Should same sex marriages be legal?

[seinfeldrules]

Of course we should respect the opinions of religious people too.

But law is secular. If we can make defying christianity illegal, then what's stopping every other religion from making defying them illegal too?

Oh, but christianity is the majority, so we can treat them better by giving them influence over law and excluding everyone else.

But isn't giving christianity preferential treatment tantamount to giving every other religion worse treatment?

And if we treat religious minorities worse, why not treat race minorities worse? Goodbye, blackie. Let's treat the differently-abled minorities worse too, while we're at it.
After all, the majority is not paralysed from the waist down.

Let's ban wheelchair ramps because people with injuries are just trying to weaken the concept of "stairs".

I'm just saying that you treat Christians like their beliefs are stupid and insignificant compared to yours. I was merely trying to point out that their is an opposing viewpoint that feels as strongly opposed to this as you do for it. You will never get anything demanding full gay marriage and calling the other people's viewpoints insignificant. It is wrong.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I'm just saying that you treat Christians like their beliefs are stupid and insignificant compared to yours. I was merely trying to point out that their is an opposing viewpoint that feels as strongly opposed to this as you do for it. You will never get anything demanding full gay marriage and calling the other people's viewpoints insignificant. It is wrong.

I'm not anti-christian. I'm anti-discrimination.

Although I don't believe the bible is anything more than a collection of semi-fictional morality tales, I'm never going to pass a law that harms the people who base their lives off it's teachings.

Why else do you think I support gay christians just as much as gay atheists? Or why I decry atheist homophobes just as much as I decry christian ones? I didn't bring religion into this but, since someone did, I'm going to have to factor it into my rebuttal.

People can use the bible as a reason to believe all sorts of things. But when they use the bible as an excuse to do things that will harm me or the people around me, I think I'm justifed in asking them to shove it.

Some people say "we want more discrimination because the bible says so" and how can I respond? How can I see it their way when they're basically saying that my belief in freedom is far secondary to their belief in a god I don't care about.
It might sound like I'm being disrespectful, but I'm really just responding to people who are disrespecting me and essentially every other minority in north america.

It's like if I commanded you to do what I say because I believe in Allah, or Buddah, or even Chuck-E-Cheese. If you object to that, you're not disrespecting eastern religions, or even three-cheese pizza.
You're disrespecting what would be my foolish and potentially harmful opinion, and rightly so.

I'm dealing with the best-case scenario here. What should be the only-case scenario.

Under the basics of American (and Canadian) freedom, gay marriage should be allowed 100%. I don't want the idea held hostage by people who have no clue how much harm they could cause, just because there are more of them.

I'm anti-discrimination. And, unfortunately for everyone, some of those discriminators just happen to believe in the bible.

 

[seinfeldrules]

I'm not anti-christian. I'm anti-discrimination.

I never said that so the whole point of your post is gone. I said you were anti-anybodyelsesidea.

 

[Prohass]

The whole Christian purity and sanctity of marriages amazes me. Why isn't eating pork a major controversy? There is infinitely more space in the bible dedicated to the abdication of certain meats than there is to homosexual relationships.

Furthermore, I think the main threat to the sanctity of marriage is the whopping divorce rate, compared to the number of people sullying marriage through divorce homosexual wedlock is a non-issue.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

You need to identify what the word Christianity means to you.

Simple. Christianity is one of thousands of religions. Like all religions, it is a collection of teachings that are centered around the unprovable: faith.

Those teachings, recorded by men in the Bible, are used as moral guidelines to millions of Christians. Christians use their personal interpretations of the Bible's passages as lessons for improving their lives and finding a higher purpose.

Like with most any religion, some of it's followers might use their personal interpretation as a reason to harm others. Those people, however, should not be seen as representatives of Christianity. Instead, they are simply threatening people who happen to have the Bible as a motivation.

Christianity is in no demonstrable way better than any other religion, nor worse. There is simply no way to prove that one religion is better than another.

It is, however, possible to to prove when people are harming others. So, in that respect, law supercedes people's beliefs, because law is a neutral implement that prevents one person's beliefs from harming another's.

 

[CyberSh33p]

homosexuals are pretty much the last group in america without equal rights. they should be able to have full benefits and tax breaks just as straight married couples, why is this even a debate? just change the word if you're all so pissy about it.

 

[seinfeldrules]

homosexuals are pretty much the last group in america without equal rights. they should be able to have full benefits and tax breaks just as straight married couples, why is this even a debate? just change the word if you're all so pissy about it.

Agreed

 

[Prohass]

Ideally law is a neutral implement, but the basis of law is in moral codes, codes which originated in christianity (essentially the ten commandments).

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I never said that so the whole point of your post is gone. I said you were anti-anybodyelsesidea.

Okay, how's this then:

I'm not "anti-anybodyelsesidea." I'm anti discrimination.

My point still stands. I simply refered to christianity because it was the focus of the topic at hand.

If you wish, replace all reference to christianity in my post with any other belief.

I'm not anti-belief. I'm anti-discrimination.

Although I don't believe that any religion is anything more than a collection of semi-fictional morality tales, I'm never going to pass a law that harms the people who base their lives off their teachings.

Why else do you think I support all gays equally? Or why I decry all homophobes equally too? I didn't bring religion into this but, since someone did, I'm going to have to factor it into my rebuttal.

People can believe all sorts of things. But when they use their belief as an excuse to do things that will harm me or the people around me, I think I'm justifed in asking them to shove it.

Some people say "we want more discrimination just because I have faith that I'm right" and how can I respond? How can I see it their way when they're basically saying that my belief in freedom is far secondary to their belief that I don't care about?

It might sound like I'm being disrespectful, but I'm really just responding to people who are disrespecting me and essentially every other minority in north america.

It's like if I commanded you to do what I say because I believe in Allah, or Buddah, or even Chuck-E-Cheese. If you object to that, you're not disrespecting eastern religions, or even three-cheese pizza.
You're disrespecting what would be my foolish and potentially harmful opinion, and rightly so.

I'm dealing with the best-case scenario here. What should be the only-case scenario.

Under the basics of American (and Canadian) freedom, gay marriage should be allowed 100%. I don't want the idea held hostage by people who have no clue how much harm they could cause, just because there are more of them.

I'm anti-discrimination. And, unfortunately for everyone, some of those discriminators just happen to have religious beliefs.

...Better?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Here is where my stand comes from

I just find it foolish that the intolerance has to stick on the name like some sort of residue. The name thing is just petty exclusion.

This 'name' is very important to most Christians. Also, I and many others are not intollerant of gays, we just dont consider it marriage. As you and many others point out, it is a democracy and we need to listen to the majority. I am not certain if you were the one to point this out, but many others who support your views do. I dont agree with that notion at all, but just putting your arguments in perspective for you.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Ideally law is a neutral implement, but the basis of law is in moral codes,

True, but all I'm advocating is that we move closer to that ideal, instead of further away.

codes which originated in christianity (essentially the ten commandments).

Actually, most historians are surprised at how secular the constitution is. And I'd guess that morality existed before the Bible did.

Since it's creation, law has refined itself more and more over time to be more applicable to everyone. Laws that favored christians over other religions are being removed. Sodomy used to be illegal everywhere, even though there was secular no reason to outlaw it. Now it's mostly legal.

Metaphorical statues of justice portray it as a woman wearing a blindfold. She is blind because justice must never favor one person over another for purely superficial reasons.

If it did, the justice system would break down. The gay mariage ban is like lifting up the blindfold, and forcing justice to take a partisan stance. It's telling justice that in the choice between gay and straight, it should treat straight people better.

And once law is made more and more partisan, when will it stop?

Liberal and conservative, gay and straight, religious and not, law is designed to treat everyone equally.

That is one of the two extremes of law:

On one end of the stick, law applies to everyone equally in every way and keeps them safe, while still respecting their individuality.

That's what I want.

On the other end, law favors only the majority. How much freedom you have would depend on how large your population is.
In America's case, that would mean white christian men would have the most rights, and everyone else would be treated worse in relation to how many of them there were.

That's the road that decisions like a gay marriage ban would eventually lead to, if that trend was brought to it's ridiculous maximum.

 

[Detharin]

ITs not the governments place to say no. This is a social issue. In which case it comes down to freedom. It harms noone so let them marry. If they cannot find a church to marry then let them get married by a judge. I voted dont care, because i dont view it as a governmental issue that should be addressed. It should be legal, but only because its not the governemnts place to make it illegal. Personally, i dont care.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

This 'name' is very important to most Christians. Also, I and many others are not intollerant of gays, we just dont consider it marriage.

As I've said before, marriage is a word that christians do not own. marriage for gays is simply a word that is spelt the same as yours.

There is a large chain of art supply stores that have my name: Michael. But does that make my name have less value? Does my name mean any less to me now? Should I go to their store and make them change their name?

But, then, I must realise that it's not just my name. Thousands, or even millions of people are named Michael too. I'm not even the first to have that name.

The person who founded the store was probably named Michael as well, and cared enough about it that he associated it with his buisiness. We both care about the name equally, so why should I selfishly destroy all other uses of the name just because it's 'mine'? Should I make it a law that no parent can ever name their child "Michael" again, just so that I can be superficially unique?

No. That would just be petty.

It's called sharing. The value of something will not diminish just because someone else has a copy of the same thing.

If something has significance too you, that's awesome. But you won't get any more birthday presents just because you shat on the other kid's cake.

As you and many others point out, it is a democracy and we need to listen to the majority.

It is a democracy, but it is also a democracy within limits. Specifically, it must be inclusive. Democracy breaks down when people aren't given equality.

Obviously we should listen to the majority. But being big isn't equivalent to being right.

 

[f|uke]

Yes. Christians do not own "marriage", just like they do not own "God". To suggest this is most audacious. Do they not have marriage outside of the Christian religion? Are you offended when Hindus wed? Or Athiests?

 

[CyberSh33p]

would you be against simply renaming gay marraige but still giving the benefits, mechagodzilla?

or would you consider that as a form of discrimination and a thing that can't be compromised to?

just curious

 

[Apos]

If there are than show me. You say i am the one pretending yet can you back up a reality that there are contradictions.

I've had this conversation before. There's no arguing with a zealot. Anyone who argues that the Bible is free from contradiction can never be swayed by reason.

Jesus claimed to be God, God can not violte his own nature. Jesus fullfilled the law for us, he is perfectly clear about what the law is.

Sorry, but saying it is perfectly clear does not make it so, and it is particularly laughable. In fact, "fulfilling the law" isn't even a particularly coherent utterance. And this doesn't even begin to answer the question of why some OT sins are magically no longer sinful and others are. Jesus doesn't say squat about most of the OT laws, and what he does say is fairly ambiguous.

 

[seinfeldrules]

would you be against simply renaming gay marraige but still giving the benefits, mechagodzilla?

or would you consider that as a form of discrimination and a thing that can't be compromised to?

Exactly. It has been said before that all discrimination is not bad. A world without discrimination is one without judgement.

 

[Pogrom]

Exactly. It has been said before that all discrimination is not bad. A world without discrimination is one without judgement.

What is an example of good discrimination?

We are talking about the same word in the same context here?

Discrimination: Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice

 

[falconwind]

Yes. Christians do not own "marriage", just like they do not own "God". To suggest this is most audacious. Do they not have marriage outside of the Christian religion? Are you offended when Hindus wed? Or Athiests?

But that's not "real" marriage. That's unholy pagan unions.

I believe that much of this whole problem stems from the fact that opposition is stubborn, professing the flatness of the Earth because that's how it seems, and that is what they learned.
Supporters are equally resolute; they have seen validity in the idea that the Earth is spherical, or have literally experienced it.

As well, nearly every religion firmly believes that their belief system is the TRUE and RIGHT system. Every christian sect was created because some christians thought other christians were wrong. In the cases where they weren't burned at the stake, they seperated and remain confident that their way is the right way.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Discrimination- The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.

The ability to tell apart people married man to woman or man to man.

Discrimination: Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice

There would be no special treatment or consideration given to people joined under civil unions compared to those joined under marriage.

A good example of discrimination- Checking women for breast cancer, not men. Or a more realistic one, not searching 90 year old women with a walker in airports over a 35 year old Arab looking male.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Here I thought up some better examples. Dont Ivy Leage universities discriminate against people with low SAT scores and GPAs? Dont hiring practices discriminate against people who are ex-convicts?

 

[Pogrom]

Discrimination- The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.

The ability to tell apart people married man to woman or man to man.

I fail to see the advantage in distinguishing between two married couples. Why is it so 'good' to make this discrimination?

There would be no special treatment or consideration given to people joined under civil unions compared to those joined under marriage.

But we come back to the main issue. Namely, if for all intents and purposes we are talking about something that is legally the same as marriage, why not just call it marriage?

We've already established that marriage is not a word owned by Christianity. Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Atheists, Scientologists, Muslims, even Panang tribespeople from the jungles of Borneo all can join together in marriage.

A good example of discrimination- Checking women for breast cancer, not men. Or a more realistic one, not searching 90 year old women with a walker in airports over a 35 year old Arab looking male.

Not to get too off topic, but men can get breast cancer too. I personally know two men who have had breast cancer.

Or am I misinterpreting what you wrote?

 

[Pogrom]

Here I thought up some better examples. Dont Ivy Leage universities discriminate against people with low SAT scores and GPAs? Dont hiring practices discriminate against people who are ex-convicts?

No, they don't discriminate against them. They discriminate between the results of the people applying. They discern who would make the better candidate.

That is using definition #2 of discrimination instead of definition #3.

 

[seinfeldrules]

But we come back to the main issue. Namely, if for all intents and purposes we are talking about something that is legally the same as marriage, why not just call it marriage?

Because marriage has always meant the union between a man and a woman in this country. You will never get anything done by using the word marriage in this argument. While yes, religion is seperate from state, it is too deeply ingrained in society to change.

No, they don't discriminate against them.

That is using definition #2 of discrimination instead of definition #3.

That is the definition I was using

I fail to see the advantage in distinguishing between two married couples. Why is it so 'good' to make this discrimination?

One couple would not be married, they would be unioned.

Not to get too off topic, but men can get breast cancer too. I personally know two men who have had breast cancer.

Or am I misinterpreting what you wrote?

1. Didnt know men could get it.
2. I have never heard of a man getting a routine scan for breast cancer.

 

[Pogrom]

Because marriage has always meant the union between a man and a woman in this country. You will never get anything done by using the word marriage in this argument. While yes, religion is seperate from state, it is too deeply ingrained in society to change.

I still don't understand why there has to be a distinction between two sets of people who are loving and committed to each other.

Just because one couple happens to be the same sex?

There is no reason (not based in religion) that justifies such a distinction.

 

[johnnypoopoopant]

i voted no b/c i dont believe in it

 

[f|uke]

You know, I just want to say this.

Christians do not own marriage.

When I get married, and I will, it will be a very unchristian event. Nothing christian about it,. no church, no priest.

**** all that.

See, thinking about it,. i'm incensed that you think you have a say in gay marriage because of your religion.. but leading off that,.
If you think that your religion has ANYTHING to do with MY (obviously straight) marriage,. well that pisses me off.

My marriage will be holy, and wholy un-cristian. MARRIAGE IS NOT CHRISTIAN.

Bah. What do I care what you kids think anyways.

 

[Ikerous]

YEA! When f|uke and i get married, it will be totally secular!
You tell em baby.

(My way of agreaing with his post...
How did the notion that christians own marriage get started anwayz?)

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Edit: I also wish to have a secular wedding.
And what's with the avatar, seinfeldrules? Portugal should be taken over by nazis?

would you be against simply renaming gay marraige but still giving the benefits, mechagodzilla?

or would you consider that as a form of discrimination and a thing that can't be compromised to?

Actually, I already answered this question elsewheres in the thread, but here it is again for those who missed it:

I like the idea of civil unions because they're the solution that's penultimately better than nothing.

But, at the same time, I think that gay people should have the right to choose what to call their union. How would anyone like it if the governement renamed part of their religion?

Remember all the hubbub that pops up each year when some school renames their "Christmas Pageant" to be a "Holiday Pageant"?

That pisses some christians off so much, but then they turn around and do an even worse thing to the gays. It's pure-and simple hypocracy.

It has been said before that all discrimination is not bad. A world without discrimination is one without judgement.

I think I've already made it clear that I am only against harmful discrimination.

I, for one, discriminate against criminals, and I discriminate against people who try to remove freedoms from others. Basically, I discriminate against everyone that harms someone else.

From my standpoint, that's a logical position to take. Stop people from hurting people, and no-one gets hurt.

Discrimination is like chlorinein the pool.

Use none, and you take too much risk of being hurt by germs.
Use too much, and you poison the water and harm everyone.

Use a the right amount, and you remove enough germs to keep you healthy while not making the water sting your eyes. Then everyone can have fun.

There would be no special treatment or consideration given to people joined under civil unions compared to those joined under marriage.

...except one gets to choose its own name, while the other has it's name chosen for it.

A good example of discrimination- Checking women for breast cancer, not men. Or a more realistic one, not searching 90 year old women with a walker in airports over a 35 year old Arab looking male.

Off on a tangent, neither of those are good examples of discrimination. Men can and do get breast cancer too.

Best-case scenario, we would check everyone for it.

Same with the other example. 90-year old grandmothers are capable of hating america too. If she had a bomb, it sure would be egg on our faces.

Best case scenario would be that we would check everyone for weapons.

Dont Ivy Leage universities discriminate against people with low SAT scores and GPAs? Dont hiring practices discriminate against people who are ex-convicts?

Now those two are good examples, as those sorts of discrimination are based on facts.

Because marriage has always meant the union between a man and a woman in this country. You will never get anything done by using the word marriage in this argument. While yes, religion is seperate from state, it is too deeply ingrained in society to change.

I beg to differ. Lots and lots of things are traditional. People used to call black people... well, you know. It wasn't so ingrained in society that people couldn't stop saying it.

The problem here isn't that people have gotten used to church and state being kinda joined in parts (although that is a problem).
The problem is that people are trying to make C&S more like one entity.

There is nothing so prevalent that it can't change. Saying otherwise is just a defeatist attitude.

People aren't going to give up. As long as gays wish to call thier union a marriage, there will always be the possibility that it will happen. You just can't escape that.

And it's not just a faint possiblity. Those same rights have been given to almost every other minority so far. We've included the big minorities as equals. Now we're going to do the same for the little guys. It must have seemed impossible that black people would be equal. But, with every black friend and every black neighbour, people came to accept them for the people that they are. I am certain that that spirit did not die along with the 1960's.

There is no question in my mind that gays will get equal rights. I simply want them to have those rights now instead of later. It will give us a shorter period of shame to look back on.

Just as many of us wish that our ancestors had sooner come to their senses and removed those "no coloreds" signs from their shops.

 

[NeLi]

I voted yes, because, I don't believe it would matter at all, and, I believe that people have the right to do so, and, that no one has the right to tell them otherwise.

lots of commas

 

[seinfeldrules]

...except one gets to choose its own name, while the other has it's name chosen for it.

No, they dont get to chose to be called civil unions, they are married. Just as people unioned cant chose to be called married.

I beg to differ. Lots and lots of things are traditional. People used to call black people... well, you know. It wasn't so ingrained in society that people couldn't stop saying it.

Well dont black people still do it (off topic)? The N****er word was meant as a hateful slang to degrad blacks. Civil unions are in no way meant to degrade gays or their rights.

There is no question in my mind that gays will get equal rights. I simply want them to have those rights now instead of later. It will give us a shorter period of shame to look back on.

Agreed, the name, in no way, infringes on their ability to get equal rights.

 

[CptStern]

seperate but equal is still discrimination


seinfeldrules your avatar is offensive, you should know better than to make such a hateful and inflammatory image

 

[seinfeldrules]

seperate but equal is still discrimination


seinfeldrules your avatar is offensive, you should know better than to make such a hateful and inflammatory image

Well talk to sprafa, I didnt start it. Sure I could take the mature route, but whats the fun in that

 

[CptStern]

Well talk to sprafa, I didnt start it. Sure I could take the mature route, but whats the fun in that

that's really mature ..."he started it"

your avatar is not in the same vein as sprafa's: it's a common practice to burn the flag as a form of protest ...even americans do it. Your avatar is just hate mongering: you're associating an entire country with a murderous and rascist regime that exterminated 6 million people. The mere fact that you drew a swastika in that context is a hate crime in many countries ..I'm also pretty sure it's against the rules.

 

[seinfeldrules]

that's really mature ..."he started it"

your avatar is not in the same vein as sprafa's: it's a common practice to burn the flag as a form of protest ...even americans do it. Your avatar is just hate mongering: you're associating an entire country with a murderous and rascist regime that exterminated 6 million people. The mere fact that you drew a swastika in that context is a hate crime in many countries ..I'm also pretty sure it's against the rules.

Well, nobody has said anything yet. And it is a common practice to associate the Swastika with hate, which is apparently what Portugal is spewing towards America. Anyways back to gay 'marriage' because I dont want this thread closed. The topic of sigs and avatars was discussed last night and me and gh0st are sticking with our country.

 

[Gunner]

Well, nobody has said anything yet. And it is a common practice to associate the Swastika with hate, which is apparently what Portugal is spewing towards America. Anyways back to gay 'marriage' because I dont want this thread closed. The topic of sigs and avatars was discussed last night and me and gh0st are sticking with our country.

Sprafa does not speak for his entire nation. And I'm with Stern on this one, you really oughta change your avatar, and Gh0st you too

 

[Locust]

oh, all you guys are so opinionated. You are all mature and viable assets to the American society. BTW, gay marrage should be outlawed with the punishment of death if broken. It is a disgusting, unnatural practice that would be a burden on society and raise the AIDS rate in this country by who knows how much. It would cost us millions of dollars in health care for same sex couples on the job. It would not be worth the burden on the economy to legalize it. also it is a f*ing disgusting practice that has no place in civilized society.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Sprafa does not speak for his entire nation. And I'm with Stern on this one, you really oughta change your avatar, and Gh0st you too

Well I am sticking with it until he puts down his. Thats final, if you guys want to change it then call for him to put down his as well, I dont see that happening anywhere.

 

[Pogrom]

oh, all you guys are so opinionated. You are all mature and viable assets to the American society. BTW, gay marrage should be outlawed with the punishment of death if broken. It is a disgusting, unnatural practice that would be a burden on society and raise the AIDS rate in this country by who knows how much. It would cost us millions of dollars in health care for same sex couples on the job. It would not be worth the burden on the economy to legalize it. also it is a f*ing disgusting practice that has no place in civilized society.

And while we're at it, lets make divorce punishable by death too. And adultery. And the eating of shellfish. And eating meat on a friday. And working on a sunday. And sodomy.

The future's just looking brighter and brighter, isn't it?

 

[seinfeldrules]

And while we're at it, lets make divorce punishable by death too. And adultery. And the eating of shellfish. And eating meat on a friday. And working on a sunday. And sodomy.

The future's just looking brighter and brighter, isn't it?

Can we kill all the Yankees fans too? Nobody likes them anyways.