Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-31-2008, 09:39 AM
 
Location: Marshall-Shadeland, Pittsburgh, PA
32,606 posts, read 77,287,663 times
Reputation: 19071

Advertisements

I'm well aware that a number of folks think homosexuals are morally depraved based upon their religious beliefs. The Holy Bible even says something along the lines of "man should not lay with man; it is an abomination." However, I'm a firm believer in the separation of church and state and that Congressmen should NOT be bringing their faith into political decisions that affect the will of the many, including those with divergent spiritual affiliations.

As such, I was just wondering if any of you in the right-wing could give me some solid reasons to be opposed to homosexuality other than your cliche "God wouldn't want it to be that way." I've heard that argument incessantly on this forum, and I'm tiring of listening to people who think that faith and politics are interchangeable. I am indeed one of those dreaded homosexuals (don't worry, I won't shake your hand and give you AIDS), and for the life of me I can't understand how bans on same-sex civil unions are passing by such large margins in many U.S. states unless people are indeed acting irresponsibly and merging the Holy Bible with the U.S. Constitution. Anyone care to enlighten me why you oppose same-sex relationships WITHOUT dragging "well my God says this" or "the Bible says that" into it? We already have a very heated thread for that.

Let this be a warning that any reply that attempts to bring your faith into play will be ignored by me and given no credence, as it will be detracting from the intention of this thread. I want to hear economic, social, and other implications that may arise from the "normalization" of same-sex relationships. If you want to rant on and on about how I'm hellbound according to the Holy Bible/U.S. Constitution, then rant on the other thread. As Pennsylvanians will likely be voting on as to whether or not same-sex civil unions should be banned as early as next year in our state, I'm just trying to hone my debating skills now on this topic to better prepare myself for when I start firing off newspaper editorials, protest rallies, etc. next year. I'm already well-acquainted with how to counter faith-based arguments, but to date I have yet to hear a credible, solid, lucid argument against same-sex relationships for any other reason. Please enlighten me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-31-2008, 10:24 AM
 
Location: wrong planet
5,161 posts, read 11,402,138 times
Reputation: 4336
SWB, I am most definitely not from the "right wing" and I am not opposed to same sex marriage/relationship - I know many same sex couples here, in the wonderful state of MA ! I have heard many bringing up the argument that there will be loss in revenue, if same sex couples get the same tax benefits. Many are against them getting health insurance etc. and retirement benefits, presumably because they think it will impact their own benefits in some way?
__________________
The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it. ~Henry David Thoreau


forum rules, please read them

Last edited by katzenfreund; 03-31-2008 at 10:46 AM.. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2008, 10:36 AM
 
Location: An absurd world.
5,160 posts, read 9,146,706 times
Reputation: 2023
I am an atheist and I am not opposed to gay marriage. I am opposed to the benefits that come from any kind of marriage. I feel like people shouldn't get benefits just because they are married. People who aren't may love each other more than a married couple, yet, they don't get those benefits.

When an atheist or nonreligious person is against gay marriage, it is usually because of the benefits. We don't read a book inspired by some invisible man in the sky telling us homosexuality is evil. I have nothing against gays..at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2008, 10:44 AM
 
Location: Near Manito
20,170 posts, read 24,240,102 times
Reputation: 15284
I guess you could characterize me as a "right-winger", though I doubt if I display many of the stereotypical behaviors/beliefs which you would ascribe to those such people (though it is amusing to hear those of the left stereotype right-wingers as "people who stereotype others"!)

As the opening respondent to your post, may I ask that you refine your query to a degree? You seem to be confusing opposition to same-sex civil unions with the denial of civil rights to homosexuals. To my mind at least, these are entirely different issues.

Since you do not mention same-sex marriage, I assume that you would join me in opposing this on the grounds that marriage by definition is the union of a man and a woman, and a metaphor for the human experience of becoming whole by joining openly and completely with another who is your opposite and who completes the human union of mating, as is the general order of things in most of the natural world of which we are a part.

Having said that, I do not believe in demonizing anyone on the basis of their sexual preference, as long as it involves consenting adults, nor do I believe in practicing legal discrimination against anyone who obeys the law.

I think it is important to recognize that the normalization of civil unions may also open the door to any legally recognized relationship involving two people...or three....or four.....or more. What is to keep, say, two brothers from forming such a union for tax advantages or other legal purposes? If the concept of civil union is expanded, what is to keep a group of people from forming a "civil union" with another group?

Radical changes in the nature of our culture and society need to be approached with an eye on their value to the greater good as well as the consequences attendant on their promulgation. I am not convinced that the former outweighs the latter -- but this does not make me either a bigot or a religious fundamentalist -- especially since, as you may have noted, I have not once referred to religion in my post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2008, 10:46 AM
 
5,762 posts, read 11,596,990 times
Reputation: 3869
I haven't seen that many purely secular arguments against gay marriage. They usually argue that marriage as an institution would be weakened, and this would lead to various negative social effects.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2008, 11:04 AM
 
Location: Minnysoda
10,659 posts, read 10,678,336 times
Reputation: 6745
Well I don't see too many other animals living that way... Plus it's that sharp stabing pain I couldn't deal with.......
Opps BAD Todd BAD
Just teaseing. You do what you want, as long as you don't ask for any special breaks for doing it...........
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2008, 11:11 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,858,157 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by tablemtn View Post
I haven't seen that many purely secular arguments against gay marriage. They usually argue that marriage as an institution would be weakened, and this would lead to various negative social effects.
As if we need any more reason then the one you just pointed out.

Add to it that, the fact that I disagree with the "accept it or else" attitude that I see from so many pro gay proponents, and I can see why many people are against gay marriages based upon non-religious ideas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2008, 11:51 AM
 
Location: DC Area, for now
3,517 posts, read 13,231,002 times
Reputation: 2192
This not being an issue that would affect me, I have a fundamental question on which to base an opinion. Who is hurt if gays are granted a legal right to marry each other? This is assuming that they are not also pedophiles, a crime of which other statutes apply and is not limited to gays, by any means.

So who would be hurt?
Certainly no straight couple is actually threatened unless one of the partners is gay. In that case, your marriage is threatened anyway. Personally, I think it is better because the last thing I would want is someone to use me to either pretend to be straight or try to be straight. Straight men and women are still attracted to each other and get married regardless.

There would be benefits cost impact, which is what they are after, in part. But most benefits require more input money for family benefits compared to self only.

One thing that I could see as a big plus is that if gay couples have children (adopted or otherwise), having their union governed by family law could help protect those children in the event of divorce or death. As it stands, they are somewhat in limbo if the legal guardian dies.

Also, in the event of death, it would allow partners to have legal jurisdiction over each other, if they so wish such a thing. When those decisions go by default to blood relatives who might wish to punish the surviving partner in opposition to the deceased partner's express wishes, that is really tragic.

So who is harmed? I've heard it said that teenagers are experimenting more with gay partnerships when they aren't really gay at all. This is different than those who are really gay. Does this encourage that sort of thing and does it add to the psychological problems of growing up? I don't know the answers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2008, 12:33 PM
 
Location: Austin
4,105 posts, read 8,261,564 times
Reputation: 2134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf View Post
I think it is important to recognize that the normalization of civil unions may also open the door to any legally recognized relationship involving two people...or three....or four.....or more. What is to keep, say, two brothers from forming such a union for tax advantages or other legal purposes?
What's to keep a brother and sister from doing that now?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2008, 12:50 PM
 
Location: Floribama
18,929 posts, read 43,261,108 times
Reputation: 18732
Well, I'm a "right winger" who also happens to be gay. The "gay marriage" issue is about the only issue that I dissagree with my party on. I really don't care if it's called marriage, a "civil union" would be fine with me as long as I had the same legal rights of a married person. Many people don't understand how difficult it is to get around laws concerning wills, property ownership, investments, life insurance, etc. My partner and I have to plan very carefully how we protect OUR assets in the event that one of us dies. It shouldn't be that hard. And yes, I do think the government want's to avoid paying out social security benefits to a gay person based upon his/her spouse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top