Gay Marriage
- Thread starter 1X83Z
- 2,302 comments
- 85,023 views
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
OK. I concede that each and every individual gay person may not be that objective. But by precisely the same token, then you must concede that each and every Christian is not as objective as phattboy is claiming.
And I'll wager that the desire to impose moral will on others is much higher among the Mrs. Grundys of America than it is among the Brucie Boys of America. I'm not claiming this as fact, but stating it as a belief of probability.
And I'll wager that the desire to impose moral will on others is much higher among the Mrs. Grundys of America than it is among the Brucie Boys of America. I'm not claiming this as fact, but stating it as a belief of probability.
- 375
Maybe there should've been a poll...I don't think that this has a whole lot to do with religions and imposing moral beliefs on others and has a lot to do with imposing left-wing liberal doctrine unto the American people. This goes beyond the simple gay marriage should be legal thing. For them, it's just one step of many to turn America into a liberal majority.
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,455
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
Originally posted by M5Power
Who are you, Wesley Clark?
Don't really know who he is...., is this an attempt at insulting me?
That's why I didn't ask if you knew.
Well, let me better phrase that.... I wouldn't think you are more or less moral than I. I wouldn't know one way or another to make that kind of judgment.
To celebrate their love? Duh?
"Yeah, lets celebrate. We have a state sanctioned marriage! YeeHaa!" Seriously, a celebration of a couple's love doesn't involve the state. It involves friends, family, and of course promises made to each other. The States interaction is a formality for financial benefits, and non other. When I got married, signing the marriage license was the smallest part of the celebration, it was just "something that needed done" while all parties involved were available. The whole time signing the license, I was wondering when we could "get back" to the celebration.
Right, wrong, or just different......,the reason for a State sanctioned marriage is not for a celebration or their love, it is only for financial benefit from the standpoint of the couple and nothing more!
The thing is, I can think of a few legal reasons why they should be allowed to marry - but I can only think of religious reasons why they shouldn't. And in this government, with its separation of church and state, religious reasons are supposed to take a backseat to the constitution. Otherwise President Kennedy would've consulted the Pope every time he made a decision.
And I for one, am one American who's glad that it hasn't taken a complete back seat. For the well being of our country, I thank God that He's still an active force in our government today. I will always pray for our leaders of our country to make proper decisions when it comes to running our country. With that prayer, there might be a separation of church and state, but there will never be a separation of God and state.
I don't hate the idea of gay marriages, but I don't condone it because of my own personal convictions. I can see some of the points that are being made here as being very valid. Valid or not, I will still not condone it. Currently, it is NOT legal for the State of Montana to recognize same sex marriages. I fully support how the law is written today and have no reason to support the change of it. In the democracy that we live in, it is by popular vote that has maintained the law as it is written today. It can then be said, that the majority of the people (at least in the State of Montana) believe that Gay marriages should NOT be recognized by the State, and should NOT be made legal. I'm grateful that a single person can't decide what "my" best interests are in regards to legislature.
There might be a fear that "my" beliefs are being forced on others. That maybe true, life isn't always fair. There are other beliefs against my own that are being forced on me. It's all a part of living in a diverse society. To be conflict free, we would have to ALL have the same backgrounds, beliefs, religions (or lack there of), creed, nationality, wants, desires, ect..... This will never happen. It is this diversity that gives society so much color and character and for that I am thankful.
Who are you, Wesley Clark?
Don't really know who he is...., is this an attempt at insulting me?
That's why I didn't ask if you knew.
Well, let me better phrase that.... I wouldn't think you are more or less moral than I. I wouldn't know one way or another to make that kind of judgment.
To celebrate their love? Duh?
"Yeah, lets celebrate. We have a state sanctioned marriage! YeeHaa!" Seriously, a celebration of a couple's love doesn't involve the state. It involves friends, family, and of course promises made to each other. The States interaction is a formality for financial benefits, and non other. When I got married, signing the marriage license was the smallest part of the celebration, it was just "something that needed done" while all parties involved were available. The whole time signing the license, I was wondering when we could "get back" to the celebration.
Right, wrong, or just different......,the reason for a State sanctioned marriage is not for a celebration or their love, it is only for financial benefit from the standpoint of the couple and nothing more!
The thing is, I can think of a few legal reasons why they should be allowed to marry - but I can only think of religious reasons why they shouldn't. And in this government, with its separation of church and state, religious reasons are supposed to take a backseat to the constitution. Otherwise President Kennedy would've consulted the Pope every time he made a decision.
And I for one, am one American who's glad that it hasn't taken a complete back seat. For the well being of our country, I thank God that He's still an active force in our government today. I will always pray for our leaders of our country to make proper decisions when it comes to running our country. With that prayer, there might be a separation of church and state, but there will never be a separation of God and state.
I don't hate the idea of gay marriages, but I don't condone it because of my own personal convictions. I can see some of the points that are being made here as being very valid. Valid or not, I will still not condone it. Currently, it is NOT legal for the State of Montana to recognize same sex marriages. I fully support how the law is written today and have no reason to support the change of it. In the democracy that we live in, it is by popular vote that has maintained the law as it is written today. It can then be said, that the majority of the people (at least in the State of Montana) believe that Gay marriages should NOT be recognized by the State, and should NOT be made legal. I'm grateful that a single person can't decide what "my" best interests are in regards to legislature.
There might be a fear that "my" beliefs are being forced on others. That maybe true, life isn't always fair. There are other beliefs against my own that are being forced on me. It's all a part of living in a diverse society. To be conflict free, we would have to ALL have the same backgrounds, beliefs, religions (or lack there of), creed, nationality, wants, desires, ect..... This will never happen. It is this diversity that gives society so much color and character and for that I am thankful.
- 715
No you cannot claim this out of convenience. To call this classic fallacy is an outright attack on social Conservatism in defining them as liars. Secondly, this is yet another attack on Christians, not just using them as an example. At least have the courage to call it what it is and quit trying to soften it into something it is not.
Actually, I dont claim to understand everything. I try, but it seems often I am unable. If that is offensive to you, I apologize. I may well have some shortcoming in my intelligence that makes me appear thickheaded to you.
However, I dont really think there is a shortcoming in my logic. The lobby for change is not coming from the right-wing conservative. The lobby to defend what already is comes from the right-wing conservative. I know of no active campaign to stamp out the freedoms of others and none has been cited. There is an active and ongoing campaign to preserve rights that are.
That being said, you also dont seem willing to recognize the truth of my original premise. Which is that the very act of lobbying for what is being lobbied for here is to change the definition of marriage as it has been defined for thousands of years and steeped in countless of their teachings for equally as many years. To change that definition is to impose change on the Christians entire life and indeed, entire belief system. To the Christian, that is harmful and naturally, they have the right to defend. The gay or anyone else who perceives the defense of the right to retain that existing definition as an attack to stamp out the freedoms of other groups seems to me to be the one not understanding and wanting to deny rights here. It was not the gays who put the definition to marriage in the first place and therefore isnt theirs to define now. Find another.
Not if you are trying to redefine fundamentals of what Christianity is and that is exactly what you are doing here.
You keep accusing this bit about Christians looking to prevent everybody else from having freedoms and yet I know of nowhere this is actively being done. It is a false accusation. They are only defending their own. They have that right and you keep calling it something that it isnt in order to promote/impose your beliefs on them.
I am a little surprised you dont think I or anyone else has a right to disapprove of something on moral grounds. What is up with that? Of course I have the right to disapprove of something.
Additionally, and back to the fundamental truth that all governments and laws are based on moral grounds, whose moral grounds are you talking about here? Yours? Under that what exactly do you mean by consenting adult morality? Who defines that and why do they have the right and not someone else. It is a matter of pragmatism that something has to set the standard.
Finally, it is simply not true that no one rational thinks murder or violence is moral. Some very rational people have affected some very rational things in history through the use of violence. You are living in a country that was wrought with violence on moral grounds. I am surprised that you would make such a statement.
As I said before Yes you are. Right at the heart of them.
No, I think it is you who refuses to understand and accuses others of it because it suits your purpose. Where are the Right Wing Conservatives trying to change your life? It is you who is trying to change theirs and they are trying to prevent it.
You cannot say this either. It is interference to try to change what I or anyone else believes and that is exactly what is going on here. We are the ones who should be saying that if our lifestyle doesnt fit their mold of morality, thats just to bad. We arent making them join in and we will not tolerate them trying to interfere. We were leaving them alone- Why are they sticking their blue noses in our business.
I suppose if I say it, its wrong but if you say it, its right?
- 715
I am not saying any institution is exempt from change. We are talking about the right to defend it from change if we so desire.
Secondly... How dare you compare this to slavery? Next thing will be to compare it to the Holocaust and other such attrocities!
BTW, many a Christian rationally gave their lives in murder and violence to rid this country of that horrible scurge... Probably right alongside some gays as well!!!
Greg
Danoff
Premium
- 34,134
- Mile High City
I don't condone the acts of drug use and prostitution because of my own personal convictions, that doesn't mean that I'm willing to tell other people that they shouldn't be allowed to do it.
There is a difference between not condoning an action and telling others that they shouldn't be allowed to do it.
I don't condone the purchase of rap CDs but I'm not about to tell others that they aren't allowed... you get the point.
Anyway, this argument means that gay marriage should be totally legal - if it is a fundamental right like drug use, prostitiution and the purchase of rap CDs should be. However, I'm not convinced that it should be a fundamental right.
But!!! Are you going to tell me that the government should be allowed to descriminate based on gender?
- 715
As another thought here... Didn't you just say over and over and over that Gays are not trying to change anything? Then what is this statement all about?
And yes, I agree to your postulation that "every Christian is not as objective as phattboy is claiming". There are zealots everywhere and in everything. Zealots are the bookends to every issue.
EDIT: There are Zealots who believe the best defense is a stong offense.
Greg
Danoff
Premium
- 34,134
- Mile High City
So the answer is yes, you believe that the government should be allowed to descriminate based on gender.
How about only offering social security to asians?
What if the government only allowed citizenship to whites?
What if the government only taxed women?
What if the government allowed black people to have higher speed limits?
or only hired gays?
or only allowed women to be president?
Edit: Or perhaps you think they're not descriminating based on gender, but, rather, lifestyle choice (which is wrong, but lets take that road).
Well that what if the government only allowed atheists to vote?
or only people who watched general hospital could qualify for welfare (oh wait..)
or only people who eat their steaks cooked rare could join the army....
or only people who smoked pot or did cocaine could be president (oh wait...)
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,455
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
The government isn't discriminating. There was a vote in Montana to legalize same sex marriages. It did not pass. It is the majority of voters that are descriminating, not the government.
Is it a double standard to allow this couple to get married, while this couple is not allowed? Yes it is.
Is it fair? Probably not to the ones trying to get married that cant.
Will it ever change? I would guess that in the future, the majority vote will eventually allow same sex marriages.
- 715
Till the cows come home it's arguable. Almost irresolvably so I would say... Not one I really want to approach... Ya bring in experts on both sides and say opposite things.
Although, to get the "ball" rolling: In their book "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's" by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen do say on page 184:
We argue that for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay, even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence
EDIT:
It is interesting to note this topic is probably as heated as it is because the entire discrimination argument is dependent upon it being "born" gay and not having a choice in the matter.
At this point, I am *sigh* in agreement with what Pako says in that Christians are probably fighting a losing battle. There are just to many people who don't have the conviction let along the strength of that conviction any more. One more in a long line of losses to the depravity of man.
phattboy
- 715
Here is some interesting thoughts for you...
"[We need] to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely -- to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution -- The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake...is to transform the notion of family entirely." - homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile
"I'm thinking even of the fact of monogamy, which is both one of the pillars of heterosexual marriage and perhaps its key source of trauma. Could it be that the inclusion of lesbian and gay same-sex marriage may, in fact, sort of de-center the notion of monogamy and allow the prospect that marriage need not be an exclusive sexual relationship among people? I think it's possible....I would never five years ago have defined myself as an advocate of marriage. In fact, the very institution smacked of precisely that which I lived my life in opposition to." - Jonathan Katz, Executive Coordinator of the Larry Kramer Initiative & Lesbian & Gay Studies, Yale University
phattboy
"[We need] to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely -- to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution -- The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake...is to transform the notion of family entirely." - homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile
"I'm thinking even of the fact of monogamy, which is both one of the pillars of heterosexual marriage and perhaps its key source of trauma. Could it be that the inclusion of lesbian and gay same-sex marriage may, in fact, sort of de-center the notion of monogamy and allow the prospect that marriage need not be an exclusive sexual relationship among people? I think it's possible....I would never five years ago have defined myself as an advocate of marriage. In fact, the very institution smacked of precisely that which I lived my life in opposition to." - Jonathan Katz, Executive Coordinator of the Larry Kramer Initiative & Lesbian & Gay Studies, Yale University
phattboy
Danoff
Premium
- 34,134
- Mile High City
It's the government that is discriminating, but it does that because the voters are telling it to.
Voters should not get to decide everything the government does. There are certain rules that should be followed. One of those rules says that the government cannot take human rights away from a person just because that person is black... regardless of what the voters say. There are basic human rights that the government must uphold in order for society to function. Imagine if the voters decided that everyone with red hair had to die. That's rediculous, you can't run a society like that.
Along with this line of reasoning one of the rules government must follow is to no descriminate based on race or gender. This is built in to our government and has been upheld by our courts. Except with respect to marriage. In this instance, the government is not living up to one of its clearly defined, agreed upon duties - the duty to not arbitrarily descriminate - regardless of what the voters say.
Edit: Go back and re-read my list and just pretend that I said that the voters were telling the government to do those things... see if it makes them any more justified.
- 10,832
Yeah. That bothers me. A lot. This is what people are fighting. And I'm with them. It qualifies as a "culture war." The writer and his followers are on some kind of crusade to transform individuals against their will. They believe they know better what is good for me. They have negatively evaluated the most precious thing I'll ever have: my opposite sex, monogomous marriage, my son, my family. I take deep offense and will struggle against it.
- 10,832
I think I will be a hetero-activist from now on, championing the rights of monogomous heterosexuals everywhere. I might have to be "subversive", too. Because that's cool. It will make me avant garde and, well, you know... cool. I can introduce myself as an "activist". When people talk about me they'll say, "milefile, hetero-activist". My penis and the orafice I chose to stick it in will become the focus of my politics.
Anyone want to join my movement?
Anyone want to join my movement?
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,455
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
Once again, as milefile pointed out, as it has been stated before, is being gay a lifestyle of choice or is it the way they were born. I for one believe that ultimately it is a lifestyle of choice. Based on that, it is not descrimination. They are not born gay. I will never condone their decision for their lifestlye of choice. Nor will I ever condone or support drug users lifestyle of choice. They are addicted to drugs, fine....quit using it as an excuse. It is a choice, get help, get over it.
- 10,832
Cool! Then your in. You are officially a hetero-activist. I am planning a march on Washington. It has come to my attention that there are homosexuals in our government. We have to eliminate them by any means necessary in order to facilitate a radical transformation of our society, one centered on the the nuclear family, monogamy, and good old-fashioned heterosexual values.
I'm working on lining up a charter bus. We can all meet in Idaho.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,134
- Mile High City
What? Somehow I missed the boat here. As far as I can tell this has almost nothing to do with my post about the government discriminating against lifestyle and/or gender.
It doesn't matter if the lifestyle is a choice or not, its still discrimination. I really don't see how it makes a difference one way or another. If it is a choice, then they could change their minds. Why does that mean that the government can chose not to offer benefits to them... much like chosing only to offer benefits to people who like to eat sushi. It's arbitrary and against the constitution.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
In the original posting of that, I specifically defined "Christian" as "the hyper-conservative, politically aggressive Jerry Falwell type". I left that out this time for space reasons. Honestly, I am not attacking Christians as a group. I dislike hyper-conservative fascists of any persuasion, be they Christian, Muslimm, Jew, Atheist, or any religion you could care to name.
First, let me stress that the words in blue were a repost, originally made to another user. Second, you show no indication of lack of intelligence.
There is not an active campaign to preserve rights that are. There is an active campaign to prevent others from sharing those rights.
I didn't define the word "liberty" as it applies to the US Constitution. So therefore I am now forced to come up with a new concept to define the state of being free? Because I didn't make the original definition? That doesn't make sense.
No, I'm not. The way I live my life is irrelevant to your beliefs and the way you live your life. I'm not trying to make you forsake your fundamental beliefs in any way.
But you're not following my point, or you're ignoring it. Your rights do not extend to my morality. My rights do not extend to your morality. I'll explain further in after this:
THIS is what demonstrates that you're not getting what I'm saying.
I fully suppport your right to disapprove of anything that does not meet your moral standards. That is your right and I will go to my death defending your right to make those choices for yourself.
The key words there are "for yourself". I will not for one second support the attempt to force that set of moral standards onto me or anyone else.
I am not asking you to be gay. I am not asking you to approve of gay people. I am not asking your church to let them be married there or worship there or join your clergy. Those are your decisions to make, based on your moral standards, and you have the right to make them. Your beliefs as they apply to you cannot offend me in any way.
But you have no right to impose morals on others who do not share them of their own free will. GAYS ARE NOT MAKING YOU BE GAY. But the social conservatives, religious or not, are trying to force everyone to be social conservatives. That's unfair and intolerable. I suppport their right to define themmselves, but I will not grant them the slightest right to define ME.
Social liberals are doing the same thing from the opposite side of the coin. New Liberals want to force everyone to participate. That's just as bad. Republicans want to stop anybody from doing anything, and Democrats want to make everybody do everything. There's no difference.
As I stated above, in a truly free society, you are free to set your own moral standards. You are free to associate with whom you choose. You are free to set your moral standards as high as you wish, and live up to themm to the best of your ability, and to surround yourself with as many people as you can find who share those standards.
But you are not free to legislate them onto others. And maintaining the law as currently written does just that, no matter how you try to blur the issue by just saying it is a matter of definition, or as danoff has been arguing, a "service".
The only standard that needs to be is set by the words "consenting adult": free, competent adults choosing for themselves what they want to do to themselves.
That allows you the freedom to be as Christian as you are able. That allows me to be as Objectivist as I am able.
And my actions, whether they meet your standards are not, cannot affect your morality. YOU have chosen behaviour that suits YOUR morality. That's fabulous, and I'm glad to see you living up to your ideals. But what I do can in no way reflect on your success. So why is there necessity to prevent me from setting my own moral standards?
Murder is murder - the initation of deadly violence. The Revolution was not the initiation of violence, it was defense violence in response to tyrannical attacks. The British government sent troops here to murder American colonists who were not obeying unjust, fascist laws. The American rebels fought a defense against that murder by throwing the British government out of the colonies and establishing their own.
Right Wing Conservatives are trying to change my life everywhere they set a moral standard for me. I've clearly demonstrated tthat I have no desire whatsoever to make them live their life MY way. I do not give my conservative neighbor across the street drugs or alcohol. I do not play my music loud enough to be heard outside of my house. I do not set my widescreen TV up facing my picture window and play pornographic videos all night. I do not leave provocative books in his mailbox. I do not knock on his door and ask him to discuss his politics or beliefs with me in the middle of a Saturday afternoon. I do not ask him to have MY gay friends over for dinner. I do not ask him to let me attend his church, or ask him to attend mine.
So why does he feel the need to do his version of all those things to me?
You are correct.
You are not correct, for the reasons I've just explained above.
Correct. And for all the reasons I've just expalined above, I have precisely ZERO problem with that.
But you are, Blanche, you are. You are imposing outside morals onto others who do not share them. You are making gay people be straight. You are making nonconformists conform so they don't offend your aesthetics. I am not imposing my morals on you - I am not making you join in any activity of which you don't approve. I do not require social conservatives to share my morals in any way beyond simply allowing ME to set my OWN moral standards for things that affect ME, as I am willing to allow THEM to set THEIR own moral standards for things that affect THEM.
Have I explained that well enough? All sarcasm aside.
- 10,832
"Marriage" is a state of being. "Laws" offer incentives for individuals to enter into this state of being, which they would, and do, enter into without. So homosexuals feel jipped for net being offered the incentives. But I say take the incentives away from everybody. Marriage and love are not government domain.
Going back and forth over whether gay marriage is illegal, moral, a choice, bla bla bla, has proven itself to be a pointless, purely academic excercise.
Going back and forth over whether gay marriage is illegal, moral, a choice, bla bla bla, has proven itself to be a pointless, purely academic excercise.
Similar threads
