation so that all men and women follow that particular image of domestic family life, is if you removed choice and control from the lives of others. And that my friend, is the mark of an evil tyrant, you don't want to go down that path.

Edited by Daishain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And again, I rather wish they would slow down on that front. The population of the earth needs to start shrinking for a bit, or at least cease its expansion.

 

Regardless, what makes you think this issue has any bearing whatsoever on that front? Keep the ban, and you've got a group of people leading generally lonely lives, not forming relationships with the opposite gender, and not having children. Get rid of the ban, and the same group of people at least have a shot at not leading lonely lives, are still not forming relationships with the opposite gender, and still not having children. If anything, the latter choice would boost overall childbirth rates by a little bit, since homosexual couples are likely to start adopting, and taking pressure off of that front.

 

The only legislative means by which you could change the situation so that all men and women follow that particular image of domestic family life, is if you removed choice and control from the lives of others. And that my friend, is the mark of an evil tyrant, you don't want to go down that path.

 

I get all of what you're saying, but about homosexuals adopting, does it really seem right to have two dads or two moms? Kids are supposed to have a mother and father. Not two of one or the other. I'm not saying homosexuals aren't a lot of times, alright parents. All I'm saying is that it isn't natural. (Again, not in an insulting way.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I get all of what you're saying, but about homosexuals adopting, does it really seem right to have two dads or two moms? Kids are supposed to have a mother and father. Not two of one or the other. I'm not saying homosexuals aren't a lot of times, alright parents. All I'm saying is that it isn't natural. (Again, not in an insulting way.)

Two things:

 

First, if you start worrying about what families kids are raised in, you need to ban a huge number of families from raising children. Almost no parent is ever really ready to raise children, and quite a few of them are woefully equipped to do so. Frankly, I would trust the average homosexual couple who wanted to adopt a child with said child more than the average heterosexual couple that forgot birth control. The former pair are much more likely to be prepared and have actually done their homework ahead of time. and it also pretty firmly deals with the issue of whether or not the parents actually WANT the kid.

 

Secondly, marriage itself is not natural, nor are nuclear family units, nor is children being raised exclusively by their parents. Everything about the way modern society handles family life is an artificial construct of society. There isn't anything natural about it to begin with. It can't even be claimed that modern family life is like it was meant to be in the bible, these days we call what was described in there child abuse, slavery, and misogyny, among many other things that carry nasty prison sentences.

Edited by Daishain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry, but I can't tell you all of the reasons. You wouldn't get them, and it would give away my religion. A lot of people are jerks about things like that, and I don't want my personal stuff on the internet. This is a hard conversation for me to have. I'm sorry you guys don't like my beliefs, but they won't change.

 

If your reasons are tied to your religion, then you don't have much ground to stand on. Religious views should not dominate the legal system. If you really have no logical or rational reasoning behind your opinion that a subset of the population should be denied rights the rest of the population has, then in no uncertain terms: you are part of the problem.

Edited by Python890

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If your reasons are tied to your religion, then you don't have much ground to stand on. Religious views should not dominate the legal system. If you really have no logical or rational reasoning behind your opinion that a subset of the population should be denied rights the rest of the population has, then in no uncertain terms: you are part of the problem.

 

 

I love you for saying that. In a totally secure in my masculinity, straight sort of way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If your reasons are tied to your religion, then you don't have much ground to stand on. Religious views should not dominate the legal system. If you really have no logical or rational reasoning behind your opinion that a subset of the population should be denied rights the rest of the population has, then in no uncertain terms: you are part of the problem.

 

Yeah, religion shouldn't stand above the legal system. I get that. But that doesn't mean I'm going to put the government and the legal system above my religion personally. My religion matters more to me than the government does. I'm not going to blow up a gay rights parade or anything. I just won't vote for it. I'm not an anti-gay person. I know you'll make up some really cool sounding thing to say why I'm an anti-gay and just don't realize it or something, but you don't know all of what I believe, so you can't tell me who I am or what I believe. You can say your opinions, but don't tell me that my beliefs need "reevaluation". I'm really not sure why you people don't get that, but that's your business, not mine.

 

Weegee, If your're going to make a post telling somebody that you agree with them, you might want to give a reason why. Python890 called me "naive" even when I posted on another topic WITH a reason.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, religion shouldn't stand above the legal system. I get that. But that doesn't mean I'm going to put the government and the legal system above my religion personally. My religion matters more to me than the government does. I'm not going to blow up a gay rights parade or anything. I just won't vote for it. I'm not an anti-gay person. I know you'll make up some really cool sounding thing to say why I'm an anti-gay and just don't realize it or something, but you don't know all of what I believe, so you can't tell me who I am or what I believe. You can say your opinions, but don't tell me that my beliefs need "reevaluation". I'm really not sure why you people don't get that, but that's your business, not mine.

 

Weegee, If your're going to make a post telling somebody that you agree with them, you might want to give a reason why. Python890 called me "naive" even when I posted on another topic WITH a reason.

 

Your religion is more important than your government. Fine. Is your religion more important than equal rights?

 

That is not why he called you naive. Being naive doesn't have anything to do with how much "reasoning" you provide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weegee, If your're going to make a post telling somebody that you agree with them, you might want to give a reason why. Python890 called me "naive" even when I posted on another topic WITH a reason.

 

He just expressed my thoughts more eloquently than I could at the time. Yeah, he called you naive. That's not always an insult, and even if it is- I agree with it the assessment, and you seem to have a thick enough skin to be able to handle some minor flak. I'm going to b blunt here: You're a kid. (You did mention your age in another thread.) If you don't look back on yourself a few years down the road and don't think you were kind of naive, then you won't have grown very much. Enjoy the naivete while you've got it. Reality's a :censored2:.

Edited by WeeGee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting....

 

This nation is built on the premise that we can believe what we wish, and as a result as justified by our government the kid has every right to believe on the basis of religious teachings alone. Noth that this is wrong but I think that critical thinking is a skill this nation has largely forgotten how to teach.

 

<AT> TacticalAK47 (take this as an observation not a personal attack, for it is not meant as such) you are receiving flak not based on your beliefs as much as your inability to see outside of what has been told to you. This inherently makes you look less intelligent. The ability to test your beliefs against other common thoughts and directly deduce an opinion is what has gone suspiciously missing in your case. Many of the members of this forum are forward thinkers and are constantly testing what they know versus a new hypothesis, idea, way of thinking, ect...

 

What you have essentially displayed here for everyone is that it is because it is. Think of it like asking a child why. The stereotypical answer is because. Your answer is essentially as such. In you case gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because the bible told you so. You have formed no direct reasoning within your belief system (as stated from the thread above) beyond because someone told you so. In this case if God told you to walk off a cliff or shoot yourself in the face, would you?

 

 

Back to the issue...

 

I'm curious if anyone can come up with a non-religious based reason to deny this right. If so I would loved to be enlightened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting....

 

This nation is built on the premise that we can believe what we wish, and as a result as justified by our government the kid has every right to believe on the basis of religious teachings alone. Noth that this is wrong but I think that critical thinking is a skill this nation has largely forgotten how to teach.

 

<AT> TacticalAK47 (take this as an observation not a personal attack, for it is not meant as such) you are receiving flak not based on your beliefs as much as your inability to see outside of what has been told to you. This inherently makes you look less intelligent. The ability to test your beliefs against other common thoughts and directly deduce an opinion is what has gone suspiciously missing in your case. Many of the members of this forum are forward thinkers and are constantly testing what they know versus a new hypothesis, idea, way of thinking, ect...

 

What you have essentially displayed here for everyone is that it is because it is. Think of it like asking a child why. The stereotypical answer is because. Your answer is essentially as such. In you case gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because the bible told you so. You have formed no direct reasoning within your belief system (as stated from the thread above) beyond because someone told you so. In this case if God told you to walk off a cliff or shoot yourself in the face, would you?

 

 

Back to the issue...

 

I'm curious if anyone can come up with a non-religious based reason to deny this right. If so I would loved to be enlightened.

 

Yes, I have some reasons. A man and a woman are supposed to have children. I won't make it as gruesome as some other posts, but think about it. Also, when children are young, they are mostly raised by the mother because they're the "baby". when they get older, if it's a boy, the father does a large part of the raising. Teaching them about being a father, raising families, working hard, and other important things about being a man. If it's a girl, the mother will still do a lot of the raising. Teaching them how to be a mother, raise kids, and lot's of other things. (I don't know. I'm a boy.) There are other reasons that I don't really know about, but I hope I have showed you some good reasons. Those aren't even opinion, they're facts, so if I need to back them up, I can. Also, I would do anything if God told me to. I don't care if I sound like an idiot. Anybody on here who is Christian will understand me. (He probably wouldn't tell me to do anything like that, but everything he says, no matter how crazy it sounds or how wacko the world thinks it is, it always has a reason. Even if we don't know the reason.) I may be young, and I don't care if people know that, because as you can see, I can hold up in a decent debate. I don't like being the bad guy, but my beliefs and personal opinions (not always religious) don't change. I do believe in equal rights and I hope that it is legal everywhere. I want everybody to be happy. Homosexual or not, they deserve equal rights. I'm just not going to be a part of it. I'm going to leave the people in favor of gay marriage to vote for it. I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I'm not an anti gay. I could have a gay friend. My friend has a bisexual friend. (I don't know the guy because I don't go to school with them.) I could have a gay friend. They are equal so I will treat them that way.

Edited by TacticalAK47

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, exactly! I let them be, but don't support their way. There are much bigger problems than this.

 

I agree with this. Bigger issues than opposing gay marriage for people to go after.

 

Edited.

Edited by DarkMajor21
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I consider denying human rights a pretty decent issue.

 

We aren't arguing that homosexual couples can have children. I don't know how this isn't abundantly clear. A man can raise a baby. Women can teach a young boy how to be a hard-working adult, as well. This line of logic is not only silly, but sexist. These are not facts.

 

Once more, if you do not act to change the status quo, than you are supporting it, albeit indirectly. As such, you are not for equal rights.

 

"I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I'm not gay." I think this is an error, because I certainly don't recall anyone calling you gay.

 

Having gay friends is not a way to accurately identify gay-rights advocates.

 

On an almost unrelated note, age is not listed in my criteria for a logical argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I consider denying human rights a pretty decent issue.

 

We aren't arguing that homosexual couples can have children. I don't know how this isn't abundantly clear. A man can raise a baby. Women can teach a young boy how to be a hard-working adult, as well. This line of logic is not only silly, but sexist. These are not facts.

 

Once more, if you do not act to change the status quo, than you are supporting it, albeit indirectly. As such, you are not for equal rights.

 

"I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I'm not gay." I think this is an error, because I certainly don't recall anyone calling you gay.

 

Having gay friends is not a way to accurately identify gay-rights advocates.

 

On an almost unrelated note, age is not listed in my criteria for a logical argument.

 

I understand that a woman can raise a son, and a father can raise a daughter. It happens all the time. It's just an example that it sometimes "works better". (By the way, yes I made a typo, but I edited it.) I'm not sexist either. There was nothing I did to have you accuse me of being that. (Not a good reason anyway.) And having gay friends is just another example of showing that I treat everyone as human because we all are. There aren't two kinds of beliefs on this. If you've seen the topic title, you'll see that it says "Opinions on gay marriage.", not " Are you anti gay, or a gay supporter?". I know my thoughts, opinions, and beliefs more than anybody else on the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm curious if anyone can come up with a non-religious based reason to deny this right. If so I would loved to be enlightened.

There are any number of non-religious arguments used by proponents of keeping marriage between a man and a woman. I can't speak for the validity but these were the arguments I remember being used in my state that in my assessment had nothing to do with religion.

 

1) Slippery slope. "If we allow this today, what will be allowed tomorrow? Polygamy? Bestiality? Waifu-ism? Pedophilia?" In other words the argument that we must maintain a clearly defined line of sexual norms, lest in the future we end up with a set of norms that few people believe are right.

 

2) Fairness. Another build on the slippery slope; that in the future gays will be given protected class status and could legally receive preferential treatment in hiring (affirmative action) at the harm of other minorities or everyone else. Some people may not care about sexual norms or what others do in the bedroom, but most people do want a good job and the equality in hiring. The original civil rights proponents didn't want preferential treatment, they just wanted equality.

 

3) Emotive. Testimonials from those who have been 'reformed'. Ala. "conversion camps" which practice "restorative therapy". Testimonials from their wives, families, children, others around them.

 

4) Breakdown of Society, Leadership at the national level, etc. Would you want a gay president to lead the nation? How do you think this would go over in Russia, or the Middle East? Would you want your kids taught by a gay teacher? Would you sign up for boy scouts if you knew the scoutmaster was gay? People that are okay with others living the life they want, but they also don't want to risk their own children or family due to some kind of social experiment.

 

5) Association. I remember a series of political mailers made to look like postcards, each one had a son telling his father something and the father responding "Oh I didn't know you were gay..." There was a guy in a military uniform who had just joined the military, a groom who had just gotten married, and so on.

 

Hope that helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are any number of non-religious arguments used by proponents of keeping marriage between a man and a woman. I can't speak for the validity but these were the arguments I remember being used in my state that in my assessment had nothing to do with religion.

 

1) Slippery slope. "If we allow this today, what will be allowed tomorrow? Polygamy? Bestiality? Waifu-ism? Pedophilia?" In other words the argument that we must maintain a clearly defined line of sexual norms, lest in the future we end up with a set of norms that few people believe are right.

 

2) Fairness. Another build on the slippery slope; that in the future gays will be given protected class status and could legally receive preferential treatment in hiring (affirmative action) at the harm of other minorities or everyone else. Some people may not care about sexual norms or what others do in the bedroom, but most people do want a good job and the equality in hiring. The original civil rights proponents didn't want preferential treatment, they just wanted equality.

 

3) Emotive. Testimonials from those who have been 'reformed'. Ala. "conversion camps" which practice "restorative therapy". Testimonials from their wives, families, children, others around them.

 

4) Breakdown of Society, Leadership at the national level, etc. Would you want a gay president to lead the nation? How do you think this would go over in Russia, or the Middle East? Would you want your kids taught by a gay teacher? Would you sign up for boy scouts if you knew the scoutmaster was gay? People that are okay with others living the life they want, but they also don't want to risk their own children or family due to some kind of social experiment.

 

5) Association. I remember a series of political mailers made to look like postcards, each one had a son telling his father something and the father responding "Oh I didn't know you were gay..." There was a guy in a military uniform who had just joined the military, a groom who had just gotten married, and so on.

 

Hope that helps.

 

I understand that you're only listing arguments others have used, but I would like to say: they are all terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...