More Gay Marriage?

[HarleyQuinn 0]

I think part of the issue isn't that it's so much a person's "personal opinion" so much as often times, religious views become involved and are used as logical reasoning behind why something like gay marriage (or interracial marriage or slavery in the past) shouldn't or should occur.

 

I'm fine with a person saying that gay sex is gross, disgusting, etc. That's a personal opinion. If they want to use that as their basis to deny gay marriage, I won't be happy but I'll accept it. I can even accept the ridiculous idea of "saving marriage" if they go that far. Where I get offended is when somebody says, "You can't marry because the Bible said so. It is God's word (i.e. LAW or something) and you're an abomination and going to hell for wanting to marry/engaging in homosexual activities." They depend on a book, written words, to be utilized as reasons. A book written hundreds of years ago in a situation that doesn't even closely resemble the modern world.

 

The irony is that they ignore parts where it mentions punishing children to death for stealing, death for adultery, etc. but it's "relevant" that there's no mention of gays being together as okay. Selective reading at its peak.

[snuffbox 0]

Brooklyn Zoo: Pedophiles actually harm children. We really need to stop this nonsense thinking where any non-hetero sex preference is the same as child- or animal-fucking. It's not and it's kind of a big difference. And stop with the 'liberal' bullshit.

[Brett Favre 0]

Brooklyn Zoo: Pedophiles actually harm children. We really need to stop this nonsense thinking where any non-hetero sex preference is the same as child- or animal-fucking. It's not and it's kind of a big difference. And stop with the 'liberal' bullshit.

 

As soon as you stop with the OMG religious crazy bullshit.

 

And all I'm saying is that in some places it's okay to marry with a kid. I'm not talking a 5 year old with a 30 year old. More like a 14-16 year old with a 30 year old.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

Being upfront about being dead wrong doesn't make you less dead wrong, or respectable.

 

And I've already argued that Obama is guilty too. It doesn't matter if I voted for him, if I support him, or if I like a fair number of his ideas: He's wrong about gay marriage.

 

I sincerely hope that you actually didn't call someone's opinion "dead wrong."

 

Is it okay to call their opinion "hateful," "bigoted," and "harmful to the progress of a happy, healthy society"? Or is that verboten, too?

[snuffbox 0]

I haven't said OMG once, Brooklyn Zoo. My disapproval of organized religion is completely serious because it is based on problmes like this that it causes/exacerbates. If something is as dangerous as organized religion has proven to be, it warrants being told so.

 

 

[Brett Favre 0]

But when you don't separate organized religion, the church, with religion itself, that's problematic, because religion is not a bad thing. The people using it to gain a profit or stifle others are. It's unfair to just bash anything associated or bash anyone who follows the Bible or the Qur'an. Like Harley up there who thinks because people believe in God's word are wrong? Morality is different with everyone, and if someone decides that God is the final word instead of what a group of people decide, what's wrong with that?

[snuffbox 0]

I've tried to use "organized religion" as much as possible because that's what is most at fault for this particular problem. The Bible itself, whether its followers realize or not, is not filled with anti-gay passages. It is however filled with a shitload of violence, sex perversion (sell your daughters!), and misogyny that is unequalled outside of other religious texts. Also- talking snakes, invisible men, and burning bushes are not wothwhile sources for morality; human beings have the capacity to live with moral standards entirely on their own.

[At Home 0]

Being upfront about being dead wrong doesn't make you less dead wrong, or respectable.

 

And I've already argued that Obama is guilty too. It doesn't matter if I voted for him, if I support him, or if I like a fair number of his ideas: He's wrong about gay marriage.

 

I sincerely hope that you actually didn't call someone's opinion "dead wrong."

 

Is it okay to call their opinion "hateful," "bigoted," and "harmful to the progress of a happy, healthy society"? Or is that verboten, too?

 

No, that's fine, but calling opinions wrong or right is a pretty stupid thing to do.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

One odd thing about this argument is that it's the religious folks who are engaging in moral relativism.

 

"Well, that's just MY system of beliefs. Who are you to question my opinions?" while the more secular, pro-gay crowd is more like, "I don't care about your personal beliefs, it's wrong to be mean to gay people."

[At Home 0]

I've tried to use "organized religion" as much as possible because that's what is most at fault for this particular problem. The Bible itself, whether its followers realize or not, is not filled with anti-gay passages. It is however filled with a shitload of violence, sex perversion (sell your daughters!), and misogyny that is unequalled outside of other religious texts. Also- talking snakes, invisible men, and burning bushes are not wothwhile sources for morality; human beings have the capacity to live with moral standards entirely on their own.

 

And it's also filled with lessons of love, and harmony. But I'm sure you know that you can pick or choose what you want in order to push whatever opinion you have. Taking those stories literally is also a choice.

[Brett Favre 0]

One odd thing about this argument is that it's the religious folks who are engaging in moral relativism.

 

"Well, that's just MY system of beliefs. Who are you to question my opinions?" while the more secular, pro-gay crowd is more like, "I don't care about your personal beliefs, it's wrong to be mean to gay people."

 

You're just making a generalization.

 

Other people would be like "It's wrong for two guys to marry." I could name atheists who use their system of beliefs argument as well.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Well, yeah, obviously I was making a generalization there. I was referring particularly to this thread.

[snuffbox 0]

And then somebody asks them "Why is it wrong?" and it all falls apart.

[The Niggardly King 0]

I've tried to use "organized religion" as much as possible because that's what is most at fault for this particular problem. The Bible itself, whether its followers realize or not, is not filled with anti-gay passages. It is however filled with a shitload of violence, sex perversion (sell your daughters!), and misogyny that is unequalled outside of other religious texts. Also- talking snakes, invisible men, and burning bushes are not wothwhile sources for morality; human beings have the capacity to live with moral standards entirely on their own.

 

And it's also filled with lessons of love, and harmony. But I'm sure you know that you can pick or choose what you want in order to push whatever opinion you have.

 

He's just doing what everyone else is doing... fuck I'm pretty sure I made the same useless reply before here.

 

[Brett Favre 0]

And then somebody asks them "Why is it wrong?" and it all falls apart.

 

Because man shall not lie with man as he does with woman. The ideal family structure would be a man and woman. A child is supposed to be the miracle of life that comes from love, and that's not happening with gays, so that isn't supposed to be. It makes people feel uncomfortable.

 

Those are some.

 

[The Niggardly King 0]

And then somebody asks them "Why is it wrong?" and it all falls apart.

 

Belief that they're going against God's image of them as he wanted people to procreate.

[SamoaRowe 0]

And then somebody asks them "Why is it wrong?" and it all falls apart.

 

Belief that they're going against God's image of them as he wanted people to procreate.

 

Still not a good reason to deny civil rights. I can't believe the best arguments against gay marraige include "it's icky", "it doesn't create kids", and "my invisible friend in the sky thinks it's bad" and that these arguments are taken seriously.

[Brett Favre 0]

Chill with the invisible friend in the sky crap. No one here is saying atheists are all immoral bastards, so no reason to bash something you don't believe in. Everyone thinks they are understanding, yet they continue to belittle other people's beliefs.

[The Niggardly King 0]

I'm quite surprised that it hasn't been made legal... Marriage & Divorce are some of the biggest moneymakers in the country.

 

[The Niggardly King 0]

Everyone thinks they are understanding, yet they continue to belittle other people's beliefs.

 

they are if you agree with them

[SamoaRowe 0]

Chill with the invisible friend in the sky crap. No one here is saying atheists are all immoral bastards, so no reason to bash something you don't believe in. Everyone thinks they are understanding, yet they continue to belittle other people's beliefs.

 

I'm not trying to bash anyone's views, but when people try explaining why something is wrong because their Got hates it to people who don't share the faith, it doesn't work when we're talking about laws. You've properly explained why your church won't participate or why you don't like it, but you haven't properly explained why gay citizens should be denied their civil rights. It just does not matter.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

Like Harley up there who thinks because people believe in God's word are wrong? Morality is different with everyone, and if someone decides that God is the final word instead of what a group of people decide, what's wrong with that?

 

There's nothing inherently "wrong" with that but it's hard for somebody who's pro gay and doesn't share the faith, to suddenly go, "Oh, God says it's wrong? Well that's a perfectly justifiable reason." People have utilized God's name for a bevy of acts (some good, some bad). Do we look back at people who used God's name to support slavery as good? After all, it was supposedly God's word that supported the idea of slavery.

 

If people use the "man shall not lie with man as he does with woman" quote, then at least point to the law that stipulates marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what you're essentially saying anyway. Don't point to the Bible as God's Word and say homosexuality/gay marriage wrong by quoting one line of the text.

 

It's convenience. It's using the Bible and God as a crutch for arguing against an issue, rather than formulating an opinion on a logical reason. The Bible is either the Word of God, as translated, and everything is absolute within it... or it's not. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Society has said certain passages don't hold true anymore, so why does that one line or passage still hold true?

[Jingus 0]

It's already been stated, but I feel the need to repeat that we have this same thread every fucking year.

 

Morality is different with everyone, and if someone decides that God is the final word instead of what a group of people decide, what's wrong with that?

What.

[JaMarcus Russell's #1 Caucasian Fan 0]

What I personally believe what the disconnect on this issue is that people, for whatever reason, can't separate their beliefs from laws. It's cool that people don't support gay marriage. People have a right to not like it. But you know what: Gay marriage isn't being forced upon you. If you don't want a gay marriage, don't get one. Simple right? California didn't turn into Sodom when its was legal for about eight months.

 

My problem is when you legislate people legislate their beliefs on how people should act. The Constitution guarntees us equal protection under the law. That means gay and lesbians are protected under the law as well. To me, it's wrong to say one group can't do things other groups can legally do because another group personally doesn't like it.

 

 

[EricMM 0]

I have had people in this thread or one like it say, "I don't want gay marriage, because I don't want to have to explain to my kids why two guys are kissing in public."

 

Homophobia.

 

You know, I'm sure that there were people who didn't want to teach black history to their children either. Who didn't want to have their kids watching a black man kissing a white woman. But this is SOOOOOO different

[Atticus Chaos 0]

My main issue is that gay marriage is a complicated social issue, but people insist on turning it into good vs evil. There is a lot more to the arguement than homophobia and making gay people miserable. Most people don't care what gay people do. Just like gay people aren't trying to rip apart the foundations of society by trying to get married either.

 

I support gay marriage but the only really good arguement against it is that it would be creating a new pariah class. When you have gay marriage it can get taught to young kids (not sex ed 5th grade, younger than that) and, while there may not be 'the marriage class' the learning cirriculum to them is filled with male-female pairings, the prince ending up with the princess...etc. Which begs the question, if you have gay marriage, isn't the prince is going to marry the prince sometimes? And most parents are going to get pissed off about that. So, I find the general attitude on here of 'well, teach it anyway' kind of ironic considering the main arguement for gay marriage seems to be you can't force your beliefs on other people.

 

Basically, I'd hate for parents to be labelled hateful bigots because they get annoyed about it. So, really, saying 'it's just stupid homophobia and gay people make you feel icky' is missing the point somewhat.

[JaMarcus Russell's #1 Caucasian Fan 0]

Why do keep repeating the "same sex marriage will be taught in public schools" canard? As a former student and present teacher in California, nothing in any type of standards indicates that any type of marriage is taught in California public schools. It's just not true.

 

And if people truly don't care what gay people do, why does this bother them so much?

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Why do keep repeating the "same sex marriage will be taught in public schools" canard? As a former student and present teacher in California, nothing in any type of standards indicates that any type of marriage is taught in California public schools. It's just not true.

 

 

You can't deny that children are taught from a young age about male/female pairings. Fairytales, and such. So, really if gay relationships are 100% equal, then, why couldn't teachers rationalize teaching them 'The King and the king'? Which actually happened in Massachusetts and was used in Yes on 8's campaign. And what could the parents do about it if it happened? Not much.

 

 

And if people truly don't care what gay people do, why does this bother them so much?

 

No on 8 had a huge lead in the polls till the school adverts came out.

[2GOLD 0]

 

Maybe we should totally just eliminate the word "marriage". Just kill it dead. If a civil union and a marriage are the same thing, then well let it be civil unions for all. If there is no difference between them and no one has problems with civil unions, well then let's end the one that is in dispute and go with the agreed compromise.

 

My state is about ready to attempt to ban gay marriage and I'm sure it'll pass. Gay marriage is being compared to bank robbery here. I wish I could say I am shocked, but I am not.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Maybe we should totally just eliminate the word "marriage". Just kill it dead. If a civil union and a marriage are the same thing, then well let it be civil unions for all. If there is no difference between them and no one has problems with civil unions, well then let's end the one that is in dispute and go with the agreed compromise.

 

 

That would probably never happen. It's not popular with straight people or even gay people, since many of them have been fighting for marriage for so long.

 

I actually think that would be quite offensive to gay people 'we are so against letting gay people get married, we'll get rid of the word entirely, and not even get married ourselves, just to avoid letting gays get married.'