Gay marriage debate

[sjt18]

When do I "howl"? I've been reading your arguments and understand your viewpoint. I just think it's hilarious that we as a society - feel that "our right to discriminate" is being trampled.

Our right to discriminate already HAS been trampled, smashed, and written into US Code.

I do not "fear" homosexuals getting inheritance rights among other legal conveniences that married couples enjoy between themselves. FTM, I don't even mind having legal protections for one party or the other if a split occurs and joint property et al is at issue.

My "fear" is that the rights of people who reject homosexuality morally will be subverted by a state endorsement.

Do I have a "right" to demand my employer provide me with a prayer room? NO. Could they if they wishe? Yes.

The employers of homosexuals currently have the right and do provide benefits to partners. They find a way to govern it. Some adoption agencies do or would voluntarily place children in the homes of homosexual couples.

IF homosexual marriage passes... the right NOT to have those associations and relationships will be gone. The rights of the many will be trampled for the sake of the desires of a few.

Any feigned outrage on my part was accidental and I apologize. I am merely commenting on the state of our society.

We go at it but I know you're a good guy. Iron sharpens iron. I wouldn't put my arguments out there if I didn't want you to prove me.

I can promise there are no hard feelings on my end.

 

[sjt18]

are you for or against being able to deny interracial marriages if the voters approve?

On what basis would you propose denying it?

Again, I agree with Powell about race being a benign characteristic. In fact, I do not believe there is such a thing as "race". We are all biologically and genetically human descending from a common ancestor.

There is no choice of behavior regarding race. Even if you could prove that homosexuality is 100% biological... there is still choice involved in expressing the impulse. Of course you know that over 60 years of effort and money have failed to prove it biological though.

just like you are doing now

Not in the very least. I have repeatedly said that you could legislate changes in license laws over my objections if enough people agree with you.

I have run from nothing while you hide behind scripture to discriminate.

That is weak and not becoming of you. I have yet to hide behind anything. I am a single person with a single voice and vote on this issue. I do not deny the rights of you or anyone else to base their vote on whatever their personal reasons are.

You are most certainly refusing to apply your reasoning or even present reasoning that you are willing to be consistent with. If it is a "right" then gov't can only deny it... not create it.

The irony of your last sentence is amazing. Everyone should have the same rights yet you are against that idea.

A license is not a right. It just isn't. You can run around in circles singing yayayaya all you want... but a license is not a right.

You avoid the other possibilities because you KNOW that you are not ready to proclaim it an absolute right extended to EVERYONE.

Please stop claiming to be pro-freedom when it's clear you view others as inferior and lacking the same opportunities you enjoy.

I am pro-freedom. I never said anyone was inferior. All ideals are not equal however. All moral positions are not equal. All worldviews are not equal. I have just as much a "RIGHT" to promote the ones I believe are superior as you do.

There is nothing contradictory between freedom and the idea that some choices limit opportunity. In fact, that is part and parcel to having a free society. You can choose to make decisions but must bear the known consequences... rejection of society or a refusal of society to endorse you can be one of them.

again with the voting and the slippery slope argument. Peter Venkman pops in my head every time I read that from the anti- gay marriage people

Have no earthly idea who that is.

nothing is inconsistent. I am for everyone having equal access and you are not. It's really quite simple

No you aren't. You have avoided it but you aren't. You are not for everyone having equal access. You try to handwave by saying "slippery slope" but have yet to say why your justification for denying one group "equal access" is superior to another's more restrictive view... or less restrictive.

 

[RespectTradition]

The right to discriminate is a very important one. If a girl is willing to sleep with a handsome man, should she also have to sleep with a fat ugly man? or should she be able to pick her partners based on her ideas of attractiveness? If you do not like chinese people but do like italian people, should we pass a law that says you should have to eat at the chinese restaurant as often as you eat italian? We all, each and every one of us, discriminates. Some grounds that you might use for discrimination, I may find ludicrous. You may think some grounds I may propose for discrimination are laughable. So what. Those are consequences of freedom. You cannot simultaneous force people to behave in a proscribed manner and also have freedom. You can't. Not possible.

My own personal belief is that it is wrong to treat others badly or unjustly based upon group factors. IE, it is wrong to treat Joe poorly because he is black or it is wrong to mistreat Ellen because she is gay. However, I am willing to die for your right to do so. Because I can't be free, and neither can Joe or Ellen, if we are all not allowed to be free. Freedom can be abused, misused, neglected and taken advantage of. So what. It is still far, far better than the alternative.

But if I believe that people from East Anglia have cooties, then I should not have to deal with them if I don't want to. Might that hurt some poor East Anglians feelings? Yup. Do you have a right to not get your feelings hurt? Nope. If I am Jewish or Muslim and believe that handling pork makes me ritually unclean, should you be able to tell me if I own my own slaughterhouse that I have to butcher pigs just because some customer wants it? Of course not. In the same vein, if I own a B&B and I feel like I would be aiding in a sin if I rented my rooms to an unmarried couple, should I be forced to? or a gay couple? The problems arise when the government says a) all married people must be treated equally and b) gays are married. That may force someone to have to compromise their religious and legal obligations. That is wrong. That is why it is not the governments place to be involved at all. Gay or straight. Period.

 

[KiffinKiller]

rofl

 

[sjt18]

rofl

At being free? If it is not any more valuable to you than that... then I demand you adopt my pov and let's be done with this non-sense.

Be consistent. If discrimination is wrong then stop discriminating against the pov I want you to have... just accept it like you are supposed to.

 

[RespectTradition]

At being free? If it is not any more valuable to you than that... then I demand you adopt my pov and let's be done with this non-sense.

Be consistent. If discrimination is wrong then stop discriminating against the pov I want you to have... just accept it like you are supposed to.

You know lumping people in groups and discounting their pov is totally unacceptable. Unless of course you are a christian or believe in something other than what is PC.

 

[KoachKrab127]

The right to discriminate is a very important one. If a girl is willing to sleep with a handsome man, should she also have to sleep with a fat ugly man? or should she be able to pick her partners based on her ideas of attractiveness? If you do not like chinese people but do like italian people, should we pass a law that says you should have to eat at the chinese restaurant as often as you eat italian? We all, each and every one of us, discriminates. Some grounds that you might use for discrimination, I may find ludicrous.

It is this argument that is ludicrous. The "girl" you mention has the right to sleep with whoever she wants. But I believe that girl does not have the right to enforce laws telling 2 other people what they can or cannot do together. This is why I am against banning gay marriage.

 

[bamacheats]

If 2 consenting dudes are allowed to marry, by the same principle a consenting dude should be allowed to marry multiple consenting chicks as well.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[KiffinKiller]

or a consenting sheep. shhhh.

 

[VOLatile]

I'm not against a person's choice to discriminate against one person, on a case to case basis after they get to know them even a little bit. But discriminating against an entire group of people based on one thing is COMPLETELY wrong.

 

[KiffinKiller]

I don't think this issue will be finding a solution any time soon. Rome and Pontus staring at each other over palisades, imo.

 

[RespectTradition]

It is this argument that is ludicrous. The "girl" you mention has the right to sleep with whoever she wants. But I believe that girl does not have the right to enforce laws telling 2 other people what they can or cannot do together. This is why I am against banning gay marriage.

Have you seen me advocate banning gay marriage?

It is an extreme example to make a point. To wit, that we all discriminate. It is not inherently evil. It is only wrong to discriminate when your intentions are to harm others. I agree that no one should be able to tell anyone else what to do except to prevent the initiation of violence, fraud or theft. The part that some people refuse to see, is that also includes accepting someone's right to be a jerk. I have two main problems with the gay marriage debate, both of which have the same solution.

1) marriage has its origins in religion and is therefore outside the purview of the government

2) when the government acknowledges marriage, it FORCES everyone to accept it as valid regardless of the individuals personal beliefs

Get the government out of the marriage business for everyone. Gay, straight, black, white, fat, thin.

Just because some people believe in something that you don't does not justify using the force of government to make them change their actions.

 

[RespectTradition]

I'm not against a person's choice to discriminate against one person, on a case to case basis after they get to know them even a little bit. But discriminating against an entire group of people based on one thing is COMPLETELY wrong.

I agree.

Question:

If a group of people believe that homosexuality is sinful, is it wrong to dismiss them and belittle their right to believe and act according to their beliefs?

 

[sjt18]

It is this argument that is ludicrous. The "girl" you mention has the right to sleep with whoever she wants. But I believe that girl does not have the right to enforce laws telling 2 other people what they can or cannot do together. This is why I am against banning gay marriage.

Are you against laws banning marriage between siblings? Why or why not?

I AM NOT saying this is where gay marriage would lead. I am simply asking for why you believe it would be right for that girl to "enforce laws telling 2 other people what they can or cannot do together" if those people happened to be related.

No one can enforce a law against adult incest. It would be just as futile as one against homosexuality. However that does NOT mean that states must equally entitle people to a marriage "LICENSE" or must endorse their relationship.

 

[sjt18]

If 2 consenting dudes are allowed to marry, by the same principle a consenting dude should be allowed to marry multiple consenting chicks as well.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I am interested to see if any gay marriage supporters oppose polygamy and if they do why... however, I am getting the idea that they do not want to explain their reasoning or how it is consistent.

 

[sjt18]

I'm not against a person's choice to discriminate against one person, on a case to case basis after they get to know them even a little bit. But discriminating against an entire group of people based on one thing is COMPLETELY wrong.

I do not believe in discriminating against people. I do believe in discriminating against behavior, attitudes, and actions. It may not be necessary to completely cut someone off even if you discriminate against them because of certain things.

In my previous job, I worked with an openly homosexual man. We had a productive and amiable relationship. We traveled together on business. He understood and accepted that I did not agree with the morality of his choices. We respectfully disagreed about it but did not allow it to poison our whole relationship.

 

[sjt18]

Have you seen me advocate banning gay marriage?

It is an extreme example to make a point. To wit, that we all discriminate. It is not inherently evil. It is only wrong to discriminate when your intentions are to harm others. I agree that no one should be able to tell anyone else what to do except to prevent the initiation of violence, fraud or theft. The part that some people refuse to see, is that also includes accepting someone's right to be a jerk. I have two main problems with the gay marriage debate, both of which have the same solution.

1) marriage has its origins in religion and is therefore outside the purview of the government

2) when the government acknowledges marriage, it FORCES everyone to accept it as valid regardless of the individuals personal beliefs

Get the government out of the marriage business for everyone. Gay, straight, black, white, fat, thin.

Just because some people believe in something that you don't does not justify using the force of government to make them change their actions.

Good post. Good solution... but unfortunately the other "two sides of this debate" are determined that the other side must lose.

Your solution would be preferrable. Absent that... I believe we have to trust democratic wisdom to set the standard.

 

[KoachKrab127]

I do not believe in discriminating against people. I do believe in discriminating against behavior, attitudes, and actions. It may not be necessary to completely cut someone off even if you discriminate against them because of certain things.

In my previous job, I worked with an openly homosexual man. We had a productive and amiable relationship. We traveled together on business. He understood and accepted that I did not agree with the morality of his choices. We respectfully disagreed about it but did not allow it to poison our whole relationship.

I am not opposed to siblings getting married. Like I said, I am of the opinion that if it doesn't hurt anyone it should be legal and acceptable since we live in a free society.

I also think polygamy should be legal as long as every wife/husband consents to the husband/wife marrying another partner. I believe everyone should consent because in marriage you are joining a family, and all of the adults in the immediate family need to approve.

 

[sjt18]

I am not opposed to siblings getting married. Like I said, I am of the opinion that if it doesn't hurt anyone it should be legal and acceptable since we live in a free society.

I also think polygamy should be legal as long as every wife/husband consents to the husband/wife marrying another partner. I believe everyone should consent because in marriage you are joining a family, and all of the adults in the immediate family need to approve.

OK. I obviously disagree but you ARE being consistent. That's all I have been asking for.

What do you think of my argument about license though? Do the people of the various states have a right to qualify the issue of licenses according to their collective will and conscience?

I would NEVER try to legally prevent homosexuals or anyone else from having a marriage ceremony, calling each other spouse, getting benefits from willing employers, etc. The problem I have is with them demanding a license or legal endorsement as a "right". A license is NEVER a right.

It is my impression from listening to the thoughtful gay marriage advocates that they are not simply after the "internal" benefits of legal marriage like inheritance, custody, guardianships, etc. The conversation almost always VERY QUICKLY turns to using that endorsement as a means to demand "civil rights protections"... basically to impose acceptance of their relationships on people who disapprove and wish to disassociate.

Do homosexuals or anyone else possess the RIGHT to be accepted?

 

[theutvolunteers]

I agree.

Question:

If a group of people believe that homosexuality is sinful, is it wrong to dismiss them and belittle their right to believe and act according to their beliefs?

They will still be able to act exactly as they always have. Preventing gay marriage is limiting others to the same rights they already have.

 

[Regulator]

OK. I obviously disagree but you ARE being consistent. That's all I have been asking for.

What do you think of my argument about license though? Do the people of the various states have a right to qualify the issue of licenses according to their collective will and conscience?

I would NEVER try to legally prevent homosexuals or anyone else from having a marriage ceremony, calling each other spouse, getting benefits from willing employers, etc. The problem I have is with them demanding a license or legal endorsement as a "right". A license is NEVER a right.

It is my impression from listening to the thoughtful gay marriage advocates that they are not simply after the "internal" benefits of legal marriage like inheritance, custody, guardianships, etc. The conversation almost always VERY QUICKLY turns to using that endorsement as a means to demand "civil rights protections"... basically to impose acceptance of their relationships on people who disapprove and wish to disassociate.

Do homosexuals or anyone else possess the RIGHT to be accepted?

No. But each of us does possess the RIGHT to not be unaccepted based on race, color, origin, religious beliefs (or non-beliefs), or sexual preference. IMO, all the majority of people want is a fair shake, and access to the same benefits and opportunities as anyone else would have while wearing that person's shoes.

The problem is finding the balance between these opportunities being willfully extended, without coercion, or having to mandate acceptance of opposing viewpoints/lifestyles in order for someone to feel equal.

Unfortunately, we as a society have proven many times over that we can't all just get along.

 

[sjt18]

No. But each of us does possess the RIGHT to not be unaccepted based on race, color, origin, religious beliefs (or non-beliefs), or sexual preference. IMO, all the majority of people want is a fair shake, and access to the same benefits and opportunities as anyone else would have while wearing that person's shoes.

Sorry but I firmly disagree. I agree that race, color, and origin are legitimate protections. They are benign and unchosen.

Religion and sexual behavior are choices. They are choices that conflict with the right of others to make their own choices. Forcing acceptance or even "null unacceptance" violates the rights of those who dissent.

The problem is finding the balance between these opportunities being willfully extended, without coercion, or having to mandate acceptance of opposing viewpoints/lifestyles in order for someone to feel equal.

The problem is that the federal gov't's input on this issue is meaningful at all. I have no problem with states withdrawing from the debate. I have no problem with states choosing to right marriage laws according to the dictates of their collective conscience. I do have a problem with asserting such "rights" by judicial fiat. I most definitely have a problem with the federal gov't jumping in on either side.

Unfortunately, we as a society have proven many times over that we can't all just get along.

Right. My reaction is generally to distrust those who demand gov't make others accept or support them. I don't like it when homosexuals do it... when the slothful/scammers do it... or when James Dobson does it.

 

[Regulator]

Sorry but I firmly disagree. I agree that race, color, and origin are legitimate protections. They are benign and unchosen.

Religion and sexual behavior are choices. They are choices that conflict with the right of others to make their own choices. Forcing acceptance or even "null unacceptance" violates the rights of those who dissent.

The problem is that the federal gov't's input on this issue is meaningful at all. I have no problem with states withdrawing from the debate. I have no problem with states choosing to right marriage laws according to the dictates of their collective conscience. I do have a problem with asserting such "rights" by judicial fiat. I most definitely have a problem with the federal gov't jumping in on either side.

Right. My reaction is generally to distrust those who demand gov't make others accept or support them. I don't like it when homosexuals do it... when the slothful/scammers do it... or when James Dobson does it.

I wasn't advocating that acceptance should be enforced. Ideally, it would be willfully accepted. And yes, people have the right to dissent. But, if through your dissension, you deny their rights, how does that make you "right" or just? They don't fault you for your preferences or beliefs, and likewise don't wish to be faulted for their own. The "like it or lump it" argument could be applied here as well, but it can be applied to either side. We could be co-workers, you the grizzled vet, I the new employee. I like oranges. You tell me, "This is strictly an apple organization. There are to be no oranges in here. Oranges offend me to my core." (no pun intended) Who are you to tell me that I can't have oranges? I don't mind your apples. My oranges have no effect on my job performance, nor should they yours. They're only oranges, and I keep them in my desk drawer and only eat them in private, or in the presence of other orange eaters. And yes, there are other orange eaters in our organization, but they are afraid to speak out.

Could we not coexist in that scenario? Would someone have to leave? Why should that person not be you?

 

[sjt18]

And yes, people have the right to dissent. But, if through your dissension, you deny their rights, how does that make you "right" or just?

As long as we clearly and rationally distinguish the difference between a right and a privilege, I am fine with this.

A license to marry is "permission" given by the state with benefits, obligations, and most importantly QUALIFICATIONS.

Who are you to tell me that I can't have oranges?

That depends on who owns the property/business and what they think of oranges. If you want to have a "orange" favoring business then find another employer or start your own. You don't have the right to dictate the terms of the privilege of being employed on my property.

Could we not coexist in that scenario? Would someone have to leave? Why should that person not be you?

No. It would be a violation of my property and possibly conscience rights to force me to associate with someone who did something I disapproved of.

You see as much as I disapprove of the indoctrination being performed... I still believe companies have a "right" to demand employees attend "sensitivity training" if they offend someone in violation of company values/policies. But if companies have that "right" then they should have the converse of it too. Whatever values caused the employee to feel justified in offending the other person are their right to hold and express in public areas or their own property. They do NOT have a right to express them then demand the privilege of employment be continued anyway.

It is never one person's "right" to violate the rights of another as you rightly point out. I cannot think of any way that gov't can endorse and legitimize homosexual marriages without assuring that the religious rights of others will be violated.

 

[RespectTradition]

They will still be able to act exactly as they always have. Preventing gay marriage is limiting others to the same rights they already have.

I will repeat. I never said that gays should not be allowed to wed.

However, if 'they will still be able to act exactly as they always have' then there is no point in government sanctioned marriage for gays, is there? There is a reason it is wanted. That reason is to force others to treat them as married. That is where the problem lies. Forcing others to do something at the point of a gun is wrong.

They are being denied a privilege that is given to straight couples. That is wrong. The correct solution, though, is not to grant them that privilege, but end the privilege. If no one gets special legal treatment for being married, then we are back to being fair. Married people receive all kinds of benefits that single people do not get. That is discrimination against single people, and governmental discrimination is WRONG!

And don't fool yourself, every single law is backed by the threat to kill you.