Questions for people who support gay marriage (lifestyle, legal, lawyer)

[Memphis1979]

There should be no legal marriage. What consenting adults do means nothing to me

[mattee01]

Originally Posted by Tundra Boy

Let's hear you say you wouldn't be throwing a hissy fit if the guy had been fired for supporting gay marriage. If you don't say it you're a hypocrite and if you do say it, I call bullsh*t.


If 2 people want to live life being nasty, be nasty in the closet where it should've stayed all along.



Tb

How about you keep your ideas in the closet where they should've stayed all along.

[Koale]

Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy

Lately I've been discussing this on another thread and to avoid derailing the conversation, I decided to post it in a different thread.

I've heard the argument made by those in favor of gay marriage, quite a lot in recent years. It boils down to equal treatment under the law, "it's only love", "to each his own", etc. One thing that has always escaped me is where the gay marriage supporters would "draw the line"... as in, where they would stop applying that rationale when considering other types of marriage. So I have a few questions for y'all, and let's see what type of response I get.

1) Should people who wish to marry their close relatives (sisters, brothers, children, parents, first cousins, etc) be permitted to do so because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? After all, it's only love. It may even be heterosexual love, and the two parties may be at or beyond the age of consent! There has even been a "condition" named for some people who feel this attraction - they call it "GSA" or "Genetic Sexual Attraction".

2) Should people who wish to marry multiple spouses be permitted to do so because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Heck, some people even claim that their religion commands them to do so. If they can have a happy marriage and support multiple spouses, why not? After all, it's only love, and in so doing, each spouse would be relieved from a pressure oft felt by an exclusive spouse - the pressure to singlehandedly meet all of his/her spouse's needs!

3) Should people who wish to marry "children" be permitted to do so (assuming the children also want it) because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Don't kid yourself... some kids know plenty about love. I've been a lover since age 2, and my development of feelings of romantic love was at least three years ahead of the average. I can't be the only one. Children can feel love too. The age of consent may be 16 but when people start dating, for real, around age 12 (or even younger, these days), that shows that they have an idea of what "love" is. And besides, many countries allow marriage of children for any number of reasons. It's legal on most continents in the world, and in most countries therein. American "children" engage in sexual relationships and get each other pregnant all the time. Why not legalize marriage of people under age 16 (without parental or judicial consent of any kind) in America?

4) Should people who wish to marry animals be permitted to do so, because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Let's face it... animals have a pretty deep capacity for showing love. Certain types of animals are much less inclined to cause problems for people than people are. (I read this one time - "Try locking your wife, and your dog, in the trunk of your car for a few hours. When you open the lid, which one will be happy to see you?") It's only love... and how could it harm either the person or the animal?

Now... if you answer "no" to any of these questions, I'd like an explanation as to why... and to be fair, you should know that I will be examining the explanations to see how they differ from the explanations commonly used to support gay marriage. And if you start name-calling, your post will be reported. Let's keep this civil. Obviously I am not a gay marriage supporter, but liberal-minded people who support gay marriage often use the word "tolerance". Let's apply that and be tolerant of my views, seeing as I am coming at this civilly.

man, you need a hobby.
K

[bUU]

Originally Posted by txdave35

The flip side of your rhetoric is you want to force me to give up my values and beliefs

False. It endorses you keeping your values and beliefs, and applying them to that which is yours, your body, your family, your worship. By contrast, you are trying to claim some non-existent right to apply your values and beliefs to things that are not yours: someone else's body, someone else's family, someone else's worship.

The ethic of reciprocity demonstrates the corrupted nature of your perspective, because if other are not to be regarded by society as married because your beliefs and values say so, then you are not to be regarded by society to be married should anyone else's beliefs and values say so. You are not to be regarded a good person, because you violate the tenets of a religion that you do not personally subscribe to. You are to be stoned for crimes for which such penalty is proscribed within the religious texts of religions other than that you abide by. Is that your wish? To be judged by the values and beliefs of every other belief system in the world, and be subjected to the consequences of every penalty for every transgression you commit thereof?

Originally Posted by txdave35

It's called respect.

Show some; receive some: Show the specific respect for the values and beliefs of others (in this case, those who abide by belief systems that grant equal respect to same-sex marriage as is afforded to heterosexual marriage) that you would like to receive for your own values and beliefs. And if you find that such scenario creates a paradox, then admit that it is the corrupted nature of your own values and beliefs that are at fault.

[Tundra Boy]

Originally Posted by mattee01

How about you keep your ideas in the closet where they should've stayed all along.

My ideas were never in the closet. Just because gays want their perversion accepted as normal doesn't change the fact it's deviant behavior. Go be gay as unicorns and sprinkles and I don't care one bit, but for every assertion that it's normal I will rebut that it is shameful.




Tb



Oh...this will always be true: “Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.”
― Leo Tolstoy

[bUU]

Originally Posted by Tundra Boy

for every assertion that it's normal I will rebut that it is shameful.

So move past the question as to whether it is "normal". The specific brand of Christianity you practice is not "normal". "Normal" doesn't matter. What matters is whether you have the capability of practicing the respect for other people living in accordance with their own beliefs and values in precisely the same measure as you would hope to receive respect for living your own life in accordance with your own beliefs and values. Can you practice the ethic of reciprocity?

[jazzy jeff]

Originally Posted by Fiyero

You do realize Fox is a private company and not bound by the 1st Amendment right? If one of their employee's does/says something that makes them look bad, they have ever right to fire them.

Are you under the ridiculous impression your actions have absolutely no consequences just because you think your beliefs are superior to everyone else's?

Fox really botched up the whole Craig James incident by not venting him well before hiring him, and then a week after they discovered he had anti-gay views. Since support for gay rights is becoming pretty broad in sports Fox realized James was not a good match. Similar to how the NFL blocked a right wing talk radio host (Rush Limbaugh) from buying into an NFL team when many of the leagues players balked at the idea.

[Tundra Boy]

Originally Posted by bUU

So move past the question as to whether it is "normal". The specific brand of Christianity you practice is not "normal". "Normal" doesn't matter. What matters is whether you have the capability of practicing the respect for other people living in accordance with their own beliefs and values in precisely the same measure as you would hope to receive respect for living your own life in accordance with your own beliefs and values. Can you practice the ethic of reciprocity?

I give what is owed..tolerance, I give it easily and without hesitation. But what seems to be demanded of me is..validation, and I don't owe that to anything/anybody any more than my life choices are owed validation by anyone else. So please, go live your life as you want, just don't be butt hurt (no pun) that I have my own opinion and it is at odds with yours.


Tb

[Griffis]

Originally Posted by txdave35

I can say the same thing about people who support gay marriage. You are pushing YOUR belief on the general population.

Wow. You really have trouble comprehending this.

Lemme try it again, kindergarten level for you:

Nobody is pushing a belief on you. You can believe what you want.

What is NOT acceptable is to use your personal beliefs to endorse or promote systematic discrimination by preventing a certain segment of the population from having equal access to rights and privileges you have.

In other words:

1. Nobody is forcing you to do anything.

2. You can believe whatever you want.

3. You can't use your beliefs to prevent others from doing what they want.

Or in other, other words:

1. Your beliefs, the way you would like to see them played out, would directly affect other people and impinge on their rights and freedom.

2. Same sex marriage, however, is none of your business and has no effect on you whatsoever.

Are you getting it yet?

The intolerance and even downright hatred shown towards Christians means you are a bigot.

When your own personal beliefs compel you to endorse policies and promote ideas that are, at base, inarguably bigoted, intolerant and discriminatory and which would negatively impact a group of people, the only appropriate response is to be intolerant of that desire on your part.

If someone wanted to force you to change your beliefs, or prevent you from practicing your religion, or prevent you from speaking freely about this or any other topic, I would be the first in line to fight for your right to hold on to all those things, whether I agree with them or not.

But your hope is that your personal beliefs will be used as law to keep other people discriminated against and prevented from living their lives as they wish. This is wrong and unacceptable.

Here are a couple of examples that might help you see where I and others are coming from on this matter:

I think it is unfortunate that abortion is too often used as a means of after-the-fact birth control. But I believe in the right of people to make their own reproductive choices. I may not be a big fan of abortions, but I have no interest in preventing others from having them. It does not impact my life (just as same sex marriage doesn't impact yours) and it is none of my business.

You don't like abortions? Don't have one. Simple.

Guns are another example. I happen to believe in the right to bear arms and have been a gun owner myself, and will be again. But for people who are anti-gun, my feeling is fine--don't own a gun then. Pretty simple. Would you want to punish all gun owners due to the actions of a few nuts with guns by regulating guns to death or taking guns from people or preventing people from owning guns? Hopefully not. The appropriate response would be to say "I don't like guns, so I won't own one or mess with them. Other people should be free to have them. It doesn't affect me and it's none of my business."

You don't like guns? Don't own one. Simple.

But don't try to prevent anyone else from having their right to own guns or have an abortion.

You don't like or believe in same sex marriage? Fine. Don't have one. But don't prevent other people from having one.

Originally Posted by txdave35

Marriage is a religious institution.

Incorrect.

...what is the difference between marriage and a civil union?

Well, for one thing, many states don't have and don't recognize civil unions. They do not carry the same legal rights and are often not valid when moving across state lines.

...you can do the same with a civil union. No difference in equality.

Except there is, because as pointed out, civil unions are not on an equal par with marriage.

And when you bring it into a house of God, that is a great offense to God.

This is nothing at all but your personal opinion and bias. It's fine for you to believe this, but outside your personal interpretation of some passages of The Bible, there is no basis for it.

Beyond this, no human being knows whether any god exists, much less can they prove in any way that their particular god or gods exist and all others are false. That's nonsense.

Beyond that, we should in no way use ancient Jewish, Christian or Muslim holy texts (or those of any culture) as a basis for constitutional law in this nation.

As for your challenge, are you kidding me? I gave you the example of Craig James, but instead of being able to admit that yes, this issue does and IS affecting people negatively, you try to find some legalistic loophole to get around the fact that this man lost his job because of his beliefs.

He lost his job, but not due to any legal reasons. As has been pointed out, an employer has the right to not hire or to fire someone for personal reasons in most places just as a business owner has the right in most cases to refuse to provide service or conduct business with an individual or group of people.

Originally Posted by Tundra Boy

My ideas were never in the closet. Just because gays want their perversion accepted as normal doesn't change the fact it's deviant behavior. Go be gay as unicorns and sprinkles and I don't care one bit, but for every assertion that it's normal I will rebut that it is shameful.

Personally, I feel this kind of hate, fear, intolerance and bigotry is more harmful, shameful and less natural than homosexuality.

Originally Posted by Tundra Boy

I give what is owed..tolerance, I give it easily and without hesitation. But what seems to be demanded of me is..validation, and I don't owe that to anything/anybody any more than my life choices are owed validation by anyone else. So please, go live your life as you want, just don't be butt hurt (no pun) that I have my own opinion and it is at odds with yours.

Yeah, that's fine. Once again--believe what you want, but don't try to use those beliefs to enact systematic discrimination against a segment of the population.

It would be no different if, just because I disagree with many of your religious beliefs, I intended to keep you from holding those beliefs or practicing your religion. That would be wrong and I would fight for your freedom to believe what you want and practice religion as you wish as long as you do not attempt to legislate the rights of others to live their lives and have equal rights and privileges so long as they, in turn, are not impinging on your rights.

Same sex marriage proponents aren't advocating that.

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by txdave35

Marriage is a religious institution. Without a union being honored before God, what is the difference between marriage and a civil union? It is just a word. Why is it so freaking important to you to force us to change the definition of marriage? I could refer to my married spouse as my partner, and you can do the same with a civil union. No difference in equality. And when you bring it into a house of God, that is a great offense to God. The religious difference between SSM and a couple that have been divorced or an unwed mother is a SSM is with SSM you are demonstrating a commitment before God in HIS house that you intend to continue living in sin.


As for your challenge, are you kidding me? I gave you the example of Craig James, but instead of being able to admit that yes, this issue does and IS affecting people negatively, you try to find some legalistic loophole to get around the fact that this man lost his job because of his beliefs.

Since, no surprise, SSM is supported in the most liberal least religious states in the country, I would be hard pressed to find someone who has religious convictions about it in those regions.

I personally know many preachers that are waiting for SSM to to be legally recognized here, so that they can perform marriage ceremonies.
So, no thanks. I'll call my fiancee my wife. And I will call our marriage a marriage.

You also seem to forget that millions of legal marriages are not held in a church. Some are in city hall, some are on the beach, or bungee jumping, I went to a wedding in an aquarium, and at the zoo. Your particular church doesn't own the word marriage. Sorry.