Miss California?

[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]

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.

[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.

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.

[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]

*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 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]

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...&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.

[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]

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.

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[smileyeagle1021]

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

you are most welcome Pedersen

[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.

[the_std]

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