Gay marraige is NOT the issue!

sbat

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Posts
2,295
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Is that why we no longer have "whites only" hotels, drinking fountains, and restrooms? Because change came in gradual steps from within?

Check your history.

If you go past the mid 1900's, you'll see that we came from "White Man's burden" and "noble savages" mentality to justify slavery and colonialism, to emancipation and abolition of slavery, to the 13th and 14th amendments, to the breakdown of the imperial colonial system and the independence of colonies, to the civil rights movement, to more organic uplift and educational movements that provide inner city black children with at least some exposure to the educational opportunities that wealthier white children take for granted. Those are all gradual steps from some starting point in the past.

Rights are not something freely given, so I wouldn't expect them to come easily. Lesson from history.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
If you go past the mid 1900's, you'll see that we came from "White Man's burden" and "noble savages" mentality to justify slavery and colonialism, to emancipation and abolition of slavery, to the 13th and 14th amendments, to the breakdown of the imperial colonial system and the independence of colonies, to the civil rights movement, to more organic uplift and educational movements that provide inner city black children with at least some exposure to the educational opportunities that wealthier white children take for granted. Those are all gradual steps from some starting point in the past.

Rights are not something freely given, so I wouldn't expect them to come easily. Lesson from history.

Yes, there are gradual steps. But they aren't always enough.

The South had a hundred years, after the Civil War, to get over its racist, segregated practices. Never happened, and wasn't about to.

It took the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to change things.

It's great to win hearts and minds. But sometimes you have to drag people kicking and screaming. :smile:
 

tamati

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Posts
1,875
Media
7
Likes
94
Points
308
Location
NorCal
Verification
View
Gender
Male
I just cant understand how a country founded on religious and personal freedoms, could ever limit what two consenting adults want to do, when it effects no one else at all.

Could an anti same sex marriage person please explain how gay marriage would effect you negatively?
 
Last edited:

redneckgymrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Posts
1,479
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Could an anti same sex marriage person please explain how gay marriage would effect you negatively?
I can try...and just for reference, part of the difficulty between the two sides, is illustrated by your question itself.

I'm not anti-gay marriage. I'm pro-religious freedom.

Many of the points brought up by the pro-gay marriage argument, let's say a homosexual couple that has been together for 20 years, monogamous, and is concerned about such things as hospital visitation, joint checking accounts, and inheritance, are not problems to those of us on the "other side." We don't *care* if the state wants to recognize you as a preferred visitor in the hospital...you're "like" family, so you should be on that list anyway!

Our problem comes with the way in which it's being framed. Gay marriage. Marriage. Words have meaning.

Most major religions define marriage as the joining of a man and a woman, before God. I am Christian, so we all already know that ceremony.

State recognition is one thing...go for it. Most of us have no problem with this...have as many joint checking accounts as you want. Why shouldn't the house go to the person with whom you cohabited, upon your death?

But framing it as "marriage" automatically positions it in such a way that it involves the legal/religious duality of marriage...and that starts touching on the edge of religious freedoms. Churches should be able to decide whether or not they can/should marry *any* couple they want, straight, biracial, gay, or whatever. It's up to the churches, not the state.

And, a lot of us think it should remain that way.

It's viewed, by people on "my" side, as an overreaching of the government, into an area where it must not go. When the state starts having input into the underlying tenets of a faith, that represents a big problem.

My preferred solution would be for the government to get out of marriage entirely...not for it to get more involved.

Does that clarify things, for you, at all?
 

sbat

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Posts
2,295
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Spurious argument. It's infringing on your religious freedoms when you force a church/religious group to recognize gay or straight "life partnerships." It is not infringing on your religious freedoms if there is a legal definition of the word marriage that has legal/tax implications.

A gay couple can be legally married, but the Baptist church down the corner has a right to recognize them as married or not married if they try to join the congregation and enjoy the private privileges that that church provides to couples they consider married.

I guess I support gay marriage by default due to my extreme indifference (same with abortion - I'm neither gay nor female, so neither one is my call), but from a pure dialectic standpoint, your argument doesn't fly.

I can try...and just for reference, part of the difficulty between the two sides, is illustrated by your question itself.

I'm not anti-gay marriage. I'm pro-religious freedom.

Many of the points brought up by the pro-gay marriage argument, let's say a homosexual couple that has been together for 20 years, monogamous, and is concerned about such things as hospital visitation, joint checking accounts, and inheritance, are not problems to those of us on the "other side." We don't *care* if the state wants to recognize you as a preferred visitor in the hospital...you're "like" family, so you should be on that list anyway!

Our problem comes with the way in which it's being framed. Gay marriage. Marriage. Words have meaning.

Most major religions define marriage as the joining of a man and a woman, before God. I am Christian, so we all already know that ceremony.

State recognition is one thing...go for it. Most of us have no problem with this...have as many joint checking accounts as you want. Why shouldn't the house go to the person with whom you cohabited, upon your death?

But framing it as "marriage" automatically positions it in such a way that it involves the legal/religious duality of marriage...and that starts touching on the edge of religious freedoms. Churches should be able to decide whether or not they can/should marry *any* couple they want, straight, biracial, gay, or whatever. It's up to the churches, not the state.

And, a lot of us think it should remain that way.

It's viewed, by people on "my" side, as an overreaching of the government, into an area where it must not go. When the state starts having input into the underlying tenets of a faith, that represents a big problem.

My preferred solution would be for the government to get out of marriage entirely...not for it to get more involved.

Does that clarify things, for you, at all?
 

redneckgymrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Posts
1,479
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Spurious argument. It's infringing on your religious freedoms when you force a church/religious group to recognize gay or straight "life partnerships." It is not infringing on your religious freedoms if there is a legal definition of the word marriage that has legal/tax implications.
An excellent point. And, you're absolutely right.

In theory.

In practice, the two never stay so neatly cubbyholed. That is where the problem comes in. Many who are against it, fear the creeping influence that this would represent.

I guess I support gay marriage by default due to my extreme indifference (same with abortion - I'm neither gay nor female, so neither one is my call), but from a pure dialectic standpoint, your argument doesn't fly.
The funny thing is that I'm not actually anti-gay marriage. I'm just not pro-gay marriage. As I said, the way it is being framed concerns me greatly...and that concern seems to be common.

The legal side of it doesn't bother me in the slightest...and if the churches want to perform the ceremonies, let them. But, leave it up to the churches.
 

blazblue

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Posts
1,195
Media
0
Likes
35
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I can try...and just for reference, part of the difficulty between the two sides, is illustrated by your question itself.

I'm not anti-gay marriage. I'm pro-religious freedom.

Many of the points brought up by the pro-gay marriage argument, let's say a homosexual couple that has been together for 20 years, monogamous, and is concerned about such things as hospital visitation, joint checking accounts, and inheritance, are not problems to those of us on the "other side." We don't *care* if the state wants to recognize you as a preferred visitor in the hospital...you're "like" family, so you should be on that list anyway!

Our problem comes with the way in which it's being framed. Gay marriage. Marriage. Words have meaning.

Most major religions define marriage as the joining of a man and a woman, before God. I am Christian, so we all already know that ceremony.

State recognition is one thing...go for it. Most of us have no problem with this...have as many joint checking accounts as you want. Why shouldn't the house go to the person with whom you cohabited, upon your death?

But framing it as "marriage" automatically positions it in such a way that it involves the legal/religious duality of marriage...and that starts touching on the edge of religious freedoms. Churches should be able to decide whether or not they can/should marry *any* couple they want, straight, biracial, gay, or whatever. It's up to the churches, not the state.

And, a lot of us think it should remain that way.

It's viewed, by people on "my" side, as an overreaching of the government, into an area where it must not go. When the state starts having input into the underlying tenets of a faith, that represents a big problem.

My preferred solution would be for the government to get out of marriage entirely...not for it to get more involved.

Does that clarify things, for you, at all?

Not really. First of all, how is it religious freedom if allowing gays to legally get married is against your religion? Shouldn't they have the freedom to legally get married like straight people? And then you say that the government should stay out of marriage completely even though you said its ok if the state level allows gay marriage. If that's the case then it defeats the purpose of the government denying gays to get married.

Sorry I just don't get it. And I'm a Christian as well.
 
Last edited:

blazblue

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Posts
1,195
Media
0
Likes
35
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
An excellent point. And, you're absolutely right.

In theory.

In practice, the two never stay so neatly cubbyholed. That is where the problem comes in. Many who are against it, fear the creeping influence that this would represent.


The funny thing is that I'm not actually anti-gay marriage. I'm just not pro-gay marriage. As I said, the way it is being framed concerns me greatly...and that concern seems to be common.

What's the difference?

The legal side of it doesn't bother me in the slightest...and if the churches want to perform the ceremonies, let them. But, leave it up to the churches.

Ok. But what does that have to with not wanting the government to let gays to get legally married?
 

Charlemange

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2010
Posts
356
Media
0
Likes
40
Points
173
Location
My Dark Paradise
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
My whole thing on Gay marriage is that it SHOULD be legal in all the states but the CHURCHES should have the right if they want to marry same sex couples. Then it would just come down to each church specifically if you can't get marriend in one place go somewhere else and if all else fails somebody get ordained and marry the couples. And I'm sure a person could make alot of money marrying gay couples pastors of a church or a person, I myself am a Christian and gay and to me it makes us hyprocrites to be so against gays and ban it and hate it so much but still do other things the Bible says is wrong like get abortions or be alcoholics and for women to have kids and not be married or for people period to have sex and not be married but that's just me. And black Christians especially shouldn't be so against gays their just fighting for their rights just like how the African Americans did during the civil rights movement.
 

tamati

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Posts
1,875
Media
7
Likes
94
Points
308
Location
NorCal
Verification
View
Gender
Male
I can try...and just for reference, part of the difficulty between the two sides, is illustrated by your question itself.

I'm not anti-gay marriage. I'm pro-religious freedom.

Many of the points brought up by the pro-gay marriage argument, let's say a homosexual couple that has been together for 20 years, monogamous, and is concerned about such things as hospital visitation, joint checking accounts, and inheritance, are not problems to those of us on the "other side." We don't *care* if the state wants to recognize you as a preferred visitor in the hospital...you're "like" family, so you should be on that list anyway!

Our problem comes with the way in which it's being framed. Gay marriage. Marriage. Words have meaning.

Most major religions define marriage as the joining of a man and a woman, before God. I am Christian, so we all already know that ceremony.

State recognition is one thing...go for it. Most of us have no problem with this...have as many joint checking accounts as you want. Why shouldn't the house go to the person with whom you cohabited, upon your death?

But framing it as "marriage" automatically positions it in such a way that it involves the legal/religious duality of marriage...and that starts touching on the edge of religious freedoms. Churches should be able to decide whether or not they can/should marry *any* couple they want, straight, biracial, gay, or whatever. It's up to the churches, not the state.

And, a lot of us think it should remain that way.

It's viewed, by people on "my" side, as an overreaching of the government, into an area where it must not go. When the state starts having input into the underlying tenets of a faith, that represents a big problem.

My preferred solution would be for the government to get out of marriage entirely...not for it to get more involved.

Does that clarify things, for you, at all?

I still dont see how gays wanting to marry is in any different from protestants wanting to peruse what they believed in hundreds of years ago.

government can stay out of marriage by not permitting restrictions on what two, unrelated by dna adults, want to call their union. I thought as a nation we stood for equal rights for all, not just some....?

would you feel better if their was a gay religion, one that's god or deity only permitted and required that marriage be only between same sex couples?

we dont have to call it gay marriage at all, in fact id bet it was the rightwing churches that called it that. gay couples want to get married just like everyone else.
 

monel

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Posts
1,638
Media
0
Likes
48
Points
183
Gender
Male
I can try...and just for reference, part of the difficulty between the two sides, is illustrated by your question itself.

I'm not anti-gay marriage. I'm pro-religious freedom.

Many of the points brought up by the pro-gay marriage argument, let's say a homosexual couple that has been together for 20 years, monogamous, and is concerned about such things as hospital visitation, joint checking accounts, and inheritance, are not problems to those of us on the "other side." We don't *care* if the state wants to recognize you as a preferred visitor in the hospital...you're "like" family, so you should be on that list anyway!

Our problem comes with the way in which it's being framed. Gay marriage. Marriage. Words have meaning.

Most major religions define marriage as the joining of a man and a woman, before God. I am Christian, so we all already know that ceremony.

State recognition is one thing...go for it. Most of us have no problem with this...have as many joint checking accounts as you want. Why shouldn't the house go to the person with whom you cohabited, upon your death?

But framing it as "marriage" automatically positions it in such a way that it involves the legal/religious duality of marriage...and that starts touching on the edge of religious freedoms. Churches should be able to decide whether or not they can/should marry *any* couple they want, straight, biracial, gay, or whatever. It's up to the churches, not the state.

And, a lot of us think it should remain that way.

It's viewed, by people on "my" side, as an overreaching of the government, into an area where it must not go. When the state starts having input into the underlying tenets of a faith, that represents a big problem.

My preferred solution would be for the government to get out of marriage entirely...not for it to get more involved.

Does that clarify things, for you, at all?

Hey Red. Looks like we're all taking the opportunity to beat up on you tonight ;-)

I don't agree with your position either though it is the argument put forth by the opponents of same-sex marriage. Firstly, it is a fallacy that marriage bas always been a union of "one man and one woman". For much of world history, even within Christianity, marriage was one man and many woman. The concept of one man and one woman as the exclusive marital form is relatively new.

You argue that the legalization of same sex marriage is an intrusion of the State into areas that it should not go. However, the State is already in the marriage business. A legal marriage is reqyired yet separate from a religious marriage. As a Catholic I had to get a legal marriage certificate. That makes me legally married. However, that would not cause me to be married in the eyes of the Church. I would not be considered married by the church until I went through the marriage rite before a catholic priest. The Catholic church does not recognize marriages performed before justices of the peace or even other religions. The fact that hundreds of thousands of couples get married outside the catholic church has zero impact on marriages performed according to Church doctrine. Similarly divorce is not recognized in the Catholic Church and re-marriage is prohibited. Yet the fact that it is legal for married couples to divorce and remarry has no impact on Catholic marriages. Moreover, just because a Catholic couple get a legal divorce does not mean the Church must or will recognize it as valid. Should the State lealize gay marriage, it would have no effect on Catholic or other religious marriages. They may not recognize them as valid but so be it. That is their religious freedom.

The religious argument is a ruse used by opponents of gay marriage to rile up the public against a boogy man that doesn't exist.
 
Last edited:

sillystring

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Posts
694
Media
0
Likes
66
Points
248
Gender
Male
Is that why we no longer have "whites only" hotels, drinking fountains, and restrooms? Because change came in gradual steps from within?

Check your history.

That's the second reference to the civil rights movement I've seen in comparison to the gay rights movement. One group, the blacks, were utterly demonized as a subhuman race of inferior beings to be subjugated and used as farm equipment and labor.

Outside the beliefs of the most bigoted right wing radicals that was never the case with gay people. There's no intellectual merit to your comparison beyond saying the government's forcing function on that issue was a necessary step.

The difference between the gay rights and civil rights movements comes down to simple numbers, there are a HELL of a lot more black people than gay people. It was a powder keg of racial tension which had repeatedly erupted into riots which could have easily devolved into open revolt. The government had to step in or watch National Guard and Police forces mow down American citizens.

I dooon'''ttttt really see that happening with the gay community, so yes the slow and steady process of acceptance I listed is one powerfu option.
 
Last edited:

sillystring

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Posts
694
Media
0
Likes
66
Points
248
Gender
Male
I just cant understand how a country founded on religious and personal freedoms, could ever limit what two consenting adults want to do, when it effects no one else at all.

Could an anti same sex marriage person please explain how gay marriage would effect you negatively?

Not anti-gay marriage but a family member of several.

Quotas is the only way I could see it affecting someone. Same thing with people's gripes about affirmative action quotas, I think one of the predominant fears is that a system will be put in place where a qualified applicant to a position or institution is turned down because of a quota requirement. X number of positions set aside for this group or that group of people.
 

hud01

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Posts
4,983
Media
0
Likes
104
Points
133
Location
new york city
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
That's the second reference to the civil rights movement I've seen in comparison to the gay rights movement. One group, the blacks, were utterly demonized as a subhuman race of inferior beings to be subjugated and used as farm equipment and labor.

Outside the beliefs of the most bigoted right wing radicals that was never the case with gay people. There's no intellectual merit to your comparison beyond saying the government's forcing function on that issue was a necessary step.

The difference between the gay rights and civil rights movements comes down to simple numbers, there are a HELL of a lot more black people than gay people. It was a powder keg of racial tension which had repeatedly erupted into riots which could have easily devolved into open revolt. The government had to step in or watch National Guard and Police forces mow down American citizens.

I dooon'''ttttt really see that happening with the gay community, so yes the slow and steady process of acceptance I listed is one powerfu option.
Check your numbers, it isn't as big a difference as you might think
 

hud01

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Posts
4,983
Media
0
Likes
104
Points
133
Location
new york city
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Not anti-gay marriage but a family member of several.

Quotas is the only way I could see it affecting someone. Same thing with people's gripes about affirmative action quotas, I think one of the predominant fears is that a system will be put in place where a qualified applicant to a position or institution is turned down because of a quota requirement. X number of positions set aside for this group or that group of people.
You are totally missing the point. It has nothing to do with quotas. If you are married, your assets can be transferred tax free. Also health insurance is tax free. Now gays cannot do any of this.
 

tamati

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Posts
1,875
Media
7
Likes
94
Points
308
Location
NorCal
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Not anti-gay marriage but a family member of several.

Quotas is the only way I could see it affecting someone. Same thing with people's gripes about affirmative action quotas, I think one of the predominant fears is that a system will be put in place where a qualified applicant to a position or institution is turned down because of a quota requirement. X number of positions set aside for this group or that group of people.

Quotas? Qualified applicant?
Um, we are talking about getting married, and the perks that go with that, not getting a job, or into college.
 

hud01

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Posts
4,983
Media
0
Likes
104
Points
133
Location
new york city
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
I can try...and just for reference, part of the difficulty between the two sides, is illustrated by your question itself.

I'm not anti-gay marriage. I'm pro-religious freedom.

Many of the points brought up by the pro-gay marriage argument, let's say a homosexual couple that has been together for 20 years, monogamous, and is concerned about such things as hospital visitation, joint checking accounts, and inheritance, are not problems to those of us on the "other side." We don't *care* if the state wants to recognize you as a preferred visitor in the hospital...you're "like" family, so you should be on that list anyway!
Ok so if one of them dies then the state treats the other as a friend, not a partner and all assests are taxed, if they were married this would not be the case
Our problem comes with the way in which it's being framed. Gay marriage. Marriage. Words have meaning.

Most major religions define marriage as the joining of a man and a woman, before God. I am Christian, so we all already know that ceremony. So I was married by a JP, does that mean I was not really married? come on wake up

State recognition is one thing...go for it. Most of us have no problem with this...have as many joint checking accounts as you want. Why shouldn't the house go to the person with whom you cohabited, upon your death? Exactly, but the law does not agree with that

But framing it as "marriage" automatically positions it in such a way that it involves the legal/religious duality of marriage...and that starts touching on the edge of religious freedoms. Churches should be able to decide whether or not they can/should marry *any* couple they want, straight, biracial, gay, or whatever. It's up to the churches, not the state. I have a friend whose mother attended church every day, and he did the same when he was younger, but since he had moved away the priest refused to marry him and is wife.......Asshole....they already have that...Gays aren't asking to force churches to marry them,. they are asking for the same legal rights that hetros get

And, a lot of us think it should remain that way.

It's viewed, by people on "my" side, as an overreaching of the government, into an area where it must not go. When the state starts having input into the underlying tenets of a faith, that represents a big problem. It has nothing to do with faith and how many times must you be hit over the head to understand that it is all legal and it has nothing to do with religion

My preferred solution would be for the government to get out of marriage entirely...not for it to get more involved. Ok this proves that you have no clue whatsoever. Marriage is entirely a government act. You have to get a marriage license, you can't get married without it. Who do you think issues it? You really don't know what you are talking about

Does that clarify things, for you, at all?

Not at all
 

redneckgymrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Posts
1,479
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Most major religions define marriage as the joining of a man and a woman, before God. I am Christian, so we all already know that ceremony. So I was married by a JP, does that mean I was not really married? come on wake up
No, it means that you are legally married, but not religiously married.

Look back at my post. It mentions a legal/religious duality.

I have a friend whose mother attended church every day, and he did the same when he was younger, but since he had moved away the priest refused to marry him and is wife.......Asshole....they already have that...Gays aren't asking to force churches to marry them,. they are asking for the same legal rights that hetros get
Did you even *read* my post? Legal rights are one thing, religious recognition is another.

I have no issues with the legal part, nor do a *lot* of other religious people.

It has nothing to do with faith and how many times must you be hit over the head to understand that it is all legal and it has nothing to do with religion
Absolutely none. Hitting someone over the head is not the way to convince anyone of anything but your inability to communicate.

Try a different approach...logic, reason, and a convincing argument.

And, while you're at it, please learn the tags for inline quotes. It would make replying to you a much easier task.

My preferred solution would be for the government to get out of marriage entirely...not for it to get more involved. Ok this proves that you have no clue whatsoever. Marriage is entirely a government act. You have to get a marriage license, you can't get married without it. Who do you think issues it? You really don't know what you are talking about
Completely wrong. Marriage is *both* a religious institution, and a legal arrangement. You're focusing on only part of it...the part that is most beneficial to you.

Please check your facts before spouting off.