Miss California?

[Cat]

Sometimes, its good for the "standard" to be changed and amended. Societies must evolve.

(hey RI....I love ya, you are a pretty state.....but get with the rest of New England already! :))

[smileyeagle1021]

My belief is against homosexual marriage being considered a valid marriage. I guess to you that's nothing better than "I say so". No matter why I oppose it though, shouldn't I have a right to say I don't want it officially recognized?

yes, you have the right to say you don't want it recognized. Hell, yell it from the rooftops and spread the word from shore to shore, from the rural heartland to the urban centers of humanity. Say it to every person you can find, as many times as you'd like. Please don't stop saying it. Both my grandfather's fought to protect that right for you, please don't squander it.
What at issue here isn't your right to say whether or not you agree with something... what is at issue is the constitutional rights of a minority.
Banning gay marriage violates at least two amendments, it violates the first amendment in that it restricts religious freedom. There are churches that do recognize gay marriage that are now being told they cannot perform them the same way they would for their straight parishioners. As long as when it is allowed no church is forced to recognize a gay marriage, then they're religious freedom is left in tact. There is precedent for limiting freedom of speech and religion when there is a greater community interest protected... this typically has only been exercised in extreme cases such as human sacrifice though. Banning gay marriage also goes against the 14th amendment where it specifies "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Because I am gay and would not marry a woman (Utah is the capitol of gay men trying to marry women to 'cure' themselves, all it's done is lead to more broken families, and I wouldn't wish that upon anyone much less inflict it upon them) I'm now told that I can't have the same protections as a married heterosexual.

Oh, and you said you'd be interested in the stats of how many gays are promiscuous vs how many heterosexuals. That, while it would be interesting for the discussion, is also irrelevant. Saying that a large number of homosexuals are promiscuous therefore they should not be granted marriage rights makes about as much sense as saying a lot of blacks have drug problems therefor no blacks should be allowed to buy sudafed or a lot of white people file for bankruptcy so no white people should be allowed to take out loans.
Are you really going to say to me, that I should be denying the same rights, privileges and protections, not even because I'm promiscuous, but because others who have their orientation in common with me are? Using that same standard, you shouldn't be married either because straight people, who have nothing else in common with you but their orientation are promiscuous as well.

[Rubystars]

yes, you have the right to say you don't want it recognized. Hell, yell it from the rooftops and spread the word from shore to shore, from the rural heartland to the urban centers of humanity. Say it to every person you can find, as many times as you'd like. Please don't stop saying it. Both my grandfather's fought to protect that right for you, please don't squander it.


Pro-gay people have the right to say what they want to say too, in my opinion.


What at issue here isn't your right to say whether or not you agree with something... what is at issue is the constitutional rights of a minority.
Banning gay marriage violates at least two amendments, it violates the first amendment in that it restricts religious freedom.


You made the point that churches might not be able to perform gay marriages in the same manner they perform them for straights, but what about the gays that have been pushing to force churches not to be able to discriminate? Some people want churches who have a moral problem with homosexuality to be forced to hire gays for positions in the church and/or to marry them. Some say if a pastor speaks out against homosexuality that he should have his tax exempt status called into question. How do you feel about those issues?


Banning gay marriage also goes against the 14th amendment where it specifies "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Because I am gay and would not marry a woman (Utah is the capitol of gay men trying to marry women to 'cure' themselves, all it's done is lead to more broken families, and I wouldn't wish that upon anyone much less inflict it upon them) I'm now told that I can't have the same protections as a married heterosexual.


I don't think gay people should get married at all, unless they're bisexual and then they should choose to be with someone of the opposite gender that they're truly attracted to and in love with.

I don't really think the equal protection clause was meant to include gay marriage, but that's a debate that will go on.


Oh, and you said you'd be interested in the stats of how many gays are promiscuous vs how many heterosexuals. That, while it would be interesting for the discussion, is also irrelevant. Saying that a large number of homosexuals are promiscuous therefore they should not be granted marriage rights makes about as much sense as saying a lot of blacks have drug problems therefor no blacks should be allowed to buy sudafed or a lot of white people file for bankruptcy so no white people should be allowed to take out loans.


I think the stats here may be relevant. There was at least one post earlier in this thread (forget who posted it now) that said most homosexuals are moving toward monogamy now. However if homosexuals mostly engage in casual sex and not monogamy, then what's being portrayed as "a committed couple for 20 years who can't get married" really isn't representative of the gay community. That's why I think it's important for us to find this out.


Are you really going to say to me, that I should be denying the same rights, privileges and protections, not even because I'm promiscuous, but because others who have their orientation in common with me are? Using that same standard, you shouldn't be married either because straight people, who have nothing else in common with you but their orientation are promiscuous as well.

I think you should be protected as far as your life and property and safety are concerned but I don't think that you should get together with someone of the same gender and call that marriage. Call it a relationship, but it's not a marriage. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and I guess I'll always feel that way about it. It's not my intention to deny you or any other homosexual of any basic human rights. Sorry if it seems that way.

[smileyeagle1021]

You made the point that churches might not be able to perform gay marriages in the same manner they perform them for straights, but what about the gays that have been pushing to force churches not to be able to discriminate? Some people want churches who have a moral problem with homosexuality to be forced to hire gays for positions in the church and/or to marry them. Some say if a pastor speaks out against homosexuality that he should have his tax exempt status called into question. How do you feel about those issues?

on that issue we probably are in agreement. I think the people who want to force churches to be more open and accepting are stupid at best, bigots at worse. I do know people who want the Mormon church to be forced to accept gays because they hate mormons and know that will hurt the church. I seriously doubt that's the majority though. I know of personally only one person who advocates for churches to be forced into condoning/accepting homosexuality... one out of hundreds of people I've had the discussion with.
Stupidity doesn't discriminate on orientation, there are stupid gay people just as there are stupid straight people.



I think the stats here may be relevant. There was at least one post earlier in this thread (forget who posted it now) that said most homosexuals are moving toward monogamy now. However if homosexuals mostly engage in casual sex and not monogamy, then what's being portrayed as "a committed couple for 20 years who can't get married" really isn't representative of the gay community. That's why I think it's important for us to find this out.


and once again you side step the issue. We aren't talking about a community image or even what a large number of people do. We are talking about individuals. You just judged me based on the stats of the community. I've read that to mean that you feel that because a large number of the community is only interested in casual sex and isn't interested in being part of a committed couple therefore all gay people are only interested in casual sex. Even if that's not what you're saying, your still saying I should be treated differently because of the actions of others. Please, you say you don't hate gay people and don't want to infringe on rights, reconcile that with your very blunt statement that because some homosexuals are promiscuous that it shouldn't even matter about those who aren't. Please reconcile that statement with your repeated claims that I'm a deviant and that I don't deserve the same tax benefits or government protections. Please, I'll wait.

[Nyoibo]

Here's a question I have for the pagans. If pagan rituals sometimes focus on fertility and male and female energies, and natural patterns of birth and death, then how does gay stuff fit into that? I've always wondered about that and I've never really understood it.

I'll chime in with mine too. :)

Basically, love is sacred, any form of love, provided it is for love and not just lust and gratification, should be cherished.


It will destroy the standard of a man and woman being married and having kids as being the basic unit of society.

That's already destroyed, look at the number of single parent families, the divorce rate, the number of people living to gether having kids out of wedlock, or the number of people married or unmarried who don't have children, the mother and father living together in matrimony with the 2.4 kids went out the window decades ago.


You made the point that churches might not be able to perform gay marriages in the same manner they perform them for straights, but what about the gays that have been pushing to force churches not to be able to discriminate? Some people want churches who have a moral problem with homosexuality to be forced to hire gays for positions in the church and/or to marry them. Some say if a pastor speaks out against homosexuality that he should have his tax exempt status called into question. How do you feel about those issues?


I'm in agreement with that, it's up to each religeon to make up their minds about it, and I don't think that they should be forced to accept something they don't agree with.
But look at it this way, it's the same arguement, people being forced to do something they don't agree with because of someone elses beliefs.


I don't think gay people should get married at all, unless they're bisexual and then they should choose to be with someone of the opposite gender that they're truly attracted to and in love with.


Not to nitpick, but then they're not gay, they're bi-sexual, different things.


I think the stats here may be relevant. There was at least one post earlier in this thread (forget who posted it now) that said most homosexuals are moving toward monogamy now. However if homosexuals mostly engage in casual sex and not monogamy, then what's being portrayed as "a committed couple for 20 years who can't get married" really isn't representative of the gay community. That's why I think it's important for us to find this out.


Most heterosexuals are moving away from monogamy, should we then take away the right to get married from heterosexuals?


I think you should be protected as far as your life and property and safety are concerned but I don't think that you should get together with someone of the same gender and call that marriage. Call it a relationship, but it's not a marriage. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and I guess I'll always feel that way about it. It's not my intention to deny you or any other homosexual of any basic human rights. Sorry if it seems that way.

So then you would support a civil union which gave them the same rights if it wasn't called a marriage, because if not, then it is your intention to deny them basic human rights.

[AFPheonix]

It will destroy the standard of a man and woman being married and having kids as being the basic unit of society.

As has been pointed out, families are not all that traditional anymore. Of course there's still moms and dads and kids all together under the same roof, but those are not always married.
Sometimes they're not under the same roof at all, either because of death or divorce or other circumstance.
Society has yet to crumble because of these non-traditional units, why would it all of a sudden burst into flames because gays would be able to have secularly recognized relationships with benefits from the secular state?

[Rubystars]

AFP I think the whole situation is really unfortunate. The divorce rate is really bad and the illegitimacy rate is really bad. I think both of those things are harmful to society too.

[the_std]

Illegitimate is not really a word that applies to current situations anymore. It might have when you were a king and you needed to be sure your bloodline was passed down to the right people, that sort of thing. I was born out of wedlock and I would never consider myself an illegitimate child. I'm very legitimate. I'm my parents' child.

This seems to be another indicator of your inflexibility towards the family unit. There are many different combinations of people that form successful, happy families. They are decreasingly the mom dad + 2.5 kids scenario, and yet our world is blossoming. The standard of living is higher than it ever was before, we're becoming smarter, happier, more successful people the world around, and it's because of diversity. Being influenced by many, many different factors from all over the globe, including different family structures and different cultures, has opened up our minds and allowed us to thrive.

It's a pity you can't seem to see that.

[Rubystars]

Of course you're just as good of a person as anyone else. I just think it's a better situation if children are born into a family with a wedded mother and father. It doesn't have to be that way, but I think it's best if it is.

[AFPheonix]

A wedded mother and father aren't going to guarantee the best outcome for a kid, either though.
How many married parents manage to traumatize their kids either by abuse of each other or abuse of the kids?

It's not that cut and dry. Frankly, whoever can create a stable home for a kid and make sure they get the proper things they need like food, love, education, etc. is going to be the most ideal situation, whether it is a married couple, a grandma, or some other caregiver.

[Flyndaran]

I'm an atheist but I will despise any religion that chooses to stand in the way of two people loving each other. I will shout from the rooftops my abhorence for such hate filled garbage.

[Flyndaran]

Marriage is a legally sanctioned promise between two people end of story.
Two gays can just as easily as two straights make such a promise.
I really don't understand why so many hate that concept.

[Rubystars]

I wasn't talking about an abusive home. Just about anything is better than that.

[Cat]

Love makes a family. Whether it be born in to a "traditional" family, kids adopted in to a straight couple, gay couple, single parent..what have you.

"And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'." _Bob Dylan

And I am happy to see that change (slow as it is.....)

[AFPheonix]

I wasn't talking about an abusive home. Just about anything is better than that.

That's fine, but you're saying that a married man and woman are better than any other family type with out backing up your claim with any actual data.

My assertion was to show that they are not necessarily better. A standard family isn't going to necessarily be worse than a non-traditional setup, either.
They are different, and can work equally well as long as there are dedicated caregivers involved, regardless of gender or orientation or even number.

[Rubystars]

Monogamous marriage between two people used to be more stable than it is now, with the high divorce rates that are now going on. People didn't get divorced unless they had a damn good reason. They toughed it out and worked it out. With that attitude, monogamous marriages were stable, supportive arrangements. Daughters and sons would grow up to see what a healthy male-female relationship was like and how conflicts were resolved in a healthy marriage. If grandparents were present, they could also pass down knowledge to the grandchildren. Those children would grow up to form families of their own with the model given to them by their parents and grandparents.

I don't think there's anything that needed to be changed about this arrangement, but now it seems like 3 friends can get together and call themselves a family. It's just odd to me.

[Flyndaran]

Not getting divorced is not always a good thing. Much of the time woman had no way of supporting themselves if they divorced even if they were being raped and beaten on a daily basis.
If two people can't be happy together then there is only stupidity in staying together.

[smileyeagle1021]

I don't think there's anything that needed to be changed about this arrangement, but now it seems like 3 friends can get together and call themselves a family. It's just odd to me.

A saying comes to mind,
Every person has two families, the family they were born with and the family they chose. Some of us have multiple families that we choose. I for example consider my coworkers family (there's only 8 front desk employees and 4 shuttle drivers and 2 breakfast people, 1 maintenance guy, 6 housekeepers, one sales manager, and the two co-owners/managers, so we are like one big extended family), I consider many friends to be a second family, I consider my roommates to be another second family. I can't speak for everyone, but a lot of people I know are moving towards that attitude that family isn't just the people you share genetics with, but the people you chose to be related to.

[Rubystars]

Interesting concept smileyeagle, but I would consider those more to be social networks or groups of friends rather than your family.

[the_std]

Rubystars, if smileyeagle says they're his family, why does it matter what you think of them? You're obviously entitled to your opinion, but in a case like this, it has no validity. That is smiley's life, smiley's choice to call those people family.

[Rubystars]

So any random group of people who are fond of each other is a family now? Things have really changed, haven't they?

[the_std]

If they call themselves a family and act to protect, love, nourish and support each other without harming anyone, what's wrong with that?

[Rubystars]

All that means is that they have a different definition than I do for family. To me a member of my family is someone either blood related to me, or someone related to me through marriage to blood relatives. If I were to get married then of course my husband and I would form a new family.

I don't think of anything outside of this as being "family", but other people are of course free to make up their own definitions even if I don't agree with them.

I'm not saying that it's bad or anything, just that I don't agree with it.

[the_std]

The same argument should be applied to gays making new families. If they're doing what families do, which is make each other happier, safer and more secure, even if you don't agree with it, why say it's a bad thing?

[Rubystars]

Groups of friends that love and care for each other are good. I just don't agree that those groups of friends form a family. They could be a "family" in a sense of being really close to one another, but that's not the same thing as an actual family. To me family is something you don't choose (except for your husband or wife, of course).

[the_std]

But there was just proof that family goes well beyond your definition of family. I'm asking why tell someone they can't do something just because they don't fit into your criteria of something that actually has no effect on your life?

[Rubystars]

I'm not telling people they can't do anything. I might just define what they're doing differently than they do. I used to laugh when I worked at Wal-mart and people would refer to the Wal-mart family. (where's the puke smiley?) but some people really felt strongly, that this was the case. I didn't tell them they couldn't believe that if they wanted to.

[BroomJockey]

I'm not telling people they can't do anything. I might just define what they're doing differently than they do.

I know I said I was going to stay out of this from now on, but I just REALLY had to address this point. You're not telling people they can't do anything. But if you had your way, you would be. You would be telling people that they can't marry for love. You would make your definition such that they were unable to do something, aka "get married." That's... yeah, that's telling people they can't do something.

[Rubystars]

BroomJockey, as I've said repeatedly, I'm against legal recognition for gay marriage.

[Fenrus]

BroomJockey, as I've said repeatedly, I'm against legal recognition for gay marriage.

Which is doing exactly what you're saying you're not doing, denying rights to certain individuals based on what they do in the bedroom, and persecuting such individuals, which according to the Supreme Court with Lawrence Vs. Texas (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html), is unconstitutional.

You keep saying you're "all for letting them have equal rights" as long as they "marry the opposite sex" which, honestly, causes hardship, divorce, and suicide. It's happened many times.

I tried to stay out of this, but I'm completely appalled at your beliefs. Is it truely okay to take away basic rights because you don't think it's "normal"? Isn't "normal" relative, and changes from person to person? You talk about society as a whole not liking it, but when close to 11% of society identifies as LGBT, your arguement becomes invalid.

If it doesn't affect you in the slightest, as you A) Are not homosexual, B) Do not have to administer the marriage liscences, and C) Do not have to perform the ritual, why are you against it so badly?

You say you don't want your tax money to be used for this? Since WHEN is a wedding, reception, or courtship paid for by the taxpayers? Plus, marriage liscences are SOLD by the county clerks. Meaning if this is allowed, your county generates a higher revenue, meaning lowering taxes, or a boost in tax-money paid services, such as EMS, Fire, and Police Departments.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

It's quite simple, actually.

Ruby doesn't believe that gays should be allowed to marry. Therefore, Ruby is against gay marriage.

The fallacy is in the doctrine of pursuing legislation based on your own beliefs without consideration for others.

It doesn't matter if you believe gay marriage is good, bad, or whatever. This is a country of equal rights. If gays cannot marry the people they love, there is inequality ergo persecution.

Go ahead and hold that belief if you want, but please stop pretending that you're anything other than a prejudiced pro-persecution of minority and anti-rights A******E.

The mature thing to do would be to admit that your beliefs create inequality, and cease pursuit of thoroughly un-American legislation.

P.S. Gay marriage does not in the least effect your right to practice your religion. Hold ceremonies, don't hold ceremonies, no one cares. This is about allowing or disallowing a civil contract, which, regardless or origin, has nothing to do with any religion.

[Rubystars]

It doesn't matter if you believe gay marriage is good, bad, or whatever. This is a country of equal rights. If gays cannot marry the people they love, there is inequality ergo persecution.


"I don't agree with you" does not equal persecution.



The mature thing to do would be to
Not post things like:


Go ahead and hold that belief if you want, but please stop pretending that you're anything other than a prejudiced pro-persecution of minority and anti-rights A******E.

[Fenrus]

"I don't agree with you" does not equal persecution.

Refusing rights due to the fact that you don't agree DOES.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Supporting legislation against gay marriage and/or the prevention of legislation allowing gay marriage is the pursuit of persecution. Which is born out of prejudice against them.

So if you can explain how it's immature to post logic-based opinion on this site, that would be fascinating.

[Rubystars]

The Christians in the country also feel as if we've been wronged because we feel as if we're being forced to acknowledge something immoral as something legitimate in an official manner.

[Fenrus]

Due to a separation between Church and State, morals have no weight against law. Christians feel they have been wronged by the fact that they have to see something they think is immoral put into law.

Whereas I feel, as a homosexual male, and a LaVey Satanist, I have been wronged due to the fact that I cannot be free to love who I choose to love, and see Christian religion as immoral and wrong, but I also RESPECT your rights to believe what you believe, and to love who you love. All I'm asking is the same respect from you, which frankly I don't believe we are getting.

Christ said "Love thy fellow man". Why can't you love me?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

@ruby
Tough fucking nuts.

I don't think drinking is entirely moral. Or gangsta rap, or any number of less savory, but legal activities.

No one's forcing you to acknowledge anything, hate gays all you want, but you're not allowed to force that on them or anyone else.

What you're missing is the fundamental right in this country to do anything you want whether it's good for you or not. That's essentially the opposite of outlawing gay marriage because you think it's not moral. There's only one exception to that rule, harming others.

So if you can say exactly how gays having the right to enter into beneficial social contracts visits harm upon you, while simultaneously telling us how stopping them doesn't deprive and therefore harm them... that would be nice.

[Rubystars]

Due to a separation between Church and State, morals have no weight against law. Christians feel they have been wronged by the fact that they have to see something they think is immoral put into law.


I don't want gay marriage to be legitimized by the government when I see it as something immoral and harmful to the people involved.


Whereas I feel, as a homosexual male, and a LaVey Satanist, I have been wronged due to the fact that I cannot be free to love who I choose to love, and see Christian religion as immoral and wrong, but I also RESPECT your rights to believe what you believe, and to love who you love.


I'm not stopping you from believing what you believe or loving who you love.


All I'm asking is the same respect from you, which frankly I don't believe we are getting.

Christ said "Love thy fellow man". Why can't you love me?

I don't have a problem with you as an individual.

[Fenrus]

I'm not stopping you from believing what you believe or loving who you love. That's what you're not seeing. By refusing my rights to marry, you ARE stopping me from loving who I love. By saying I can marry, but can only marry a female, you are imposing your ideals on who I should love on me. I don't have a problem with you as an individual.If you didn't have a problem with me as an individual, you wouldn't have a problem with me marrying another individual you don't have a problem with, yes? Now, since that other individual is male, suddenly you have a problem with it. Please reaffirm your position before you post. I'm seeing quite a few holes, logical fallacies, and tired re-uses of phrases I'm not quite sure you believe yourself.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

The whole thing is a great big sack of circular logic, all of which seems to have spewed itself from a book written literally ages ago by humans who, I hate to say it, have proven themselves quite untrustworthy when given power.

Back then, the ability to write held enormous power. There's no reason why those who decided what was or wasn't in the bible couldn't have been as corrupt as any other person then or now.

Besides which, can you prove how gay marriage is harmful?
Do you have any facts?

[Rubystars]

That's what you're not seeing. By refusing my rights to marry, you ARE stopping me from loving who I love. By saying I can marry, but can only marry a female, you are imposing your ideals on who I should love on me. If you didn't have a problem with me as an individual, you wouldn't have a problem with me marrying another individual you don't have a problem with, yes? Now, since that other individual is male, suddenly you have a problem with it. Please reaffirm your position before you post. I'm seeing quite a few holes, logical fallacies, and tired re-uses of phrases I'm not quite sure you believe yourself.

If I'm re-using phrases it might be because people seem to keep saying things that I supposedly believe that I never actually posted. Where in this thread did I say I wanted to persecute gays? I have no business going into your home and telling you who you can have sex with or what religion you choose to follow. As long as it involves consenting adults it's your choice.

I just don't want official recognition of this behavior. That's what I've said at the beginning when I entered into this thread and that's what I say now.

You can't "marry" someone of the same sex as yourself because by definition that's not marriage anyway. You can have a "marriage ceremony" if you want to, and tell other people you're married, but you won't be. Marriage is between a man and a woman. I'll go even further. Even if the government hands you a marriage license and officially condones your "marriage", I still won't consider that to be a marriage. It just doesn't fit the definition of marriage.

It's gays that seek to redefine marriage as being something other than what it is. You've painted the picture that it's the conservatives that are trying to discriminate and cause problems for gays when in reality it's the gays that are doing the agitating by trying to force their lifestyle into the public eye for mass approval.

[AFPheonix]

Monogamous marriage between two people used to be more stable than it is now, with the high divorce rates that are now going on. People didn't get divorced unless they had a damn good reason. They toughed it out and worked it out. With that attitude, monogamous marriages were stable, supportive arrangements. Daughters and sons would grow up to see what a healthy male-female relationship was like and how conflicts were resolved in a healthy marriage. If grandparents were present, they could also pass down knowledge to the grandchildren. Those children would grow up to form families of their own with the model given to them by their parents and grandparents.

I don't think there's anything that needed to be changed about this arrangement, but now it seems like 3 friends can get together and call themselves a family. It's just odd to me.

That would be because once upon a time divorce carried a higher stigma than smacking your wife around. Destructive marriages stayed together because of social norms despite what would have been better for the people involved. Once both genders reached equal footing in the eyes of society, women could start leaving. This is not a bad thing and hasn't harmed society.
If you want to argue against divorce, that is a completely different topic than gay marriage. In fact, I would say that your stance that gays have the right to marry straights actually leads to more divorces, especially painful ones, for reasons I detailed in a previous post.

Also keep in mind that for some people, blood relation does not mean a lot since they come from terrible families. However, they still need that bond with others in their lives. That's why you will see non-traditional family groups.
For instance, my husband's family is pretty fractured. Some have come out ok on the other side, others not so much. He considers my family to be much closer than his. I come from a very traditional family with many siblings.
Both my husband and I are good contributing members of society, despite the differences in our upbringing. Same for my roommate who came from even more dire circumstances than my husband. We also consider her family and treat her as such.

Now, as for Christians being persecuted for having to recognize something that you don't see as moral:
That is not persecution. Sorry. If we took a poll from various members of other religions and took that into consideration when we create laws of the land, we as a society would be stuck with a lot of laws that not everyone would see as moral, and probably would view as quite restrictive.
What if orthodox jews and muslims managed to codify into law that our food supply had to be kosher and halaal? I don't know about you, but I have no moral qualms about eating pork.
How about if Jainists got their oar in and banned fly swatters?

I could go on. However, my point is that while you are allowed to have a stricter moral code than society's laws, the law of the land simply needs to codify behavior that keeps people from harming others. Gay marriage does not harm others. Harming someone's sensibilities does not count.

[smileyeagle1021]

Interesting concept smileyeagle, but I would consider those more to be social networks or groups of friends rather than your family.

Rubystars, if smileyeagle says they're his family, why does it matter what you think of them? You're obviously entitled to your opinion, but in a case like this, it has no validity. That is smiley's life, smiley's choice to call those people family.

the_std, Rubystars isn't just disagreeing with me, she's disagreeing with everyone where I work. We all consider ourselves a family. I mean, let's be honest, the boss's daughter has a dad and a mom at home then 20something aunts and uncles at the hotel... she even refers to us as aunt soandso or uncle soandso and I treat her much like I would a niece. Workplace families are extremely common, hell, that's been the theme of many dilbert strips about how losing a coworker is like losing a brother.

All that means is that they have a different definition than I do for family. To me a member of my family is someone either blood related to me, or someone related to me through marriage to blood relatives. If I were to get married then of course my husband and I would form a new family.


Groups of friends that love and care for each other are good. I just don't agree that those groups of friends form a family. They could be a "family" in a sense of being really close to one another, but that's not the same thing as an actual family. To me family is something you don't choose (except for your husband or wife, of course).

a family is something you don't chose... does that mean you are also against adoption? You just point blank said that you can't chose your family, isn't that what adoption is?

"I don't agree with you" does not equal persecution.


no, but legislating your disagreement does.

I don't want gay marriage to be legitimized by the government when I see it as something immoral and harmful to the people involved.


do you also support prohibition of alcohol, banning of smoking, criminalization of gambling, and government mandated diet plans?
After all, alcohol harms those who use it, so does smoking, gambling targets those who can least afford it and poor diet is the leading cause of many long term conditions such as heart problems, kidney problems, and diabetes.

To be a bit crude, I think I'm doing myself less harm by putting a dick in my mouth than a cigarette. The dick only might cause diseases and that is easy enough to prevent by being cautious with choice of partners, the cigarette will most definitely cause damage.

eta


It's gays that seek to redefine marriage as being something other than what it is. You've painted the picture that it's the conservatives that are trying to discriminate and cause problems for gays when in reality it's the gays that are doing the agitating by trying to force their lifestyle into the public eye for mass approval.

we aren't seeking your approval for anything. I don't know a single gay person who could give a damn whether every person approved of our 'lifestyle' (ok, so I know of a few, but none that I call friend). What we want is legal protections and privileges from our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, the same constitution republic that will protect your right to disapprove even after granting those protections and privileges. And you just said, even if the government recognizes gay marriage you won't... the government won't force you to recognize it, it won't force you to stop saying you don't agree with it... so what exactly will be lost.

Here's an idea, you keep saying that you don't have a problem with gay people, that you believe that we should be treated with kindness and respect just as everyone else... but then say that we are deviants and don't deserve government protection equal to that of heterosexuals.
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b201/smileyeagle1021/4154_1153007940609_1089961423_48215.jpg
say it to my face. That is the face of a deviant, one who violates the norms, one who wishes to 'force his lifestyle upon you'.
I'm working a crappy graveyard shift job to pay my way through college so I can start a stable career and be a productive member of society, I'm a kind and caring and loyal friend and will someday have the same qualities as a boyfriend, I enjoy good sci-fi, video games, and travel (for which I'm always saving up to do more of), when my mother had cancer I took time off work (unpaid) to drive back and forth to Reno to take care of her, I did the same thing for my grandma with her diabetes, I'm always helping classmates and coworkers, I once a month create and pack aide kits for those who are victims of natural disasters.
Please, now that you have a face and a person to match it, I don't want you to weasel out and say "homosexuals are wrong but I have no problem with you"
I am a homosexual, that is a part of me whether or not anyone else likes it, so tell me that I'm wrong and a deviant. Tell me all the damage I will do to society. Tell me how immoral I am. Tell me that despite me knowing in the depths of my hearth and soul that I could not love a woman in the same way as a man that I should still marry a woman because it's the moral thing to do. I will willingly bear the cross, I am a homosexual, I will stand up for the community if you have the courage to say those things to me.
You feel strongly about this, so do I. So what is it, are you willing to say those things to my face or are you going to continue to speak in vagaries. If you have a problem with who I am you should have a problem with me... so say all that you want to say, I will take it because it needs to be said at some point and I can handle it.

[Rubystars]

That would be because once upon a time divorce carried a higher stigma than smacking your wife around. Destructive marriages stayed together because of social norms despite what would have been better for the people involved. Once both genders reached equal footing in the eyes of society, women could start leaving. This is not a bad thing and hasn't harmed society.


I don't condone physical abuse within a marriage but I think people split nowadays over many insignificant things that never would have been grounds for divorce in the past.


If you want to argue against divorce, that is a completely different topic than gay marriage. In fact, I would say that your stance that gays have the right to marry straights actually leads to more divorces, especially painful ones, for reasons I detailed in a previous post.


As I said (sorry, I'm repeating stuff again). I don't think gays should marry straights, unless they're bisexual. However they have the same right to do so as anyone else, therefore they're not denied any rights that other people have.


Also keep in mind that for some people, blood relation does not mean a lot since they come from terrible families. However, they still need that bond with others in their lives. That's why you will see non-traditional family groups.


You can certainly treat someone as if they were family and that's usually a good thing, not a bad thing. I just don't like the idea of redefining the word "family" to fit this.


Now, as for Christians being persecuted for having to recognize something that you don't see as moral:
That is not persecution. Sorry.


Not any more than gays are being persecuted anyway. lol


If we took a poll from various members of other religions and took that into consideration when we create laws of the land, we as a society would be stuck with a lot of laws that not everyone would see as moral, and probably would view as quite restrictive.
What if orthodox jews and muslims managed to codify into law that our food supply had to be kosher and halaal? I don't know about you, but I have no moral qualms about eating pork.
How about if Jainists got their oar in and banned fly swatters?


They have a right to advocate for those things even though I'd be against most of it.


I could go on. However, my point is that while you are allowed to have a stricter moral code than society's laws, the law of the land simply needs to codify behavior that keeps people from harming others. Gay marriage does not harm others. Harming someone's sensibilities does not count.

The gay community along with drug users caused AIDS to spread through the USA so yes that did harm other people.

[BroomJockey]

It just doesn't fit the definition of marriage.


There's a book you need to read. It's called "The Importance of Being Monogamous," by Sarah Carter. It talks about how one man + one woman marriage was a standard enforced by the government during settlement of North America, not only on Natives, but other ethnic groups, and divorce wasn't hard to obtain, before that period. So your definition of marriage is only as old as the push to colonize the western parts of North America, and were forced on to the population in the first place.

[Rubystars]

Smileyeagle, I forgot about adoption when I made that post. Of course if someone adopts a child into their family then that child is their family. This is similar to a couple's own children, they usually plan to have them so that's another exception if you want to bring that up. However what I meant is that you don't choose who you are blood related to.

[Rubystars]

There's a book you need to read. It's called "The Importance of Being Monogamous," by Sarah Carter. It talks about how one man + one woman marriage was a standard enforced by the government during settlement of North America, not only on Natives, but other ethnic groups, and divorce wasn't hard to obtain, before that period. So your definition of marriage is only as old as the push to colonize the western parts of North America, and were forced on to the population in the first place.

Even in societies where other patterns happen, monogamy is usually the most common arangement among human societies.

[Fenrus]

The gay community along with drug users caused AIDS to spread through the USA so yes that did harm other people.
I really REALLY want to hear your stats on the gay community spreading AIDS. Especially considering the contraction rate in African American heterosexual couples.

It's true it was originally thought of as a "gay" disease... but if it's a gay disease, how do so many heterosexual couples contract it?

[BroomJockey]

As I said (sorry, I'm repeating stuff again). I don't think gays should marry straights, unless they're bisexual. However they have the same right to do so as anyone else, therefore they're not denied any rights that other people have.
<snip>
The gay community along with drug users caused AIDS to spread through the USA so yes that did harm other people.

First off, the right to marry, in the Christian tradition is about marrying the person you love. Are you saying a loveless marriage is still a marriage? Seems like marrying for convenience is a more damaging idea than allowing marriage between gays. Second off, it's already been said, gay != bi. You'd be effectively condoning the use of another human being as a prop in a sham marriage. That's a little dehumanizing, imo. "Hey honey, sorry I don't love you, but I gotta keep up appearances at the office! So put that ring back on and stop crying that I don't love you." Furthermore, under your definition, mail-order-brides, and green card marriages are less damaging to the institution of marriage than gays marrying.

Do you know WHY AIDS spread through the gay community? Because society refused to treat it as anything besides "the gay disease." "Let AIDS kill them off, the homos deserve it." If society had done some searching, research, and education, it would have been, you know, NOT spread. Instead people said "IT IS A PUNISHMENT FROM GOD FOR YOUR UNCLEAN WAYS."

[BroomJockey]

Even in societies where other patterns happen, monogamy is usually the most common arangement among human societies.

Read the book. It's not the most common.

ETA: Furthermore, marriage PERIOD was a religious construct to create couples that shared beliefs (hence the numerous prescriptions about not marrying between religions), and thus would have children raised in those beliefs, rather than being exposed to other beliefs. Marriage was a system of control imposed upon the believers. Along with the "sin" of birth control, it ensured lots of up-and-coming believers in the next generation.

[AFPheonix]

I don't condone physical abuse within a marriage but I think people split nowadays over many insignificant things that never would have been grounds for divorce in the past.

So better marriage counselling both before and during the marriage would be wise. However, that has no bearing on allowing gay marriage.



As I said (sorry, I'm repeating stuff again). I don't think gays should marry straights, unless they're bisexual. However they have the same right to do so as anyone else, therefore they're not denied any rights that other people have.

But they are. They are being denied the right to marry the PERSON they wish to marry, despite the fact that the PERSON they wish to marry is of age and able to give consent. That is the right that you and I have partaken of, I would like to see others be able to as well.



You can certainly treat someone as if they were family and that's usually a good thing, not a bad thing. I just don't like the idea of redefining the word "family" to fit this.
I don't think people are trying to codify these types of family into law, and frankly it is a stupid tangent that has little to do with the topic. However, people feel strongly about others not related to them.



Not any more than gays are being persecuted anyway. lol
The day that Christian is as bad an insult as faggot will be the day that Christians in the modern US feel the persecution gays do. When pretending to carry a bible is as insulting as pretending to mince about in a feminine manner, then you'll feel some persecution.
The day when a Christian is hung on a fence to die after being beaten with a pistol in the modern US simply for being Christian, then you will have the same level of persecution.
The day you are not allowed to marry another Christian, despite being 2 adults able to give consent, will be the day you are persecuted.
Christians in the US, being a majority to be pandered to, are not persecuted, despite the group think you take part in at church. Believe me, I know, I've been there, I bought into it too.



They have a right to advocate for those things even though I'd be against most of it.
But you feel safe from it because they are the minority. What if they were the majority and were able to enact their moral laws that would inhibit you? The point is, you cannot deny other people rights that are not harmful to society simply because you don't agree with them because of the religion you grew up in. Doing so opens the door to do the same to you.



The gay community along with drug users caused AIDS to spread through the USA so yes that did harm other people.
Early Christian missionaries and explorers just about wiped out the indians with smallpox and syphilis. Are you saying the Spanish and missionaries should not have the right to marry because they introduced a plague they didn't entirely understand?

[Rubystars]

I really REALLY want to hear your stats on the gay community spreading AIDS. Especially considering the contraction rate in African American heterosexual couples.

It's true it was originally thought of as a "gay" disease... but if it's a gay disease, how do so many heterosexual couples contract it?

Heterosexuals get it from drug use (sharing needles). Also they can get it from blood products in hospitals, other blood exposure, and if a spouse is cheating on them. They would also have it if their mother had HIV infection and they were born with HIV themselves. It's the gays that keep saying HIV had something to do with them. A few months ago pieces of the AIDS quilt were on display in the public library and a bunch of rainbow flags were around it.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Not really, most people are far from monogamous.

Extra-marital relationships, divorce and re-marriage are all non monogamous actions, and they're incredibly common. Coupled with the fact that most human societies (treating Western civilization as a single society) have never been monogamous unless forced by the onset of another civilization.

Also, you're argument, Ruby, that the fact everyone has the right to marry women is bullshit, plain and simple. Heterosexuals can marry the person they love deeply, Homosexuals can't. To say otherwise is to say that Homosexual love isn't love, but that's not up to you to decide. Maybe it's not your kind of love, but it's love nonetheless.

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are also important to remember. If Homosexuals can't marry those that they love, they are deprived not only of liberty, but also the pursuit of happiness.

EDIT: Sorry Ruby, but the fact that people who like to announce their sexual orientation also want to raise awareness of AIDS doesn't in any way mean they are connected. It was the longstanding belief among the Heterosexual community that AIDS is a 'gay' disease that the two got connected. There is no scientific basis for any connection, nor is there any social precedent for AIDS awareness compared between sexualities.

[Rubystars]

http://encarta.msn.com/media_461546913_761561730_-1_1/Monogamy.html

"Monogamy is the most common form of marriage. In a monogamous marriage, two people are married to each other and to no one else. This Jordanian family consists of a monogamous couple with their children."

[BroomJockey]

Heterosexuals get it from drug use (sharing needles). Also they can get it from blood products in hospitals, other blood exposure, and if a spouse is cheating on them. They would also have it if their mother had HIV infection and they were born with HIV themselves. It's the gays that keep saying HIV had something to do with them. A few months ago pieces of the AIDS quilt were on display in the public library and a bunch of rainbow flags were around it.

You seem to be making a bad assumption. Heterosexuals aren't magically immune from AIDS unless it's from a needle or a cheating spouse. The word you're looking for is monogamous couples aren't at risk for AIDS except for those couples. Anyone who has sex with more than one partner in their entire lives (and it's common for heterosexual college students to fuck anything that moves, after all) is at risk that someone in the chain has AIDS. And any couple can be monogamous, including gays.

[Fenrus]

Heterosexuals get it from drug use (sharing needles). Also they can get it from blood products in hospitals, other blood exposure, and if a spouse is cheating on them. They would also have it if their mother had HIV infection and they were born with HIV themselves. It's the gays that keep saying HIV had something to do with them. A few months ago pieces of the AIDS quilt were on display in the public library and a bunch of rainbow flags were around it.

All those "heterosexual" contractions are the same for homosexual relationships. The LGBT community sees AIDS in their community simply because it's a part of EVERYONE's life, not just LGBT people. Heterosexual people contract AIDS as well, which explains many of the OTHER patches on the freaking quilt. The rainbow flag is just more easily identified.

[BroomJockey]

"Monogamy is the most common form of marriage.

Whoops! What about the relationships not thought of as marriage? Just because it's the most common form of marriage doesn't take in to account unmarried relationships. Further, they're talking about strictly one-man/one-woman, which is fine, but then they don't go on to talk about how many of those "monogamous" couples cheat. Which is a non-monogamous action. They're talking strictly about marriages which are on the books as being between two people. That sorta shoots your "hetero marriages are better," since it doesn't address any of those issues. Maybe there's less cheating in a polyamourous marriage?

[Rubystars]

But they are. They are being denied the right to marry the PERSON they wish to marry, despite the fact that the PERSON they wish to marry is of age and able to give consent. That is the right that you and I have partaken of, I would like to see others be able to as well.


That's only if you see that as being a marriage. If two guys get together they're not married anyway. To call that a marriage is absurd in my opinion. I know other people here feel that it's just the same as a hetero marriage, but I don't.


I don't think people are trying to codify these types of family into law, and frankly it is a stupid tangent that has little to do with the topic. However, people feel strongly about others not related to them.


They're trying to force "family law" to acknowledge gays as being married.


The day that Christian is as bad an insult as faggot will be the day that Christians in the modern US feel the persecution gays do. When pretending to carry a bible is as insulting as pretending to mince about in a feminine manner, then you'll feel some persecution.


I feel really grossed out when I see men walking around acting feminine. I don't like certain religions (such as Islam), but if I were to see someone carrying a Qu'ran around I wouldn't be grossed out in the same way I would to see a man giggling and acting like a woman. I also feel yucky when I see women who go out of their way to be butch.


The day when a Christian is hung on a fence to die after being beaten with a pistol in the modern US simply for being Christian, then you will have the same level of persecution.


It might not be that far off. Apparently basic Christian values are being maligned as hateful and bigoted.


The day you are not allowed to marry another Christian, despite being 2 adults able to give consent, will be the day you are persecuted.
Christians in the US, being a majority to be pandered to, are not persecuted, despite the group think you take part in at church. Believe me, I know, I've been there, I bought into it too.


This probably isn't too relevant to the conversation but I'm really not a church type of person.


But you feel safe from it because they are the minority. What if they were the majority and were able to enact their moral laws that would inhibit you?


The left wing has already tried to do this by trying to ban public prayer, etc.


The point is, you cannot deny other people rights that are not harmful to society simply because you don't agree with them because of the religion you grew up in. Doing so opens the door to do the same to you.


I do think that dissolving the defiitions of marriage and family will be harmful to society in the long term.


Early Christian missionaries and explorers just about wiped out the indians with smallpox and syphilis. Are you saying the Spanish and missionaries should not have the right to marry because they introduced a plague they didn't entirely understand?

I'm not sure if that was deliberately done or done completely by accident. But anyway whatever Spanish were involved in that are already dead, so it's really a moot point.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

One could definitely say that there is no cheating in polygamous relationships because any need is done away with. Besides which, we're talking about monogamous people and relationships in our little aside... not just marriage.

Furthermore, you keep skirting around the fact that you're depriving rights. We're not saying you should like it, we're saying they have a right you just happen not to like.

That said, Ruby, I would like to see you PROVE that it's harmful. Otherwise making a law based on it would not only be stupid, but incredibly harmful.

[Rubystars]

Whoops! What about the relationships not thought of as marriage? Just because it's the most common form of marriage doesn't take in to account unmarried relationships.
Further, they're talking about strictly one-man/one-woman, which is fine, but then they don't go on to talk about how many of those "monogamous" couples cheat. Which is a non-monogamous action. They're talking strictly about marriages which are on the books as being between two people. That sorta shoots your "hetero marriages are better," since it doesn't address any of those issues. Maybe there's less cheating in a polyamourous marriage?

I'm also against cheating.

[BroomJockey]

I'm also against cheating.

Don't mix up your terms, though. State what you actually mean. You're muddying the waters. Don't interchange "heterosexual" for "monogamous," if you mean "straight people who don't cheat on each other," then say it. You're implying that "heterosexual" = "monogamous." And that's not true.

[Rubystars]

You're right BroomJockey. I'm assuming a lot of things as being understood when I really need to be more specific. For example when I said that a man and a woman who are married and have children is the ideal situation, I did not mean for this to include things like abusive relationships, child abuse, cheating, etc.

[smileyeagle1021]

It might not be that far off. Apparently basic Christian values are being maligned as hateful and bigoted.


at one point or another many churches have said/done the following
*god hates fags
*homosexuals should be put to death
*beatings of homosexuals that aren't condemned and in some cases condoned by church leaders
*state legislatures, who claim to be legislating based on their church's views, who take pride in insuring that it is legal to fire someone for being homosexual.
*same state legislatures who have fought to disallow hospital visitation right for homosexuals
*women can't hold the priesthood
*the mormon church, finally this year, had a black man join the quorum of 70... he's the most junior member in the lowest portion of the central leadership, there's also a token Japanese guy in there, but all the other higher ups are white men.

from where I'm sitting, quite a few christian churches are bigoted and hateful.

[BroomJockey]

It might not be that far off. Apparently basic Christian values are being maligned as hateful and bigoted.

Uh... No. Basic Christian Values are the 10 commandments, or "Love your neighbour as you love yourself and God." Anything past that isn't basic, as it isn't universally agreed upon by all Christian sects. If you can provide a *universally held Christian belief* that people are denouncing as hateful, then I'll concede on that point. But I doubt you can. And I'm talking about all but fringe groups, ones that would be considered "fundamentalist." Just to make it a bit easier on you. Since there's Christian churches that allow gay marriage, that's not one. What else you got?

[Rubystars]

Uh... No. Basic Christian Values are the 10 commandments, or "Love your neighbour as you love yourself and God." Anything past that isn't basic, as it isn't universally agreed upon by all Christian sects. If you can provide a *universally held Christian belief* that people are denouncing as hateful, then I'll concede on that point. But I doubt you can. And I'm talking about all but fringe groups, ones that would be considered "fundamentalist." Just to make it a bit easier on you. Since there's Christian churches that allow gay marriage, that's not one. What else you got?

There are a lot of left-wing, liberal churches nowadays so most traditional Christian beliefs will not be represented in all modern churches. Even the idea that Jesus is essential for salvation is not accepted by all so-called Christian churches.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Maybe not all, but most is all you need to have a majority.

[the_std]

And thus we continue to see that your definition of anything is what you see as the only true interpretation of whatever it is. This argument has become pointless as you continue to skirt questions and repeat meaningless statements. I'm just glad that your viewpoint will not win out in the long run.

[Rubystars]

at one point or another many churches have said/done the following
*god hates fags



I don't think God hates homosexuals, but I do think that God wouldn't want them to engage in homosexual acts.


*homosexuals should be put to death


I don't believe that it's the right thing to do in today's world, although very harsh penalties were laid out in the Old Testament for various sins. I think homosexuals should have their personal safety protected and should not be put to death.


*beatings of homosexuals that aren't condemned and in some cases condoned by church leaders


I disagree with any kind of hate crime.


*state legislatures, who claim to be legislating based on their church's views, who take pride in insuring that it is legal to fire someone for being homosexual.


On this one I'd have to know more details about the cases in question. Under what context were they saying homosexuals should be fired?


*same state legislatures who have fought to disallow hospital visitation right for homosexuals


They should find a way to allow hospital visitation. There probably only needs to be some minor adjustments in hospital policy and/or medical privacy laws to allow the people closest to the patient to see them.


*women can't hold the priesthood


That doesn't have anything to do with the gay issue. I'm not a Catholic so I won't tell them how to run their church.


*the mormon church, finally this year, had a black man join the quorum of 70... he's the most junior member in the lowest portion of the central leadership, there's also a token Japanese guy in there, but all the other higher ups are white men.


I'm not a Mormon and I don't really even think of them as being Christian. However if the token black and Japanese don't have a problem with it, who am I to criticize how they run their church? I don't have to agree with it but it's not my religion.


from where I'm sitting, quite a few christian churches are bigoted and hateful.

That Phelps guy of "God hates fags" is hated by just about everyone, Christian and non-Christian.

[Rubystars]

And thus we continue to see that your definition of anything is what you see as the only true interpretation of whatever it is. This argument has become pointless as you continue to skirt questions and repeat meaningless statements. I'm just glad that your viewpoint will not win out in the long run.

I guess we'll have to wait and see. For now the homosexuals do seem to be winning politically.

[the_std]

It's the tide of history. You're in the bigoted minority, and the tide usually takes those people over eventually.

[Pedersen]

As I said (sorry, I'm repeating stuff again). I don't think gays should marry straights, unless they're bisexual. However they have the same right to do so as anyone else, therefore they're not denied any rights that other people have.

Ya know, something occurred to me the other day. Homosexuals are not just fighting for their own right to marry the same sex. They are fighting for everybody's right to marry whomever they choose. That's right, they're even fighting to ensure that you have the right to marry your same gender, should you so choose.

Personally, even though I won't be using that option, I thank them for fighting for my rights.

[smileyeagle1021]

Personally, even though I won't be using that option, I thank them for fighting for my rights.

you are most welcome Pedersen :)

[Nyoibo]

Where in this thread did I say I wanted to persecute gays?

Persecute: You keep using this word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Persecute: to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, esp. because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently

Yes, yes you do want to persecute homosexuals, whether you realize it or not.

[AFPheonix]

That's only if you see that as being a marriage. If two guys get together they're not married anyway. To call that a marriage is absurd in my opinion. I know other people here feel that it's just the same as a hetero marriage, but I don't.
And once again we've come to the question that you cannot seem to answer: Should your own personal opinion, shaped by your religious upbringing, be allowed to codify into law a restriction of rights for a group of people?
Again, all we are wanting is that the wording of marriage, as defined secularly and for the state, to be a contract between two adults able to give consent. That does not prevent you from feeling that homosexuality is wrong in the least. It does not force you to recognize them. All it does is make the state recognize them.



They're trying to force "family law" to acknowledge gays as being married.
Yes, and? You yourself stated that family included spouses, yes? I should hope spouses are not blood relations. Further, we choose our spouses usually. So, according even to your own definition, family can indeed be chosen. All we want is for all people to be able to choose the spouse they want, as long as said spouse is an adult and able to give consent.


I feel really grossed out when I see men walking around acting feminine. I don't like certain religions (such as Islam), but if I were to see someone carrying a Qu'ran around I wouldn't be grossed out in the same way I would to see a man giggling and acting like a woman. I also feel yucky when I see women who go out of their way to be butch.
Yes, and your point is? None of those things mean that Christians receive as much derision or make people feel "grossed out" as homosexuals apparently can, simply by being themselves.
Well, Kirk Cameron gets a lot of derision from me, but that's because he's a goddamn moron, not because he's a Christian.
As an aside, Muslims in this country have been persecuted, as well as other religious groups like Sikhs (since they've got the whole turban thing going on) because of 9/11. I don't think Christians got persecuted after Timothy McVeigh tried to blow up stuff in Oklahoma City. So again, Christians are not persecuted simply because of who they are and what they worship.



It might not be that far off. Apparently basic Christian values are being maligned as hateful and bigoted.
This is not a basic Christian value. It is actually debated in quite a few different denominations, and homosexuality itself received very little mention in the Bible. Basic Christian values would include the salvation story and the teachings of Christ, who did not say a word about gays, although he did hang out with prostitutes and thugs quite a bit.



This probably isn't too relevant to the conversation but I'm really not a church type of person. Interesting, consider you are stating many arguments I have heard in and from various conservative churches and religious leaders and institutions.



The left wing has already tried to do this by trying to ban public prayer, etc.
Because the left wing realizes that not everyone is Christian, therefore having a prayer slanted towards the Christian tradition coming from a state entity is not fair to people who worship other religions or people like myself and Flyn who do not worship at all.
You are still perfectly able to pray yourself, even in public places. You can even include people who wish to join you. You just don't get to make people who don't want anything to do with it to partake.
Hell, there's still prayer involved in the Presidential Inauguration, including speeches from big name preachers. I don't think Christians really have that much to complain about.



I do think that dissolving the defiitions of marriage and family will be harmful to society in the long term.
It won't be dissolved, just made so that people can marry the PERSON they wish, regardless of gender, as long as they are of age and able to give consent.
(let's see how many times I can reiterate that)



I'm not sure if that was deliberately done or done completely by accident. But anyway whatever Spanish were involved in that are already dead, so it's really a moot point.

By accident no doubt, much like how AIDS came to infect people, gay and straight, through sex, drugs, blood transfusions, natural childbirth, etc before researchers figured out what was up.
It's not moot, it's a very valid comparison. One that you skirted.

[guywithashovel]

Well, Kirk Cameron gets a lot of derision from me, but that's because he's a goddamn moron, not because he's a Christian.


You mean you weren't swayed by the Banana Argument? ;) (Though in fairness, it was Cameron's cohort, Ray Comfort, who did most of the work on this one)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfv-Qn1M58I

What about the Crockoduck? I found that quite compelling. :rolleyes:

[Rubystars]

You mean you weren't swayed by the Banana Argument? ;) (Though in fairness, it was Cameron's cohort, Ray Comfort, who did most of the work on this one)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfv-Qn1M58I

What about the Crockoduck? I found that quite compelling. :rolleyes:

Oh gosh that's so stupid. lol Thanks for sharing that video. :D

[Boozy]

Although I'm generally pleased (and proud) of how everyone is handling themselves here given how heated this debate has become, there has been at least one incident of name-calling and a few more that skirted the line. I don't want to close what has become a very popular thread because of one or two unfortunate incidents. Please make sure your posts focus on the argument of the poster, not the poster themselves.

Thanks guys.

[Rubystars]

And once again we've come to the question that you cannot seem to answer: Should your own personal opinion, shaped by your religious upbringing, be allowed to codify into law a restriction of rights for a group of people?
Again, all we are wanting is that the wording of marriage, as defined secularly and for the state, to be a contract between two adults able to give consent. That does not prevent you from feeling that homosexuality is wrong in the least. It does not force you to recognize them. All it does is make the state recognize them.


I have a problem with the state recognizing them because I don't want the state to be officially condoning homosexuality.

Yes, and? You yourself stated that family included spouses, yes? I should hope spouses are not blood relations.

Of course family includes spouses. A spouse is someone of the opposite gender that you're married to.


Further, we choose our spouses usually. So, according even to your own definition, family can indeed be chosen. All we want is for all people to be able to choose the spouse they want, as long as said spouse is an adult and able to give consent.

I don't want marriage or spouse redefined to fit a left wing agenda.


Yes, and your point is? None of those things mean that Christians receive as much derision or make people feel "grossed out" as homosexuals apparently can, simply by being themselves.


Years ago, they were able to control this effeminate and/or butch behavior in public and act relatively 'normal'. This leads me to believe this isn't something they're doing because it's who they are, but something they're doing specifically because they can now without serious repercussions in most cases. It's more of that "We're here, we're queer, and we're in your face" mentality, and less about acting as themselves.


As an aside, Muslims in this country have been persecuted, as well as other religious groups like Sikhs (since they've got the whole turban thing going on) because of 9/11. I don't think Christians got persecuted after Timothy McVeigh tried to blow up stuff in Oklahoma City. So again, Christians are not persecuted simply because of who they are and what they worship.


I think it's only a matter of time, really, if things don't change.

This is not a basic Christian value. It is actually debated in quite a few different denominations, and homosexuality itself received very little mention in the Bible. Basic Christian values would include the salvation story and the teachings of Christ, who did not say a word about gays, although he did hang out with prostitutes and thugs quite a bit.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Cr&c=6&v=1&t=KJV#top




Interesting, consider you are stating many arguments I have heard in and from various conservative churches and religious leaders and institutions.


I didn't claim to be the one to come up with any original ideas here.


Because the left wing realizes that not everyone is Christian, therefore having a prayer slanted towards the Christian tradition coming from a state entity is not fair to people who worship other religions or people like myself and Flyn who do not worship at all.
You are still perfectly able to pray yourself, even in public places. You can even include people who wish to join you. You just don't get to make people who don't want anything to do with it to partake.
Hell, there's still prayer involved in the Presidential Inauguration, including speeches from big name preachers. I don't think Christians really have that much to complain about.


I wish the last inauguration hadn't happened at all. ;)



It won't be dissolved, just made so that people can marry the PERSON they wish, regardless of gender, as long as they are of age and able to give consent.
(let's see how many times I can reiterate that)


Probably as many times as I've had to reiterate my points. I understand what you believe but I don't believe the same way.


By accident no doubt, much like how AIDS came to infect people, gay and straight, through sex, drugs, blood transfusions, natural childbirth, etc before researchers figured out what was up.
It's not moot, it's a very valid comparison. One that you skirted.

I think there's a difference because gays were and probably still are spreading disease through sexual immorality, and deliberate choices to engage in risky sex, while what you described likely only happened due to different populations meeting.

[BroomJockey]

I have a problem with the state recognizing them because I don't want the state to be officially condoning homosexuality.


*tweet* Flag on the play! Evading question! The question WAS NOT why do you have a problem with it, but, and I quote, "Should your own personal opinion, shaped by your religious upbringing, be allowed to codify into law a restriction of rights for a group of people?"

Stop stepping around the question and answering what you want to answer. Answer the question that's being asked.

[Rubystars]

*tweet* Flag on the play! Evading question! The question WAS NOT why do you have a problem with it, but, and I quote, "Should your own personal opinion, shaped by your religious upbringing, be allowed to codify into law a restriction of rights for a group of people?"

Stop stepping around the question and answering what you want to answer. Answer the question that's being asked.

I'm not trying to step around the question. I might have misunderstood what you meant. I think that the opinion of the people of a country, regardless of what origin that opinion has (religious, or otherwise) should be reflected by their government. At least, all groups within the country should be able to work for their opinion to prevail, even if one of the opinions would restrict some rights of one or more groups.

[BroomJockey]

I'm not trying to step around the question. I might have misunderstood what you meant.

You're still not answering the question. Again, "Should your own personal opinion, shaped by your religious upbringing, be allowed to codify into law a restriction of rights for a group of people?"

This is not a difficult question. In a society where laws are created in order not to legislate morality, but prevent harm to the greatest number of people, why should your opinion be the one adopted in to law when it harms the rights of a group?

[Rubystars]

Here's an idea, you keep saying that you don't have a problem with gay people, that you believe that we should be treated with kindness and respect just as everyone else... but then say that we are deviants and don't deserve government protection equal to that of heterosexuals.


I just don't think you should have special recognition of homosexual lifestyle by the government.


http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b201/smileyeagle1021/4154_1153007940609_1089961423_48215.jpg
say it to my face. That is the face of a deviant, one who violates the norms, one who wishes to 'force his lifestyle upon you'.


Hello there. :)


I'm working a crappy graveyard shift job to pay my way through college so I can start a stable career and be a productive member of society, I'm a kind and caring and loyal friend and will someday have the same qualities as a boyfriend, I enjoy good sci-fi, video games, and travel (for which I'm always saving up to do more of), when my mother had cancer I took time off work (unpaid) to drive back and forth to Reno to take care of her, I did the same thing for my grandma with her diabetes, I'm always helping classmates and coworkers, I once a month create and pack aide kits for those who are victims of natural disasters.


You sound like a great guy.


Please, now that you have a face and a person to match it, I don't want you to weasel out and say "homosexuals are wrong but I have no problem with you"
I am a homosexual, that is a part of me whether or not anyone else likes it, so tell me that I'm wrong and a deviant.


I think homosexuality is a deviant behavior and immoral. I would tell you that if you were here in person too.


Tell me all the damage I will do to society. Tell me how immoral I am. Tell me that despite me knowing in the depths of my hearth and soul that I could not love a woman in the same way as a man that I should still marry a woman because it's the moral thing to do. I will willingly bear the cross, I am a homosexual, I will stand up for the community if you have the courage to say those things to me.


What, do you want me to say something nasty to you? I don't want to say anything nasty to you. I just disagree with the homosexual lifestyle. You can't help how you feel but people can control their actions.


You feel strongly about this, so do I. So what is it, are you willing to say those things to my face or are you going to continue to speak in vagaries. If you have a problem with who I am you should have a problem with me... so say all that you want to say, I will take it because it needs to be said at some point and I can handle it.

I have a problem with homosexual political agendas and some homosexual behaviors.

[Rubystars]

You're still not answering the question. Again, "Should your own personal opinion, shaped by your religious upbringing, be allowed to codify into law a restriction of rights for a group of people?"

This is not a difficult question. In a society where laws are created in order not to legislate morality, but prevent harm to the greatest number of people, why should your opinion be the one adopted in to law when it harms the rights of a group?

Yes if I fight for my opinion and it gets adopted, of course it should be the one put into law, even if in your view, it violates the rights of others. My point was other groups have a right to fight for their opinions too. As a matter of fact, gays seem to be winning, so that should make you happy.

[BroomJockey]

Yes if I fight for my opinion and it gets adopted, of course it should be the one put into law,

*bzzt* Still not answering the question. Not "if it is adopted should it be put in to law." At this point, I have to believe you're doing it on purpose.

[Rubystars]

*bzzt* Still not answering the question. Not "if it is adopted should it be put in to law." At this point, I have to believe you're doing it on purpose.

How many different ways do you want me to try to say it so that it meets the grammar police standard?

I should have kept my response to one word: YES

On the other hand at least I'm not using words or phrases like the following:
Another words for in other words
Grap hold of for grab hold of
or shudders for shutters on a window

[Rubystars]

Let me try it one more time ok? Then I give up


In a society where laws are created in order not to legislate morality, but prevent harm to the greatest number of people, why should your opinion be the one adopted in to law when it harms the rights of a group?

Because it's the right opinion.

[Peppergirl]

Let me try it one more time ok? Then I give up



Because it's the right opinion.

:eek:

And there you have it. That sums it up.

Jesus.

[BroomJockey]

I should have kept my response to one word: YES


Finally. A straight answer. So, your opinion, which isn't even held by every member of your group, should be used to not only decide morality for the country, but restrict the rights of humans by writ of law. And not a single person has said "you are not allowed to have your opinion."

Now that we have that out of the way, here's the thing: laws aren't supposed to be legislating morality, they're supposed to be used to prevent actions which are demonstrably detrimental to society.

So, do you have any ability to show that your position is correct, ie "Gay marriage will have a negative effect on the people this country"? Because that's the only standard by which laws are meant to be created, to deter behaviour which impinges on the right or lives of others.

So, if you are unable to demonstrably prove that, why should your morals be imposed on society? Just to make you more comfortable? Just to defend your personal definition of a word?

Honestly, speaking from your brain, not your heart, please justify the imposition of a moral code not widely accepted, through the use of law. Use logic and reasoning, evidence if possible. Something more than "marriage is defined as between a man and a woman." Because definitions change. Last generation's conservatives are this generation's liberals.

[BroomJockey]

Let me try it one more time ok? Then I give up



Because it's the right opinion.

Wow, the unmitigated arrogance. Guess you can ignore my previous post.

[Cat]

Let me try it one more time ok? Then I give up



Because it's the right opinion.



No.


It is not.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Let me try it one more time ok? Then I give up



Because it's the right opinion.

Wow. The arrogance is palpable, and we finally have our answer.

Let's continue, I for one would like to reiterate the request for some sort of proof regarding some sort of negative effect on society should Homosexuals be allowed to enter into a beneficial social contract many would, in common usage/conversation, refer to as 'marriage'.

Furthermore, I would like to hear a specific answer as to why restricting Homosexual marriage is any less an infringement upon a person's rights than restricting Heterosexual marriage.

[Rubystars]

So, if you are unable to demonstrably prove that, why should your morals be imposed on society? Just to make you more comfortable? Just to defend your personal definition of a word?


It was the Christian morals that were already dominant in society. It was the gay activists that were trying to change that, to impose their form of morality on the rest of society. That's why I think you have it backwards.


Honestly, speaking from your brain, not your heart, please justify the imposition of a moral code not widely accepted, through the use of law. Use logic and reasoning, evidence if possible. Something more than "marriage is defined as between a man and a woman." Because definitions change. Last generation's conservatives are this generation's liberals.


This doesn't apply to lesbians, but sex between two men is inherently more risky for transmission of diseases because of anal bleeding. This poses a higher risk to the homosexuals themselves and to society at large.

Notice this pro-gay article
http://gayteens.about.com/od/safesexstds/f/gay_STDs.htm

It tries to say that it's not limited to gay sex because straight couples do this too. However that doesn't change the fact that anal sex is inherently more risky as the article itself points out.

If this is true and gay men are engaging in risky sex, then it does pose a public health risk.

I'm not even asking for gay sex to be illegal. I'm just asking that the government doesn't officially condone the behavior.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Statistically anal sex is far more frequent among Heterosexuals due to the loss of stigma around the act and increased education. Also throw into the pot that there's more options out there than anal sex for gay men, and I believe your argument is thin at best.

Furthermore, we aren't talking about the government issuing statements saying that it's O.K. to be gay, because many already have, because it's true. We are talking about extending a basic and necessary right to a group of people who have been deprived of it.

P.S. Any type of sex carries risk, and every type of sex is perfectly safe if properly executed, with a few exceptions such as oxygen deprivation which are based on mortal danger.

[Rubystars]

Wow. The arrogance is palpable, and we finally have our answer.


I tried to just be as blunt as I could in that post because I felt like everything else I was posting was being misunderstood. I do think my opinion is right, but the rest of you think your opinion is right. What I tried to say, several times, was that no matter why people have their opinions, everyone has the right to advocate for what they believe in, including gays. So we both have the right to fight for our own side of the issue. Why do you want gay rights to prevail? Because you think it's a civil rights violation for it not to, right? So you want to get your way because you believe that your opinion is the right one. Make sense?


Let's continue, I for one would like to reiterate the request for some sort of proof regarding some sort of negative effect on society should Homosexuals be allowed to enter into a beneficial social contract many would, in common usage/conversation, refer to as 'marriage'.


An individual gay couple or a few gay couples probably aren't going to impact society all that negatively. However, I'm concerned about what ramifactions redefining marriage and family will have for society in the future. I'm not sure what those would be, and I don't think evidence would be easy to come by to prove those outcomes because it hasn't happened yet. I wonder what kind of societies would result from family structures that aren't based on blood and man-woman marriage. I guess my main argument is this. If it isn't broken, why fix it?


Furthermore, I would like to hear a specific answer as to why restricting Homosexual marriage is any less an infringement upon a person's rights than restricting Heterosexual marriage.

It may be an infringement on your rights if you believe that someone has a fundamental human right to marry any person of proper age that they love regardless of gender. However I don't believe that such a thing is a necessary human right. That's what the difference is. I don't see it as violating people's rights, because I don't think people have the right to get the government to condone their homosexual behavior anyway.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I would like to point you to my above post which seems to have been posted while you were still writing yours.

That said, we all think of our opinions being correct, but aren't arrogant enough to believe that our opinions are the right opinions for our entire society. Furthermore, it's arrogant to think of yourself as correct when you admit that you have no proof of anything.

I guess if it's not a basic right for people to marry the people they love, it's not necessary to have marriage at all. If it is, it's dictated by the constitution and our society that everyone is extended that right.

It's also unethical in the extreme to legislate against something you have no proof is a threat. If I were to create a billion-strong religion that believed aliens will smite us if we kiss someone somewhere other than the mouth, should that be made into legislation so as to protect us? of course not, there's no threat until proven otherwise. Furthermore, any system which does not extend equal rights is broken in this society and government.

I would also like to see something other than the 'but they can still marry women' argument. It's irrelevant because we aren't talking about the right to marry women, we're talking about the right to marry the person we want to marry regardless of gender, race, religion, etc.

It used to be that blacks couldn't marry whites, which prevented people who love each other from marrying. How is that any different, Ruby?

[Cat]

Gay marriage is legal in CT....and we're a pretty rockin' state.

No fire and brimstone, the nutmeg society hasn't crumbled, dogs and cats DO live together in peace, LI sound is still polluted, the Q and Amistad still sail.

In other words...business as usual :)

[Rubystars]

I believe that sinful behavior brings judgment upon a society. No, I'm not expecting "fire and brimstone" to reign down, but I do think that society will suffer in the long run if we openly embrace things like homosexuality as being normal and acceptable. This view is based in my religious background.

[BroomJockey]

I believe that sinful behavior brings judgment upon a society. No, I'm not expecting "fire and brimstone" to reign down, but I do think that society will suffer in the long run if we openly embrace things like homosexuality as being normal and acceptable. This view is based in my religious background.

What you continue to fail to do is present any actual reason why your view should be the preferred one. "It's my view" doesn't cut it on a debate site. I don't mean to be rude, but your continued refusal to actually back up anything you've said is equivalent to going "LALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING I'M RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG." You're completely free to have your beliefs. But to state "My view is the correct one" isn't even trying. It fails the basic premise of a debate, which is that you're trying to convince someone else you're correct. It's been continually stated that there are multiple societies which are functioning perfectly normally with gay marriage as an accepted practice, so there's no immediate effect on society, in a bad fashion. But it's your claim that it's bad anyways.

I'm sorry, but on a site for debate, "My view is correct" doesn't even come close to acceptable reasoning.

[Cat]

You are allowed to have an opinion and religious views, Ruby. But you have no right to tell people they cannot live the life they choose, with whomever they want.

There are somethings in society I personally find distasteful (will not reveal for fear of derailing this thread) yet I will NEVER tell someone they have no right to do said "something." It is their right, and does not effect me.

If a society is so weak and pathetic that people loving each other will bring it down....then I have no need for such a society.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I believe that sinful behavior brings judgment upon a society. No, I'm not expecting "fire and brimstone" to reign down, but I do think that society will suffer in the long run if we openly embrace things like homosexuality as being normal and acceptable. This view is based in my religious background.

I'm very sorry, but if you could please PROVE IT. As broom said, LALA IM RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG doesn't count as debate. No evidence? no validity.

[Rubystars]

As I said before, it hasn't happened yet, but we will have to wait and see what happens. At any rate your side does seem to be winning. I can't prove something that hasn't yet occurred. I do think that if morals continue to degrade that society will degrade with it. Several decades ago you used to be able to walk in a city without worrying too much about being attacked and killed. Not so today. Sometimes I wonder if this is a direct result of the moral looseness of modern society.

[Cat]

High crime rates can have many reason, not just the percieved "loosening of morals," which again, is an opinion

[Rubystars]

High crime rates can have many reason, not just the percieved "loosening of morals," which again, is an opinion

Yes it is an opinion, but I think many things contribute to it, but that may be at the heart of it.

[Cat]

Ok, I can't type or think straight (pun not intended), so I'll bid you guys g'night.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

As I said before, it hasn't happened yet, but we will have to wait and see what happens. At any rate your side does seem to be winning. I can't prove something that hasn't yet occurred. I do think that if morals continue to degrade that society will degrade with it. Several decades ago you used to be able to walk in a city without worrying too much about being attacked and killed. Not so today. Sometimes I wonder if this is a direct result of the moral looseness of modern society.

Sorry to rain on your little parade, but crime is DOWN.

That's right, DOWN. It's people perception of every single act of violence that happens anywhere which has grown, distorted by the fact that it's obsessed over by the media. Nevertheless, violent crime, mass shooting, etc. are all DOWN.

Just thought I'd get some facts out there.

[linguist]

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Cr&c=6&v=1&t=KJV#top
.

so in answer to an assertion that christ never said anything about homosexuality, you give us paul's epistle to the corinthians? sorry, doesn't fly. these are paul's words, not christ's.

[Rubystars]

Ok, I can't type or think straight (pun not intended), so I'll bid you guys g'night.

lol, good night

[Rubystars]

Sorry to rain on your little parade, but crime is DOWN.

That's right, DOWN. It's people perception of every single act of violence that happens anywhere which has grown, distorted by the fact that it's obsessed over by the media. Nevertheless, violent crime, mass shooting, etc. are all DOWN.

Just thought I'd get some facts out there.

I'm talking about crime now vs. several decades ago. I'm not talking about year to year fluctuations.

so in answer to an assertion that christ never said anything about homosexuality, you give us paul's epistle to the corinthians? sorry, doesn't fly. these are paul's words, not christ's.

All of the New Testament is important Scripture for Christians.

[JuniorMintz]

All of the New Testament is important Scripture for Christians.

AGAIN, you are avoiding the question. Why are you quoting PAUL when we said that CHRIST never talked about homosexuality?

[BroomJockey]

. Several decades ago you used to be able to walk in a city without worrying too much about being attacked and killed. Not so today.

Which decade? (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm) Looks like in 2005, the rate is nearly back to the 50s....

[smileyeagle1021]

You sound like a great guy.



I think homosexuality is a deviant behavior and immoral. I would tell you that if you were here in person too.


this is where I have confusion. How can I be both a great guy and a deviant at the same time?

And as for sinful behavior bringing judgment upon society... would you care to explain how it is that the European countries that are much less 'moral' by American standards routinely get better quality of life scores than the United States, or why Canada which 'condones' sinful behavior hasn't been as hard hit by the global recession as the United States? I know Utahns like to use the argument that look at how little Utah has been effected, it must be because of our upstanding morals... well no, Utah is the best off now numbers wise because we started out best off, we went from 2% unemployment to 6%.... a 300% increase of unemployment... has anywhere else beside detroit seen those percentage increase? And even then, the only reason unemployment is that low has nothing to do with morals, it has to do with the state's lose labor laws that allow lower pay, mandate less benefits, and have practically destroyed the usefulness of unions (which I guess you could argue whether or not unions are really useful, but that's another thread). If 'sinful' California and Nevada were to also drop their minimum wage, drop all other employment benefit requirements, encourage businesses to offer the same less than national average pay as Utahns receive, and destroy the efficiency of unions they too would have lower unemployment, but then again, their jobs would suck just as much as ours did... that's always been and always will be the trade off.

[JuniorMintz]

this is where I have confusion. How can I be both a great guy and a deviant at the same time?

Deviants are great, don't let anyone ever tell you otherwise! ;) :p

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Just look at Deviant Art :p

And yeah, still on the decade-to-decade scope, violent crime is still DOWN!

It makes me happy:D

In fact, going into that issue a bit further, violent crime seems to be almost directly related to the poverty level... entirely separate from morality...

[Nyoibo]

Years ago, they were able to control this effeminate and/or butch behavior in public and act relatively 'normal'. This leads me to believe this isn't something they're doing because it's who they are, but something they're doing specifically because they can now without serious repercussions in most cases.


No, it's something they're doing to be who they are because they are now able to act like themselves in public without risking being lynched.


I think there's a difference because gays were and probably still are spreading disease through sexual immorality, and deliberate choices to engage in risky sex,

And the fact that the nuber of cases of STI's in heterosexual teens is rising means homosexuals are the ones engaging in risky sex and immorality?


Sorry to rain on your little parade, but crime is DOWN.

That's right, DOWN. It's people perception of every single act of violence that happens anywhere which has grown, distorted by the fact that it's obsessed over by the media. Nevertheless, violent crime, mass shooting, etc. are all DOWN.

Just thought I'd get some facts out there.

Like crime going down 40% but media coverage increasing by 600%?

Sorry, was just watching Bowling for Columbine.

[Cat]

No, it's something they're doing to be who they are because they are now able to act like themselves in public without risking being lynched.




Exactly!!! Noone should have to to "control" they way they are out of fear of being attacked or because someone feels its "yucky."

Oh yeah...it's pretty safe to walk around in CT.

According to "traditional" religious beliefs and 1950s-mentality...I am a deviant too. Guess I am not "normal" and "yucky" as well. Meh.

[Rubystars]

this is where I have confusion. How can I be both a great guy and a deviant at the same time?


Just because one behavior you are involved in is deviant doesn't mean all the other behaviors you engage in are deviant. Surely you're not a one dimensional person.


And as for sinful behavior bringing judgment upon society... would you care to explain how it is that the European countries that are much less 'moral' by American standards routinely get better quality of life scores than the United States, or why Canada which 'condones' sinful behavior hasn't been as hard hit by the global recession as the United States? I know Utahns like to use the argument that look at how little Utah has been effected, it must be because of our upstanding morals... well no, Utah is the best off now numbers wise because we started out best off, we went from 2% unemployment to 6%.... a 300% increase of unemployment... has anywhere else beside detroit seen those percentage increase? And even then, the only reason unemployment is that low has nothing to do with morals, it has to do with the state's lose labor laws that allow lower pay, mandate less benefits, and have practically destroyed the usefulness of unions (which I guess you could argue whether or not unions are really useful, but that's another thread). If 'sinful' California and Nevada were to also drop their minimum wage, drop all other employment benefit requirements, encourage businesses to offer the same less than national average pay as Utahns receive, and destroy the efficiency of unions they too would have lower unemployment, but then again, their jobs would suck just as much as ours did... that's always been and always will be the trade off.

Europe is slowly committing suicide. In 50 years or so if things don't change it won't even be a majority of the indigenous people there. It's sad.

I'm not sure why Canada wasn't affected as badly as the US in the recession.

[Boozy]

I'm not sure why Canada wasn't affected as badly as the US in the recession.

We weren't running a deficit at the time shit hit the fan, and our debt/capita was far lower. These things make it a lot easier to weather the storm.

I can't see how gay marriage has anything to do with the recession.

Europe is slowly committing suicide. In 50 years or so if things don't change it won't even be a majority of the indigenous people there. It's sad.

May I ask why you think this is sad?

[Rubystars]

We weren't running a deficit at the time shit hit the fan, and our debt/capita was far lower. These things make it a lot easier to weather the storm.

I can't see how gay marriage has anything to do with the recession.


I don't think it has any relation to that either.


May I ask why you think this is sad?


Europe won't be Europe anymore. If I go to France, I want to see mostly French people, not Arabs and Pakistanis. I was really happy that the BNP in Britain was doing so well recently. They're at least trying to protect the rights of the native people there. I have family records in Budesheim, Germany. I'd like to go there one day and check it out. I want to see a German town, with German people in it. Most of the other European nations are having problems too where the native population is slowly being pushed out. The native Europeans have a right to be a majority in their own lands and I think they need to defend it.

[linguist]

Europe is slowly committing suicide. In 50 years or so if things don't change it won't even be a majority of the indigenous people there. It's sad.


you mean like there isn't a majority of indigenous peoples here?

besides, there hasn't been a majority of indigenous europeans in thousands of years. the last vestiges of the true indigenous europeans (the euskarans) can only be found in a small area bordering france and spain. everyone else came later, beginning with the indo-european migration out of the indian subcontinent and the middle east beginning in approximately 4000 bc.

[Rubystars]

I consider white people to be native to Europe. That's where the race developed.

[protege]

Ruby, you're coming dangerously close to sounding like a certain little Austrian with a funny mustache and a huge gas bill. By your comment, you'd also be in favor of the US returning to its native roots?

[linguist]

I consider white people to be native to Europe. That's where the race developed.
nevermind that they came from the middle east and indian subcontinent and pushed out the truly indigenous people, the proto-vasconic people (of whom the euskarans are the last surviving group).

since you seem fond of defining things, let me define indigenous for you: the people who originally settled the area. modern europeans may be native, but certainly not indigenous.

and once again, you sidestepped a question. what about indigenous americans? you don't seem so sad about them being overwhelmed by immigrants.

[BroomJockey]

Europe won't be Europe anymore. If I go to France, I want to see mostly French people, not Arabs and Pakistanis.

Wooooooow, first the unmitigated arrogance of "Because it's the right opinion," now national purity. And you still never answered me which decade (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm) it was so safe to walk around in. You can't just keep ignoring inconvenient posts. You keep spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt), and any time someone actually manages to call you on it, you keep trying to avoid it.

[Rubystars]

Give me the post numbers of the ones I supposedly "ignored" and I'll respond to them.

It was a lot safer to walk around in during the 50s than it is now. Before then too for the most part.

[protege]

Along those lines...what about this? What about people with mixed ancestry? I mean, that even though I was born in the US...and part of the family has been here well over 200 years...what about the other side of the family? I mean, I have Norwegian (some of them were supposedly here 500 years before Columbus--how about that?), Irish, German, Welsh, and several other "parts" to me. Should those sections be removed and sent "home?"

Pardon my French, but fuck that. I'm an American, dammit.

Edit: I really doubt it was any safer to walk around then. I do know that many crimes were either unreported...or hidden in the back pages of newspapers. It wasn't only until recently that the media started using sensationalism to increase viewers. Don't believe me? Come to Pittsburgh and watch the news during the winter--just about every 15-20 minutes, you'll get to hear about how much snow we're going to get.

[Rubystars]

I didn't say anything about sending Americans home. I have no idea where you read that but you certainly do have a big imagination.

[protege]

No, but you did post about national purity. There's no such thing as a "true American." We aren't all white, nor did we all come from the same place.

[linguist]

Give me the post numbers of the ones I supposedly "ignored" and I'll respond to them.
.

just going back a few pages, the posts that had either questions directly addressed to you or asking you to support your answers that you ignored were numbers 338, 345, 350, 356, 359, 360, 369, and 372.

[the_std]

If I go to France, I want to see mostly French people, not Arabs and Pakistanis.

This is something you do a lot of. Who cares what nationality of people you want to see in a given country? You talk as if your opinion gives you a right to tell them what to do with their lives. And a dark-skinned person of Arab lineage born in France is a French person. You really are scared of things that don't fit into your little world view, aren't you?

[AdminAssistant]

Look, I'm as much a fan of Europe, especially France, as anybody. But the fact is that for many centuries, especially Britain and France, were imperial fuckheads that were cutting up the world map and parsing things out as they liked. Now members of their former Empires are "coming home", so to speak.

Europe has long been a place of multi-culturalism. Especially Paris. In fact, it was due to that multi-culturalism that many of the great art forms of the late 19th and early 20th century developed. Groups of artists huddled together in Parisian cafes (Swiss during the wars) drinking pastiche and sharing ideas.

[BroomJockey]

Give me the post numbers of the ones I supposedly "ignored" and I'll respond to them.


How about the first time I posted that link? And every time someone's said "You're avoiding the question." And did you look at the chart? It's less than a .5/100,000 increase compared to then. And it's still trending downwards.

As for before the 50s, well, lesse, I mean, the early 40s, I could see your point. I mean, of course it was safe walking the streets. EVERYONE WAS FIGHTING A WAR IN ANOTHER COUNTRY. And then everyone was just so damned glad to be home after that, I could see it being safe then, too. 30s? Nothing going on there, I mean, just you know, the Great Depression. Perfectly wonderful time to be alive. Roses and puppies for everyone.

[smileyeagle1021]

Just because one behavior you are involved in is deviant doesn't mean all the other behaviors you engage in are deviant. Surely you're not a one dimensional person .


No, I'm not a one dimensional person. That said, a large part of what defines me is the values of my family. Growing up I was taught that the two most important things in your life are to first get a good education and get a good career so you can second find your 'soulmate' and start your new family with them. So when you've called my second life goal to be based on deviant desire, your saying that a very large part of me is deviant.
Even ignoring that, I would like to believe myself to be a whole, one which is greater than the sum of the parts. Take one part away and the rest is useless. Homosexuality may not define my whole character, but it can't be separated from it. There is no such thing as Smiley the community service worker, and Smiley the homosexual, and Smiley the night auditor, and Smiley the friend, there is just Smiley the person. By saying one part of me is deviant, and my argument that one part of me can't be separated from the rest, then the whole is deviant... but you've also said another part is a good person, which would make the whole a good person. Looking at it that way, do you see how it seems to be a contradiction to me when you say "you're a good person even if I think you do bad things" (I know that's not your exact words, but close enough)

I'm not sure why Canada wasn't affected as badly as the US in the recession.

I can't see how gay marriage has anything to do with the recession.


It doesn't, I only brought it up as a counter argument to those who claim that allowing gay marriage will bring God's wrath etc. etc. on that nation, and if that were the case, why is it that with the current economic crisis those nations that do condone homosexuality aren't being harder hit because one would assume that if God truly did disapprove of nations condoning homosexuality surely He could use this economic crisis as a way of punishing those nations. But so far it appears that isn't what He is doing.

ETA-
Re: crime rates- I know it's completely anicdotal, but my mother was terrified of walking alone at night in Reno during the 90's and she lived and worked in a safer neighborhood. Now she has no problem walking alone at night and even feels safe walking alone where I live and I live in a 'bad' neighborhood. I don't know if it means crime has gone down, but a lot of people I know feel safer now than a decade ago... that's go to count for something.

[protege]

I don't know if it means crime has gone down, but a lot of people I know feel safer now than a decade ago... that's go to count for something.

Well, within the past decade or so, crime in Pittsburgh has gone down a bit. During the early 1990s, we had the gang wars to deal with. Seemed like every night you'd hear news reports of someone getting shot in a drive-by :eek: I can remember driving through some areas at night...and having all the lights set to green. Hell, you could do 55+ through there, and nobody would say a thing.

That went on a few years, and then suddenly stopped. Did the crime magically go away? Nope, by then, many of the gang members were either dead or in jail. Also, the city knocked down several of the abandoned buildings being used as crack houses. As if that wasn't enough, some areas have been redeveloped, and most of the "scum" has been pushed out.

Gang activity still goes on, and violent crime is on the rise again, but is nowhere near what it once was. Still, you won't see me walking through the projects any time soon. I may be crazy, but I'm not stupid :p

[Boozy]

This thread is drifting a bit too much for my liking. It's already 40 pages long. Let's start new threads if we want to discuss crime rates and "national purity". The original topic here is Miss California's views on gay marriage.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Alright, let's do it!

As we can see by the evidence laid before us:
1) There is no proof of any negative effect of 'condoning' homosexuality on the nation
2) When it comes to violent crime, the rates are actually DOWN.
Therefore
3) There is no proof that anything negative will happen should gay marriage become legal nation-wide.

Furthermore, there is undeniable inequality given that Heterosexuals have the right to marry anyone they may be in love with while Homosexuals cannot.

Therefore, I find that Miss California's opinion, while she is entitled to have it, should not in any way effect the creation or lack thereof of legislation.

We can now expect counter-point from Rubystars :D

[Rubystars]

I've tried to respond to every point that people have made but I might have missed some. I've noticed that even when I try to be thorough and answer everything it seems like people are accusing me of not answering questions. So what exactly are the questions I missed? I promise to do my best to answer them.

[Rubystars]

Alright, let's do it!

As we can see by the evidence laid before us:
1) There is no proof of any negative effect of 'condoning' homosexuality on the nation
2) When it comes to violent crime, the rates are actually DOWN.
Therefore
3) There is no proof that anything negative will happen should gay marriage become legal nation-wide.


I don't agree with the government's condoning homosexuality because I believe it to be immoral. I feel like if gay marriage is made legal, then it gives a sort of official legitimacy or declaration of normalcy to that lifestyle which I don't think it deserves to have.


Furthermore, there is undeniable inequality given that Heterosexuals have the right to marry anyone they may be in love with while Homosexuals cannot.


I think that the two types of relationships (heterosexual and homosexual) will always be unequal in fact, because one is normal and the other abnormal.

Therefore, I find that Miss California's opinion, while she is entitled to have it, should not in any way effect the creation or lack thereof of legislation.

We can now expect counter-point from Rubystars :D

I hope this post is adequate.

[BroomJockey]

I've tried to respond to every point that people have made but I might have missed some. I've noticed that even when I try to be thorough and answer everything it seems like people are accusing me of not answering questions.

We accuse you of that because you answer the question you want to, not the question that was actually asked. As for the other, that was covered.

just going back a few pages, the posts that had either questions directly addressed to you or asking you to support your answers that you ignored were numbers 338, 345, 350, 356, 359, 360, 369, and 372.

BUT, Boozy has asked us to confine it strictly to Miss California, and her comments, and whether it's discrimination that she didn't win after making her statement. So, everyone, focus on that, which, actually, means our own views of gay marriage are now irrelevant to the debate! Reboot!

[Boozy]

Actually, I really don't mind the debate about gay marriage continuing. I was just concerned because the discussion was veering into crime rates and racial issues. Sorry I wasn't more clear.

[Rubystars]

How about the first time I posted that link? And every time someone's said "You're avoiding the question." And did you look at the chart? It's less than a .5/100,000 increase compared to then. And it's still trending downwards.


Could you give me a post number for when you posted your link or just post it again please? I'm trying to tie up the loose ends here and I'm basically one against everyone else here so I might've been a little prone to missing some posts. It's not deliberate, it's just that I might've skimmed over too much trying to catch up. Sorry.


As for before the 50s, well, lesse, I mean, the early 40s, I could see your point. I mean, of course it was safe walking the streets. EVERYONE WAS FIGHTING A WAR IN ANOTHER COUNTRY. And then everyone was just so damned glad to be home after that, I could see it being safe then, too. 30s? Nothing going on there, I mean, just you know, the Great Depression. Perfectly wonderful time to be alive. Roses and puppies for everyone.

Your part about the depression here actually made me laugh a little. Thanks for that. ;)

My dad told me when he was a kid in the 50s they went out and played and their parents never worried about them getting abducted, and they would leave their bikes outside of a store without any kind of chain and come back and they would still be there, etc. He told me lots of things like this. Other people who grew up in the same time period also told me many similar stories about that time in America.

It's true that it's anecdotal (one of the weakest forms of evidence) but I have no real reason to think these people are lying.

[BroomJockey]

It's true that it's anecdotal (one of the weakest forms of evidence) but I have no real reason to think these people are lying.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm Here is the link again. It shows about a 4.8-4.9 rate in the 1950s, down to maybe 4.5 around 1960, and it's under 5.5 by 2005, which is as far as the graph goes.

As for the anecdotes, they weren't lying. But you forget, media proliferation was laughable. There were 3 TV stations, the local news paper, and the radio. National coverage was what individual networks picked up. That means if something happened on the end of the country opposite you, you'd never hear about it except in extreme cases. Now, however, everyone in Washington state hears about it when a child goes missing in Florida because there's stations that are devoted to news, 24/7, sensationalism brings in viewers, and with 500 channels to compete with, they need to push the panic buttons. Gang violence? Murder? Drugs? Child abuse/molestation/kidnapping? Oh yeah, you better believe that will pull in the viewers. And even if you don't watch TV, if you go on the internet, you'll see it there, too. You're virtually guaranteed to have someone in a forum post about the high-profile cases, even if you never visit a news site.

In the 50s, if it didn't happen within a day's driving distance, people just shook their heads, and thanked heavens it didn't affect them, if they even managed to hear about it. Now, the media plays up each incident, and since it's in the news more often, parents are more paranoid about letting their children out of their site, despite the numerous studies showing the large number of cases that involve people already known to the victim. This is the reason anecdotal evidence is considered so weak. People's reactions can be grossly out of proportion to the actual threat, in one direction to the other.

[Rubystars]

Thanks for reposting the graph. It does look like crime went up after all the stuff in the 60s, but if it's going back down now, then that's good. I hope it continues to go down. I still don't really believe the reality on the ground is as safe as it was back then.

I had a couple of incidents happen to me on my college campus which were pretty scary, and I was actually at work once when the in-store bank got robbed and I had to hide behind my till. I was trapped in the cigarette bullpen so I couldn't just run away without the bad guys seeing me.

Sometimes I wish I could have lived in an earlier time, because even if I wouldn't have had as many rights maybe I still would have been safer. Of course it's not right to idealize the past either, but I still think there were things about it that were superior.

[Flyndaran]

No, but you did post about national purity. There's no such thing as a "true American." We aren't all white, nor did we all come from the same place.

I also feel the need to mention that there were at least three separate immigrations into the americas thousands of years ago.
There is even evidence of a completely different technologically inferior aboriginal type of people before even that.
They got their asses handed to them by the guys with bows and arrows. The somewhat survived into the present day by interbreeding with the people of the southern tip of south america.

I'm oart native american: cherokee and blackfoot, mexican, irish, scottish, english, and india sub-continental indian. Who knows I might even have a little black in me.
Where on earth do I belong except in the U.S.? ;)

[Rubystars]

I don't have time to keep up with this thread and the other one. All I can say is I don't know how you guys got the impression when I said Europe that I meant the USA. I'm going back to the other thread now.