Gay marraige is NOT the issue!

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
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?
As I said back on post #18... ahem...
My stance summarized on the gay marriage issue. How many marriages happened in the US last year? How many of them affected you? Why would gay marriages be any different?
I doubt anyone could actually state why it would affect them personally. Even if their religion would cause them to shun gays, they'd be doing so out of the knowledge that they are gay, not that they were in a gay marriage.
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 think that this is the reason why an anti-gay marriage law seems like such a foreign concept to me. I don't feel that America should cater to cowardly bigots. Let them cower and shake and declare the end of days because gays can get married. When the world doesn't crumble they'll emerge and go about their lives, just like they always do.
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.
The inconsistency in how religions approach the subject of marriage is astounding. There is a large push for religious reasons to stop gay marriages because their religions don't believe in them. And yet, many of the same don't believe in divorce, common-law marriage, non-religious ceremonies, etc. Are there pushes to make all of these illegal? Claiming that marriage is a religious institution, but then refusing to attack all of the other laws which violate your religious precepts (and have been on the books for far longer) is staggeringly hypocritical.
 

sillystring

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Posts
694
Media
0
Likes
66
Points
248
Gender
Male
Quotas? Qualified applicant?
Um, we are talking about getting married, and the perks that go with that, not getting a job, or into college.


"ummmm" we're talking about a question you posited. To some the immediate effect is negligible, the assumed secondary and tertiary ones are not. The forced integration aspect unsettles folks more than anything else. They don't like their bastion of hate being assailed by Uncle Sam.
 

joyboytoy79

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Posts
3,686
Media
32
Likes
61
Points
193
Location
Washington, D.C. (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Check what numbers though, is there a census? If you're going to post that please reference something.


Wait, so you were basing your statement that "there are a HELL of a lot more black people than gay people" off of what? You didn't reference anything. It hardly seems noble of you to make a statement about numbers without providing a reference, and then to expect someone else to provide a reference when you disagree with them.

And by the way, comparisons of numbers have nothing to do with civil rights. If even one person is excluded, it's an unjust system.

And now for some definitions. Marriage, as gay men and women are fighting for it, is a CIVIL issue. It is regarded as a RIGHT by the US supreme court. Therefor, the fight for marriage is a fight of CIVIL RIGHTS.

<end of response to sillystring>

Now to address this perceived "infringement" on religious freedom:

My husband and I are married in the eyes of our church. Because the state wouldn't issue us a marriage license at the time of our church wedding, we had to undergo a separate civil ceremony years after our marriage. But our church, like many, doesn't recognize civil ceremonies. The result is that we have two "anniversaries," a civil one, and a religious one. How absurd is that? My religious beliefs, and those of my church, dictate that marriage is a union of two souls. Souls are, themselves, without gender. Therefor, gender is no issue in marriage. How does a ban on same sex marriage NOT infringe on MY religious freedom? And why is my religious freedom less important than yours?
 

sillystring

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Posts
694
Media
0
Likes
66
Points
248
Gender
Male
Wait, so you were basing your statement that "there are a HELL of a lot more black people than gay people" off of what? You didn't reference anything. It hardly seems noble of you to make a statement about numbers without providing a reference, and then to expect someone else to provide a reference when you disagree with them.

And by the way, comparisons of numbers have nothing to do with civil rights. If even one person is excluded, it's an unjust system.

And now for some definitions. Marriage, as gay men and women are fighting for it, is a CIVIL issue. It is regarded as a RIGHT by the US supreme court. Therefor, the fight for marriage is a fight of CIVIL RIGHTS.

I never said it isn't a civil rights issue, I said it is not "the" civil rights movement and the outlook and intervention of the government that series of events required. Unless there's some US history book you know of that has separate events listed under the civil rights movement header, you're not gaining any traction on that. These issues have similar desired end states....that's where their similarity stops.

And by the way, change doesn't happen because something is wrong. It happens because a lot of people think it is wrong and act on that belief. Numbers are everything, or is this whole representation model of our government a fallacy?

Don't compare the two rights movements beyond what the desired end-state is. The mentality of oppression, the views on the humanity of the victims, these aspects of the original struggle couldn't be any more the polar opposites of the current one.

It was religious leaders who were proponents of ending the subjugation of a race of men. The religious platform is the majority opponent to the current struggle. They don't see gay people as subhuman cattle, they see them as unrepentant sinners flaunting god's law.
 
Last edited:

tamati

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Posts
1,875
Media
7
Likes
94
Points
308
Location
NorCal
Verification
View
Gender
Male

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
I never said it isn't a civil rights issue, I said it is not "the" civil rights movement and the outlook and intervention of the government that series of events required. Unless there's some US history book you know of that has separate events listed under the civil rights movement header, you're not gaining any traction on that. These issues have similar desired end states....that's where their similarity stops.

So it's a civil rights issue but not "the" civil rights movement. Talk about a distinction without a difference . . .

And by the way, change doesn't happen because something is wrong. It happens because a lot of people think it is wrong and act on that belief. Numbers are everything, or is this whole representation model of our government a fallacy?

Yep. And fortunately, most people are in favor of gay marriage--particularly the younger generation. Battles will still need to be fought, but in the end it's just a matter of time before the law of the land catches up.

Don't compare the two rights movements beyond what the desired end-state is. The mentality of oppression, the views on the humanity of the victims, these aspects of the original struggle couldn't be any more the polar opposites of the current one.

Polar opposites? I wonder how those who have indulged in brutal, sometimes murderous gay bashing have viewed the "humanity of the victims."

You can argue that gays have not suffered the same torments endured by blacks. But that's far from making either situation acceptable.

It was religious leaders who were proponents of ending the subjugation of a race of men. The religious platform is the majority opponent to the current struggle. They don't see gay people as subhuman cattle, they see them as unrepentant sinners flaunting god's law.

The more praise for those religious leaders who stood up for human rights in the past--and the more shame for those who refuse to now.
 

sillystring

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Posts
694
Media
0
Likes
66
Points
248
Gender
Male
So it's a civil rights issue but not "the" civil rights movement. Talk about a distinction without a difference . . .

There's a big difference, you can hide that you're gay, you can't hide that you're black.

As for the rest, no there is no comparing the two movements beyond the desired goal of equality. You can pick apart my reasoning all you want, gay people never had to pull themselves up from a wide-spread view that they were inferior and not really human to begin with. Don't cite individual accounts of brutality, be reasonable, I am talking broad concrete beliefs of society about gay people.

The last part you wrote is especially good, about religious leaders. It's hypocrisy on their part to champion one movement with patience and reason and not the next.
 

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
There's a big difference, you can hide that you're gay, you can't hide that you're black.

The only sure way to hide that you're gay is to deny your sexuality altogether. And having to hide it at all is in itself a form of oppression.

As for the rest, no there is no comparing the two movements beyond the desired goal of equality. You can pick apart my reasoning all you want, gay people never had to pull themselves up from a wide-spread view that they were inferior and not really human to begin with. Don't cite individual accounts of brutality, be reasonable, I am talking broad concrete beliefs of society about gay people.

I acknowledge that discrimination against blacks is and has been different from discrimination against gays (or women, or Jews, or the elderly, etc.). Each group has its own distinct issues and history.

I guess I'm just less inclined than you to focus on such comparisons. If it's an injustice to deny marriage to gay people, this remains true despite the fact that black people were once slaves.

The last part you wrote is especially good, about religious leaders. It's hypocrisy on their part to champion one movement with patience and reason and not the next.

Why, thank you. :smile:
 

sbat

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Posts
2,295
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
The last part you wrote is especially good, about religious leaders. It's hypocrisy on their part to champion one movement with patience and reason and not the next.

Kind of like how the the Catholic Church was the primary source of the preservation of knowledge for a while, but became more reactionary once the printing press started decentralizing that same process.

Yay for historical tie-ins!:biggrin1::biggrin1:
 

Member_at_Large

Experimental Member
Joined
May 19, 2012
Posts
3
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
88
Location
Lafayette (Indiana, United States)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Since when is it professional to discuss sexuality in the workplace?

To be blunt being gay boils down to sexual preference, and it is never acceptable to discuss sexuality in a workplace environment. Gay, Bi or straight, if you make sexuality a dominant topic, you're canned. And you don't get to play the "They fired me because I'm gay" card.
Heterosexual people are able to display their sexual orientation all the time at the work place...pictures of spouses, weddings, wedding rings, discussing their family...it's not all about sex! Sexuality and sexual orientation are two completely different things...in my state I could be fired if were to have a picture of me and a male partner in my office...a heterosexual person cannot. It's about being allowed to be who you are.
 

cruztbone

Experimental Member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Posts
1,284
Media
0
Likes
11
Points
258
Age
70
Location
Capitola CA USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Philly Prick, gay marriage IS the issue. all of the rights that are given to heterosexual couples are denied gay couples in most states, and marriage would END this economic double standard. what you are talking about is ENDA, which President Obama has pushed for since he entered office. sadly, just enough Dems and all but 2 Reps in the house of Reps voted NO a few years ago, defeating it by a few votes. What to do? make sure all Dems in the house vote for it next year, as we will likely regain the house. even John Boehner acknowledges it is quite possible.
 

B_Bjen2848

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Posts
942
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
103
Location
Mars, vacate in the bermuda triangle
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
can anyone who is apposed to gay marriage answer this question...

why should gay people not be allowed to get married?

when a random man and a woman get married, does it affect your life in ANY way? hell no

it will be the same if the 2 people were both men or both women, let people live their life how they want, if they aren't affecting your life negatively than you need to get the hell out of their business
 

tamati

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Posts
1,875
Media
7
Likes
94
Points
308
Location
NorCal
Verification
View
Gender
Male
2 men get married todo what? thay cant have kids without a women

marriage is a prereq for having kids now? WFT?
maybe they just want to marry cause they are in love and want to make a commitment to live together forever...






Who gets hurt if same sex couples get married?

???​
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,237
Media
213
Likes
31,759
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
2 men get married todo what? thay cant have kids without a women
My husband and I have been married for 8 years, ever since it became legal in Massachusetts. We have been living together as souses for 35 years. Does that bother you?