Gay Marriage - Forum View.

I was amazed to have not found a poll or thread similar to this in search. So I decided to go ahead and make one. What I'm requesting is that each forum member participate with his or her own view on the subject.

My personal opinion is that we should allow it. Not only is the bible (when translated directly) not clear on the subject matter, but I think it's about time humans stop obsessing over their biased views. I'm with the "let people do as they please" class.

I say, that if for any reason something isn't allowed due to religious reasons, let it be ignored. For religion still hasn't grounded itself as any type of fact, nor science, and all attempts so far to do so have been easily rebuked. That said, there is No rational reason to ban gay marriage.

/end my opinion.

Other opinions welcome.

Note:
Links on the bible here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm
http://synx.dyndns.org/~starling/bible_and_gays.html

If any creationist requests further evidence of translation bias, I can provide further links in PM (which will be added here in edits).

[scientstphilosophertheist]

My opposition to gay marriage stems not from religion or prejudice thereof, but rather from tradition. Because, traditionally, marriage is between a man and a woman, there is nothing wrong in keeping it that way. Now I can hear the guns cocking, ready to fire out such questions as "well, wasn't slavery tradition?" The difference between this tradition and the marriage tradition is that slavery caused pain. Now, I have been suggesting this in several Congressional (high school) debates: just give 'em the same benefits as marriage, with a different name. It'd keep tradition, and keep people's mouths shut on the whole issue.

And for those of you just dieing to burn me to pieces, please note the manner in which I presented my opinion; and present yours in a similar fashion.

Now, I have been suggesting this in several Congressional (high school) debates: just give 'em the same benefits as marriage, with a different name. It'd keep tradition, and keep people's mouths shut on the whole issue.

I thought about that as well, but it burns me. Tradition doesn't make it right, since it validates human rights (which, incidentally, aren't tradition). Just because it doesn't directly hurt someone, doesn't make it right (globalization isn't right).

But about this, specifically, that's just not fair. "Lets spend thousands of hours and dollars campaigning for equal rights, then lets just accept the same thing only under a different label. Yeah. Lets call it Civil Union. Okay. We'll do that." that's a no in my book. I don't like pleasing people that prefer tradition to human rights, and neither should anyone else.

I felt I should fire a return opinion out there. Helps debates form. XP

[scientstphilosophertheist]

Now, I have been suggesting this in several Congressional (high school) debates: just give 'em the same benefits as marriage, with a different name. It'd keep tradition, and keep people's mouths shut on the whole issue.

I thought about that as well, but it burns me. Tradition doesn't make it right, since it validates human rights (which, incidentally, aren't tradition). Just because it doesn't directly hurt someone, doesn't make it right (globalization isn't right).

But about this, specifically, that's just not fair. "Lets spend thousands of hours and dollars campaigning for equal rights, then lets just accept the same thing only under a different label. Yeah. Lets call it Civil Union. Okay. We'll do that." that's a no in my book. I don't like pleasing people that prefer tradition to human rights, and neither should anyone else.

I felt I should fire a return opinion out there. Helps debates form. XP

I agree on the point that tradition doesn't necessarily make it right, but I seek the best way to prevent the debates. Same benefits, different name seems fair to me; no rights being stripped, and no inequality. Just as there is a name for women who like men (heterosexual), and a name for women who like women (lesbian), there ought to be a name for heterosexual union (marriage) and homosexual union (insert name here).: "Hey, did you know that John and James got (insert union here)?" vs "Hey, did you know that James and Christine got married?" Anything beyond that and the focus of the debate is not necessarily marriage, but rather a way of furthering the gay cause; a way of increasing toleration, if you like: in which case, why don't they just come out and say it?

Enlighten me: I thought Civil Union gave less benefits than marriage...isn't that what the whole debate is about?

[Theoryofrelativity]

As marriage is a man made thing and not a God made thing, it really doesn't matter who does it and how much the piece of paper costs.

I say BAN ALL marriage. It's all bollocks.

Meanwhile change the law to allow committed partners to benefit from legal things that married couples do. Like rights of burial and widows/widower benefit etc.

[Jellyologist]

I usually look at rights issues as 'how does it impact me?'. Not impact in some general societal way but day to day...nitty-gritty. Blacks drinking from Whitey's water fountain or gays getting married has no real impact on me. Any 'downside' is minimal compared to the upside for those wanting the right. I'm not lacking water to drink and I don't love my wife any less.

Marriage is whatever we decide marriage is. 'Tradition' is a fine word but traditions come and go. No great demand for traditions such as human sacifice or women treated as property. Man made marriage and man can redefine it as desired. Gay marriage is alive and well in Canada and society hasn't come tumbling down. Nobody seems to care all that much as to who is getting hitched. Life goes on. We have gay friends and gay co-workers and I'd be happy to attend their marriage if that's the route they decide to go. I'm happy for them that that's an option in their life.

[Lucifer]

The point is quite more basic. Are homosexual allowed to do everything legal that heterosexual are allowed to do?

If the answer is "no", that's a breach of the principle of equality before the law and so it must be fixed. Period.

So yes, I am in favor of homosexual to marry and it be called "marriage", not "something it's not called like the normal thing because homosexual couples are not normal". 8)

[scientstphilosophertheist]

By Lucifer's (and several other people's) post, I deduce that people believe that the proponents of calling homosexual marriage something else do so because they see homosexuals as "not normal". The truth is, however, that saying "X" in reference to homosexual marriage is just yet another label, just as homosexuals are called homosexuals, and heterosexuals are called heterosexuals; just like you have rap vs rock.

Like I said before, if this idea were to be accepted, it would be John Xed James vs. John married Jane. There is nothing discriminatory about it; to say that John Xing James is abnormal would be where discrimination comes in.

And about their not being allowed to legally do everything heterosexuals are allowed to do, Xing would be the same as marrying, only a different term.

Marry
v. The union of two heterosexual individuals by law or custom

Xing
v. The union of two homosexual individuals by law or custom

I don't see anything wrong with it. :|

edit: Besides, it's an easier way to get around tough legislation and hard-headed conservatives.

By Lucifer's (and several other people's) post, I deduce that people believe that the proponents of calling homosexual marriage something else do so because they see homosexuals as "not normal". The truth is, however, that saying "X" in reference to homosexual marriage is just yet another label, just as homosexuals are called homosexuals, and heterosexuals are called heterosexuals; just like you have rap vs rock.

Just like you have apple to orange comparisons. Scientst, if everyone thought like you I wouldn't mind calling it "civil union". Since it wouldn't matter. But try and put your perspective into the minds of conservative types. They want to call it civil union to keep the "sanctity" of marriage. Thereby giving gays what they "want" while remaining "superior". It's discrimination in itself.

If it achieved the title of "marriage", it would essentially be a blow to the stubborn and ignorant-minded traditionalists that exist in our stagnant society. This doesn't apply only to homosexuality, of course. I only wish I could think of another example off-hand...can anyone else? I'd appreciate it.

Your view is fine. In fact, it's one I admire. The problem is the people I'd want to target by labeling "civil union" as marriage don't think like you do. So you get the problem, right?

[Lucifer]

By Lucifer's (and several other people's) post, I deduce that people believe that the proponents of calling homosexual marriage something else do so because they see homosexuals as "not normal". The truth is, however, that saying "X" in reference to homosexual marriage is just yet another label, just as homosexuals are called homosexuals, and heterosexuals are called heterosexuals; just like you have rap vs rock.

Like I said before, if this idea were to be accepted, it would be John Xed James vs. John married Jane. There is nothing discriminatory about it; to say that John Xing James is abnormal would be where discrimination comes in.

And about their not being allowed to legally do everything heterosexuals are allowed to do, Xing would be the same as marrying, only a different term.

Marry
v. The union of two heterosexual individuals by law or custom

Xing
v. The union of two homosexual individuals by law or custom

I don't see anything wrong with it. :|

edit: Besides, it's an easier way to get around tough legislation and hard-headed conservatives.

You still miss the point...

Joe and Jack are equal before the law.

The law says that Joe is "married" to Jane. But the Law says that Jack is "X-ed" to Pete.

The law is exacly the same in everything but the name for the union. But by giving it another name, actually it's a different law -it's not the "marriage law", but the "X law" -a different law just for homosexual, the same as "marriage law" is just for heterosexual.

And as soon as you MAKE A DIFFERENT LAW, it is discriminative, because a individual's rights are independent of his identity as a individual.

Let's say there's two ways to get a driver license. Both are the same, both give the same rights, both are perfeclty equal -just one is the Fair Hair "Driver" License and the other is the Dark Hair "Motorist" License. And the reason is that, traditionally, only fair haired people where allowed to use public ways and soem fo them speically intransigenand stubborn, made a wehkc foa fuss about dark haired epople gettigna "driver license" as if they where fair haired, and so dark haired people where allowed to drive by giving them a "motorist" license.

Wouldn't ti be stupid and discriminative? Who are the stubborn, intransigent fair haired minority to force the whole country to discriminate against dark haired people...?

[scientstphilosophertheist]

By Lucifer's (and several other people's) post, I deduce that people believe that the proponents of calling homosexual marriage something else do so because they see homosexuals as "not normal". The truth is, however, that saying "X" in reference to homosexual marriage is just yet another label, just as homosexuals are called homosexuals, and heterosexuals are called heterosexuals; just like you have rap vs rock.

Just like you have apple to orange comparisons. Scientst, if everyone thought like you I wouldn't mind calling it "civil union". Since it wouldn't matter. But try and put your perspective into the minds of conservative types. They want to call it civil union to keep the "sanctity" of marriage. Thereby giving gays what they "want" while remaining "superior". It's discrimination in itself.

If it achieved the title of "marriage", it would essentially be a blow to the stubborn and ignorant-minded traditionalists that exist in our stagnant society. This doesn't apply only to homosexuality, of course. I only wish I could think of another example off-hand...can anyone else? I'd appreciate it.

Your view is fine. In fact, it's one I admire. The problem is the people I'd want to target by labeling "civil union" as marriage don't think like you do. So you get the problem, right?

Hmm...I get what you're saying, but

...Anything beyond that and the focus of the debate is not necessarily marriage, but rather a way of furthering the gay cause; a way of increasing toleration, if you like: in which case, why don't they just come out and say it?

And another question, isn't civil union unlike marriage in that there's less benefits?

...Anything beyond that and the focus of the debate is not necessarily marriage, but rather a way of furthering the gay cause; a way of increasing toleration, if you like: in which case, why don't they just come out and say it?

I have no idea why they don't. I'm not the gay majority. Sorry I didn't pay enough attention to that paragraph. Been getting little sleep lately, so I kind of slip.

And another question, isn't civil union unlike marriage in that there's less benefits?

I believe so. I'm too tired to verify that. Maybe tomorrow I'll give you some links.

[karlosshughes]

As marriage is a man made thing and not a God made thing, it really doesn't matter who does it and how much the piece of paper costs.

I say BAN ALL marriage. It's all bollocks.

Meanwhile change the law to allow committed partners to benefit from legal things that married couples do. Like rights of burial and widows/widower benefit etc.

I agree; marriage is more trouble than its worth. If 2 people really love each other, no matter what their sex, sexuality or age or whatever, they dont need a piece of paper to prove it. In my opinion, many people just marry for the security of it, which is neither a religious reason nor a tradition.

[Neutrino]

[
Joe and Jack are equal before the law.

The law says that Joe is "married" to Jane. But the Law says that Jack is "X-ed" to Pete.

The law is exacly the same in everything but the name for the union. But by giving it another name, actually it's a different law -it's not the "marriage law", but the "X law" -a different law just for homosexual, the same as "marriage law" is just for heterosexual.

And as soon as you MAKE A DIFFERENT LAW, it is discriminative, because a individual's rights are independent of his identity as a individual.

Let's say there's two ways to get a driver license. Both are the same, both give the same rights, both are perfeclty equal -just one is the Fair Hair "Driver" License and the other is the Dark Hair "Motorist" License. And the reason is that, traditionally, only fair haired people where allowed to use public ways and soem fo them speically intransigenand stubborn, made a wehkc foa fuss about dark haired epople gettigna "driver license" as if they where fair haired, and so dark haired people where allowed to drive by giving them a "motorist" license.

Well men are called "husbands" and women are called "wives". I don't think anyone is crying gender discimination and demanding they all be called "co-spouse" or anything like that. It's just a different term for a different category of person.
I have no problem with specifying civil unions vs marriages, it seems to be a compromise of current positions. If the legal rights and protection of marriage are the big issue which is what I at least always hear is, then civil unions give them their wish. It also preserves the desires of the conservatives who want to uphold the tradition of marriage between 1 man and 1 woman.
Maybe some feel slighted not being able to use the term "marriage" but that seems like small potatoes compared to not being able to join with their partner at ALL and get no legal rights/protections.

[Trix]

I'm with jellyologist it doesn't matter to me if there gay or straight, it doesn't really impact me. But I disagree in making 2 categories one for hetrosexuals and another for homosexuals it may be the same thing but it still soemwhat discrimatory. An example (might be a bad one but can't think of one) is calling people white or black. Both groups of people are human both have somewhat equal rights but as soon as you say hey mr black man its being racist(colourist?). To sum it up I think we should just change the defination to

" Marry
v. The union of two individuals by law or custom "

take out the sexuality part and leave it at that. Screw those saying being gay is wrong who died and made them god?

Bad example. You need to label someone to find out what they are. Black/white, gay/straight. With marriage, however, it's excessively going out of its way to be discriminatory. "since you're different you have to use a different title". Not "since you're *insert here* I have to call you *insert here* to know what you are".

I hope I provided a better example by using the marriage thing itself. I'm terrible at them too XD

[GhostofMaxwell]

I'm with jellyologist it doesn't matter to me if there gay or straight, it doesn't really impact me. But I disagree in making 2 categories one for hetrosexuals and another for homosexuals it may be the same thing but it still soemwhat discrimatory. An example (might be a bad one but can't think of one) is calling people white or black. Both groups of people are human both have somewhat equal rights but as soon as you say hey mr black man its being racist(colourist?). To sum it up I think we should just change the defination to

" Marry
v. The union of two individuals by law or custom "

take out the sexuality part and leave it at that. Screw those saying being gay is wrong who died and made them god?

Is jellyology a science then. The study of jelly fish or something?

I've never heard the term before.

[Amaya]

I am all for letting people do what they want with their own lives. Unless of course what they want to do is tie up teens in their secret dungeon. Besides, I don't see why gays should have it any better than the rest of us... let them find out what true hell is all about, let them get married.

[Happydude]

Just like you have apple to orange comparisons. Scientst, if everyone thought like you I wouldn't mind calling it "civil union". Since it wouldn't matter. But try and put your perspective into the minds of conservative types. They want to call it civil union to keep the "sanctity" of marriage. Thereby giving gays what they "want" while remaining "superior". It's discrimination in itself.

"Superior" is coming from your mouth. Having a very close friend who is gay and has talked with me on the subject of gay marriage, I feel that they should get all the legal benefits, their union should be equally noted, and in no way should this union be at a disadvantage to the marital bond. But it is not as simple and appropriate to call it marriage. Try to remove all bias and see both perspectives, not just the homosexual side of things. Try not to see any side as an immediate victim or victimizer, clearing all presumption from the mind. Now the point gays have is that they are blocked from the legal advantages of which married men and women can enjoy, and that while they may be spoken of as being "life partners" their bond isn't nearly recognized so officially as is the marriage bond. Obviously this is a problem that deserves a resolution. However we can't stomp on another group of people and their beliefs and rights in favor of another group and their rights! We have to find a reasonable option to work for both. That's exactly what the civil union is, a fair enough request. But just as the gays deserve their rights empowered to them by the Constitution, so is the rights of the Christian faith empowered by the Constitution. And by technicality it is the gays' right to have civil union, however it is also by technicality the right for the Christian faith to be respected by law so far as to have the marital arrangement kept by that faith's beliefs and practices. Marriage is an important part of the Christian faith, the Bible of which Christians derive their beliefs clearly explain an attitude of God's on homosexuality as being an unclean and ungodly act, along with this the Bible believes marriage to not be a man made thing but an arrangement brought on by God, the very God that does not condone homosexuality. Gays would be forcing a desecration on the Christian belief, thus by the Constitution's stance the American government would be victimizing the belief of the Christian faith by forcefully changing the religious tradition to fit a more progressive view. Is it nice of the Christians to say gays are going to burn for eternity, or that God hates the life they live? No. But the very same Constitution that grants gays such rights as civil unions, grants Christians similar rights to having their beliefs and having them respected so far as to not be forced into change simply because the government or an activist group doesn't share the same opinion. Also marriage can also be claimed as religion's intellectual property, government can give all the legal advantages given to married couples, but they don't really have ownership over the bond of marriage.

*sigh* if the fact that gays are discriminated because the church (which was separated from the government, if you recall) doesn't want them to be able to marry doesn't rub you the wrong way equality wise, there must be something wrong.

Sorry for not point-by-pointing your superparagraph, but most of it was just too funny and/or not required. You claimed, nay accused me, of bias. Yet I fail to see any when I'm fighting for equality in all sectors, not just government ones.

I'm for PROGRESS. not REGRESS. And so should everyone be. The fact you're for holding the hand of these regressive groups is a bit scary. and kind of dims my hope for the future a bit further.

If these poor unfortunate people wish to marry I see no harm in it.

[Happydude]

Why is considering the feelings of gays progressive yet considering the feelings of religious people regressive? Whether church and state are split or joined means nothing, marriage came from religion, and that's why they should have the right to decide marriage policy. And other than your presumption that religious people don't want gays to be able to be bonded by the religious ceremony tradition for the sake of feeling superior, why wouldn't a legal bond such as the civil union do the trick? It's not like they're going into the religiously sanctioned bond to please God such as faithful religious believers do.

I'm not going to deny that marriage is a real joke these days, the divorce rate speaks for itself, and Vegas weddings are commonplace for the weekend drunken idiot. Nonetheless there are people out there that take the spiritual/religious meaning and principle very serious. And the harsh reality is that gays entering into this religiously tied bond is highly offensive to those within those faiths. Same sex relations goes against the concept that these people have come to know of marriage, it only makes sense for them to be offended by the forced change to their beliefs. So to make absolutely certain that I am being clear, what I am saying is that rather than it all being a ploy to keep gays down, it makes far more sense to concluded that religious people want gays not to be able to marry because to them God established the marriage bond as a joining of a man and woman, and that same sex marriages go against God's wishes, and offends Him, thus offending them. So the bias I see is that you have either decided that the feelings of gays and lesbians are more important than the feelings of religiously connected people or that you have become overtaken by the delusion that all these religious people are just trying to oppress and establish superiority.

My personal opinion is that it is dumb for anyone on either side to complain about civil unions, to me it's the win-win situation, but if you give an inch every damn side wants a mile.

Why is considering the feelings of gays progressive yet considering the feelings of religious people regressive?

Quite simple. Progress involves giving a new minority new freedoms equal to that of the prior majority. Regress involves oppressing minorities (something most religions love to do). Alternatively, one could attribute my titles of regressive and progressive to a bias, since I am both bi and an atheist. I don't believe this is the case, but I'm open to the probability.

Whether church and state are split or joined means nothing, marriage came from religion, and that's why they should have the right to decide marriage policy.

Ah ah ah, but that's the fallacy. The original religion that marriage began with was not Christianity, therefore Christians have no right (by your logic) to voice their opinions on it.

Religion has no right, nor holds, on the title of marriage. It's not copyrighted. While I disagree with forcing churches to wed gay couples (who the HELL ever suggested such stupidity), I do agree with letting them use the title of marriage.

And other than your presumption that religious people don't want gays to be able to be bonded by the religious ceremony tradition for the sake of feeling superior, why wouldn't a legal bond such as the civil union do the trick?

I request a rephrase. That doesn't make sense.

Nonetheless there are people out there that take the spiritual/religious meaning and principle very serious. And the harsh reality is that gays entering into this religiously tied bond is highly offensive to those within those faiths.

No matter what you do, you're stepping on something someone takes very serious. You're offending someone, somewhere, just by still breathing. You cannot please everyone, and attempting to do so results in chaos. What you can do is decide what's more progressive, cater to the views of illogical rational, or prefer to forge ahead a better society?

So to make absolutely certain that I am being clear, what I am saying is that rather than it all being a ploy to keep gays down, it makes far more sense to concluded that religious people want gays not to be able to marry because to them God established the marriage bond as a joining of a man and woman, and that same sex marriages go against God's wishes, and offends Him, thus offending them.

You dance around the reason as though you think it isn't there. Anything that is "against gods laws" tends to be viewed, automatically, as "below" those following said laws. I've seen this so much it's impossible to suggest otherwise without doing highly expensive and very-diverse surveys/observations.

The central reason for it is that it's "against their beliefs" in what god says. I find it ridiculous to cater to such blind beliefs, when so much evidence points to how utterly ridiculous they are. As a comparison, using the same "because it's against my belief" response, I'll do the following:

I refuse to abide by Consent laws because they're against my religiously held views. Therefore, I will now commence raping this 5 year old because my bible says to.

IMMEDIATELY everyone will go about KILLING such "blasphemy". Why is it that you will accept some reasoning based on that logic, yet reject others? Bias, that's why.

Contrariwise, from an emotional standpoint, if other people were to think as you supposed (that since it offends god they don't want it under the same title), I wouldn't mind. But since the majority I've seen do not think along those lines exactly, I cannot consider it. I mold my response according to what the end-receivers deserve.

My personal opinion is that it is dumb for anyone on either side to complain about civil unions, to me it's the win-win situation, but if you give an inch every damn side wants a mile.

My stance here is based upon rationality. My personal opinion? I don't give a RATS ASS (no offense River Rat ;P) about it. I view marriage and Civil Union as just another socially concocted retardation that should be removed altogether.

Yet here I am, arguing a view that isn't, emotionally, mine. Lets just keep personal opinions out of this, mmk?

[Happydude]

Ah ah ah, but that's the fallacy. The original religion that marriage began with was not Christianity, therefore Christians have no right (by your logic) to voice their opinions on it.

Fair enough, but by the constitution aren't we suppose to respect american's religious beliefs? It's like white guys that speak in Ebonics, I understand why some black guys get pissed off over it, they live in a largely white society and want something of their own, a white guy speaking Ebonics goes against the whole point.

I request a rephrase. That doesn't make sense.

Technically you've already answered this question, but since you asked for a rephrase, you're getting it. I was asking that if the whole "superior" notion went out the window, or at least was really only connected to a minority of these religious individuals, what would be wrong with gays receiving only civil unions rather than marriage? Indulge me for a minute and imagine that my theory is accurate and that most religious people are not seeking to have position over the gay community but simply preserve their religious ceremonial tradition that is marriage. If that was in fact the case, would Civil Unions suit?

You see, I truly believe that there is a much larger population of individuals with the desire to simply preserve that which they value to be sacred, more so than those who seek to oppress. Remember, gays are the ones that struck a nerve on the religious community by trying to force their way into the religious community's traditions that have been going on for a very long time, not the other way around, so if any side is the aggressor it's gays on this one. Marriage wasn't created for the purpose of distinguishing themselves from homosexuals. Also I tend to view the activism of equality though a good intent to begin with, as a force that rather than achieves equality, revolves the oppression to the opposite side. If by some way you have facts to back up your claim that the majority are the oppressive kind then I'll just have to reconsider my view.

No matter what you do, you're stepping on something someone takes very serious. You're offending someone, somewhere, just by still breathing. You cannot please everyone, and attempting to do so results in chaos. What you can do is decide what's more progressive, cater to the views of illogical rational, or prefer to forge ahead a better society?

But who deserves to decided what is progressive? I understand that you're an atheist, been there, done that. Even evolutionists agree that religion has been a useful tool of society for quite some time. Some believe we don't need it anymore, but there's reason to believe much of human population is still too immature to be without the concept of a parent with supreme power.

You're offending someone, somewhere, just by still breathing.

Truly heartfelt words that I can't agree with more. My friend that I spoke of earlier told me about how his cousin once blurted that he thought all gays should be put on an Island and then have the Island blown up. His cousin doesn't know he's gay obviously. I like to think better of people in large, but I can't deny that there are some horrible ones out there.

You dance around the reason as though you think it isn't there. Anything that is "against gods laws" tends to be viewed, automatically, as "below" those following said laws. I've seen this so much it's impossible to suggest otherwise without doing highly expensive and very-diverse surveys/observations.

But isn't it common for so called "progressives" to refer to religious types that consider homosexuality as wrong based off the bible as 'ignorant'? By saying ignorant they are claiming to be superior in understanding. So I see no side as having any better attitude. They're just two sides with different perspectives acting with the same human nature. Obviously I don't deny the existence of this attitude, but though that would be the general belief of it being "below" God's standard, that doesn't mean that the deep rooted intention here is to be superior, it can still be about protecting what they believe to be holy.

The central reason for it is that it's "against their beliefs" in what god says. I find it ridiculous to cater to such blind beliefs, when so much evidence points to how utterly ridiculous they are.

What real evidence? Religions have had their hand in a good share of bloodbaths and long cons. I don't deny that religions have had their share of ruthless leaders, but we don't throw away the concept of democracy because we know politicians and senators can be bought.

As a comparison, using the same "because it's against my belief" response, I'll do the following:

I refuse to abide by Consent laws because they're against my religiously held views. Therefore, I will now commence raping this 5 year old because my bible says to.

Actually that was a mistake in the Constitution, the forefathers had no idea that they were opening the door for Satanist freedoms and all extremities alike. But come on, there's a huge difference between refusing to allow gays to call their legal bond marriage and allowing some nut to rape a five year old.

IMMEDIATELY everyone will go about KILLING such "blasphemy". Why is it that you will accept some reasoning based on that logic, yet reject others? Bias, that's why.

Perhaps I'm biased too, but I believe I'm just doing what I always do, which is defend and consider the less popular and less considered view. Having done that, I think it is partially because one form of logic can end up being crossed by another form of logic, often being the sort of logic that considers the weighty aspect of what is involved, such as the severity differences between refusing to allow gays to call their legal bond marriage for the sake of its spiritual origins, and physically and psychologically damaging a five year old for the rest of her/his life.

Contrariwise, from an emotional standpoint, if other people were to think as you supposed (that since it offends god they don't want it under the same title), I wouldn't mind. But since the majority I've seen do not think along those lines exactly, I cannot consider it. I mold my response according to what the end-receivers deserve.

But you see, from our own personal experiences we have come to opposite conclusions. Without proper investments in a thorough and unbiased investigation of the fact, you could be wrong, or I could be. Without full information, how can a decision so big be made? Pending a thorough investigation of the matter I'd believe that the decision to give gays the right to marriage could not be fairly given.

My stance here is based upon rationality. My personal opinion? I don't give a RATS ASS (no offense River Rat ;P) about it. I view marriage and Civil Union as just another socially concocted retardation that should be removed altogether.

Yet here I am, arguing a view that isn't, emotionally, mine. Lets just keep personal opinions out of this, mmk?

Fair enough deal, plus I'm not big on the commitment of it myself.

Fair enough, but by the constitution aren't we suppose to respect american's religious beliefs?

Comparing constitutional freedom of belief to Ebonics seems a bit of a stretch to me. Constitutional rights only exist as long as they don't violate the rights of others. Freedom of belief does not mean freedom to oppress or prevent.

Marriage wasn't created for the purpose of distinguishing themselves from homosexuals.

Christmas wasn't created to keep businesses afloat. Touche? Original intents and purposes for things easily become scewed over time. You can agree, as this is observable today. The burden of proof rests on me to prove that it has gone down that route with Marriage. I will further down.

But who deserves to decided what is progressive? [...] religion has been a useful tool of society for quite some time.

What decides progress is, as I stated, rationality. Religion has served it's purpose to prevent humanity from going crazy because some answers aren't findable. It's helped kept order in aristocracies, it has served a variety of purposes including escapism when there were no therapists.

Contrariwise, religion (not necessarily the belief in a god) has caused equal damage throughout history. I believe that, since science and education has efficiently replaced what religion usually provides (one need only educate themselves), it's no longer progressive (nor effective) to cling to it for what minimal advantages we don't require anymore.

I agree that it used to be useful. No longer, though.

Obviously I don't deny the existence of this attitude, but though that would be the general belief of it being "below" God's standard, that doesn't mean that the deep rooted intention here is to be superior, it can still be about protecting what they believe to be holy.

While it can be about protecting that which someone views as holy, you should consider human nature. Human nature is to seek out that which is superior. If something is holy, it's without sin, and therefore superior. It's a simple correlation, perhaps to a fault (correct me if it is).

but we don't throw away the concept of democracy because we know politicians and senators can be bought.

I will definitely be stoned for this, but Democracy has a flaw relevant to this conversation. Much like communism. In order to work it assumes people are perfect, therefore all the right choices are made and everyone is happy. Nothing goes wrong. In reality when something goes wrong you have a situation like this. The majority raving against progress.

While it might be acceptable to say "people aren't ready for it, because of this the majority wont allow it", I'm for forging ahead regardless. Perhaps to a fault. I'll concede in that I don't think the public is ready for changes.

Actually that was a mistake in the Constitution, the forefathers had no idea that they were opening the door for Satanist freedoms and all extremities alike. But come on, there's a huge difference between refusing to allow gays to call their legal bond marriage and allowing some nut to rape a five year old.

Where is the line drawn? In what we socially view as acceptable? My example specifically showed where the line should be drawn, when it oppresses another (usually minority). I'm aware of the paradox it creates. Your following statement shows my example wasn't as clear as I thought, but I hope this cleared it up.

Without full information, how can a decision so big be made? Pending a thorough investigation of the matter I'd believe that the decision to give gays the right to marriage could not be fairly given.

How do we determine correction? Simple. The nature of the mind. This is where an optimist and a pessimist will disagree most. According to my observations and research into how people think, they want someone to lose. Always. Their side is better, the other side inferior.

How do I prove this? Look at how our "democracy" is run. People don't ever consider the minority groups attempting to gain favor (I'm with the Libertarian party, mostly). Instead it's republican/democrat like it's a bloody football game. Why? People want someone else to LOSE. Most of the time they aren't even aware of the views of those they put in office, they just want someone else to lose.

[Happydude]

Freedom of belief does not mean freedom to oppress or prevent.

Maybe not oppress, but I wouldn't go so far as to add prevent. After all preventing things from happening is a useful tool of equality too. And Equalism is a belief that acts on the faith that it will ultimately be better for mankind, which based off Darwinism may or may not actually be true.

Also let's not forget who is putting who on the defensive here. Gays are wanting a slice of religion's birthday cake after crashing the party uninvited. It's not exactly like religion is invading gay territory here.

Christmas wasn't created to keep businesses afloat. Touche? Original intents and purposes for things easily become scewed over time. You can agree, as this is observable today. The burden of proof rests on me to prove that it has gone down that route with Marriage. I will further down.

Tis all true, yet irrelevant. The decay of marriage does not in anyway signify that priests and other religious folk are sticking out their tongues and saying, "Ha haha ha ha ha!" Although they do often assume them to have cooties. j/k

What decides progress is, as I stated, rationality. Religion has served it's purpose to prevent humanity from going crazy because some answers aren't findable. It's helped kept order in aristocracies, it has served a variety of purposes including escapism when there were no therapists.

I mean this in the most respectful way, but what gives you reason to believe that achieving certain rights such as marriage for homosexuals is a rational effort, and thus progressive? They don't reproduce children together, and if they adopt there is still reason to wonder if it is the best environment for children to grow up. It stands to reason that a child would have a more balanced view with a female parent and a male parent. Reality's all about survival of the fittest, the underdog is just a Hollywood fetish, we don't want kids only getting a female perspective at home, or a completely male view point.

Contrariwise, religion (not necessarily the belief in a god) has caused equal damage throughout history. I believe that, since science and education has efficiently replaced what religion usually provides (one need only educate themselves), it's no longer progressive (nor effective) to cling to it for what minimal advantages we don't require anymore.

I agree that it used to be useful. No longer, though.

I agree religion did its share of damage, however I don't share the opinion that mankind is at a level of not needing it. The legal system is laughable, lawyers make a daily routine of manipulating it to the point that there might as well be no law at all, then go home and snort 'white' like there's no such thing as a legal system. At one time people had shame. I think the evolutionists that feared how the public would behave after studying evolution had good reason to fear.

While it can be about protecting that which someone views as holy, you should consider human nature. Human nature is to seek out that which is superior.

Agreed, but that does not mean that is what is going on in 'this' situation, and every situation has its own principles to follow. Besides, as I stated before, both sides behave as arrogant pricks from time to time, one calling the other an ungodly sinner, the other calling the one ignorant or narrow-minded.

If something is holy, it's without sin, and therefore superior. It's a simple correlation, perhaps to a fault (correct me if it is).

True, however reading the bible's stance correctly, all humans are sinners, none of them are holy, every single one of them being worthy of death for falling short of being perfect. Religious people believe humbly that they are inferior as well, although the bible also makes it known that there is a big difference between committing a sin and practicing a sin.

How do we determine correction? Simple. The nature of the mind. This is where an optimist and a pessimist will disagree most. According to my observations and research into how people think, they want someone to lose. Always. Their side is better, the other side inferior.

How do I prove this? Look at how our "democracy" is run. People don't ever consider the minority groups attempting to gain favor (I'm with the Libertarian party, mostly). Instead it's republican/democrat like it's a bloody football game. Why? People want someone else to LOSE. Most of the time they aren't even aware of the views of those they put in office, they just want someone else to lose.

Can't argue with that, but then, you say it's human nature, should we be fighting human nature? Isn't the whole dog-eat-dog, battle of the alphas, better for the purity of natural selection? After all society sees benefit out of the sharp minds with intelligent humor taking the girl, why? Because the geek then realizes that he's not charming, but finds a new way to be an alpha, Bill Gates style! Money, looks, smarts, charm and fame, these are ways to achieve alpha (Pauly Shore being the exception to the rule), life is sort of about establishing superiority for personal advancement right? Is it really rational to take the fight out of the dog?

I must warn any readers that may even be left (including HappyDude) that the debate has now diluted to a point where I don't think it makes sense anymore. It seems as though HappyDude ran out of material to oppose with, which might be understandable.

What remains is essentially a husk. The remaining debate is nothing more than cleaning up the rest of the dirt. If it continues to degrade in happydude's next response, I will submit a final statement (probably along the lines of "oh bloody hell nevermind"), and happydude will be free to end it there or reply once more. Either way, I think we've run our course debate wise. Nice discussing with you, Happydude.

Also let's not forget who is putting who on the defensive here. Gays are wanting a slice of religion's birthday cake after crashing the party uninvited. It's not exactly like religion is invading gay territory here.

This isn't an invasion, it's a liberation. That's like saying the USA unjustly liberated blacks.

Your claim of irrelevancy is also somewhat off-base. I used it as a relevant example in-context (reread it).

what gives you reason to believe that achieving certain rights such as marriage for homosexuals is a rational effort, and thus progressive?

Accepting homosexuality as a part of our culture is progress in that it doesn't (shouldn't) oppress further. I view oppression as a type of regression. Excepting certain circumstances where it's warranted.

The reason seems self explanatory to me. Like liberating blacks from slavery was to our forefathers. While this is much easier, a comparison can still be drawn.

When equality stops being progress, I'll eat my hat.

They don't reproduce children together, and if they adopt there is still reason to wonder if it is the best environment for children to grow up. It stands to reason that a child would have a more balanced view with a female parent and a male parent. Reality's all about survival of the fittest, the underdog is just a Hollywood fetish, we don't want kids only getting a female perspective at home, or a completely male view point.

This shows a true lack of understanding of both gay-parent environments and general cognitive behavior of the human species. It's people like you that think all males are horrible parents (perhaps not precisely what you think, but you know what I'm expressing here).

I don't think it's suitable to go about writing down every reason as to why you're incorrect, but what I can advise is reading some books on developmental psychology (specifically in relation to single/gay parents). It's enlightening as to why it is perfectly acceptable to allow such things.

For your (rather silly) comment about them not being able to procreate...have you SEEN how overpopulated the world is?! You must be one of the crazy people that think increasingly popping babies is the solution to overpopulation. Excusing my hostility, you surely have to see a reason as to why I react as I do. It's ludicrous.

The legal system is laughable, lawyers make a daily routine of manipulating it to the point that there might as well be no law at all, then go home and snort 'white' like there's no such thing as a legal system.

you pick the minority of the worst lawyers in existence as an example? You sound as though you're scraping the bottom of a very small barrel.

Agreed, but that does not mean that is what is going on in 'this' situation, and every situation has its own principles to follow. Besides, as I stated before, both sides behave as arrogant pricks from time to time, one calling the other an ungodly sinner, the other calling the one ignorant or narrow-minded.

I made the evidence quite clear. This situation, by all anecdotal evidence I have presented (which you have yet to refute), fits the bill. Regardless, I don't care what either side things along those lines. Since as far as I have presented, the latter response is in fact true. You don't seem to be presenting me with any reasonable counter-reasoning to discover otherwise.

True, however reading the bible's stance correctly, all humans are sinners, none of them are holy, every single one of them being worthy of death for falling short of being perfect.

Now it begins to stretch off topic. I've met very few people that think along those lines. still, even if they do, the point is 'holier than thou'. Following gods laws makes one less of a sinner.

If this wasn't true, why follow Gods laws? You presented a logical fallacy and a paradox in one paragraph. but it illustrates why most people wont believe so, because it means nobody loses. If everyone (or majority) thought like that, our political system would be non-partisan.

Can't argue with that, but then, you say it's human nature, should we be fighting human nature? Isn't the whole dog-eat-dog, battle of the alphas, better for the purity of natural selection? After all society sees benefit out of the sharp minds with intelligent humor taking the girl, why? Because the geek then realizes that he's not charming, but finds a new way to be an alpha, Bill Gates style! Money, looks, smarts, charm and fame, these are ways to achieve alpha (Pauly Shore being the exception to the rule), life is sort of about establishing superiority for personal advancement right? Is it really rational to take the fight out of the dog?

Not only is most of this megaparagraph non-sequitor, written horribly, but it defeats any hint of opposition you MAY have had.

If human nature is to be dog-eat-dog (it is), then you prove me right. excluding horribly placed sarcasm...

My statement doesn't fight human nature whatsoever. Someone still loses. It's impossible, in this world, for everyone to win. someone loses, and because of that you have partisans.

[AlexP]

I apologize if this has been brought up already and I missed it, but why not start a poll?

Because polls normally allow people to be excessively lazy. This way you get opinions, not statistics that don't matter anyway.

Although, arguably, the opinions probably don't matter anyway.

[LeavingQuietly]

Let's ask a dictator instead then :wink:

[Happydude]

What remains is essentially a husk. The remaining debate is nothing more than cleaning up the rest of the dirt.

I felt the debate's integrity died two posts before the post I'm quoting, so I'd have to agree that any further is pretty much pointless. I also feel we did make our points well enough, you have proven you do have reason to think the way that you do, and I made my point that despite all of that, you can't know that your perspective is the driving point of religious people, thus can't drive your activism off of it.

Not only is most of this megaparagraph non-sequitor, written horribly, but it defeats any hint of opposition you MAY have had.

If human nature is to be dog-eat-dog (it is), then you prove me right. excluding horribly placed sarcasm...

My statement doesn't fight human nature whatsoever. Someone still loses. It's impossible, in this world, for everyone to win. someone loses, and because of that you have partisans.

I would however like to add one more comment on this topic. The reason I sided on this topic as I did is because I find the goal of Equalism interesting which is the driven activism for gay marriage and thus related to the topic, though more of a subdivision of it.

You see I think of Darwinism and Equalism to differ as Capitalism and Communism do. Although I would not dare to say what side should have the advantage nor do I care really, in evolution survival goes to the advantaged, whereas in the world of charity and activism for the underrepresented we look backwards to help the wounded. A very romantic viewpoint of society, but is it advantageous?

Don't get me wrong, a society that doesn't look backwards from time to time is an ugly thought, but we are talking about rationality here, not sentiment.


Oh and Jeremy, my apologies for the huge paragraphs and whatnot, I tend to forget about delivering the message well when focused on the message. Definitely need to work on that since it is very important. It was a pleasure, Jeremy.