[Wheatmeister]

Originally Posted by Bryan

what about the thousands of people who voted for kerry just because he is a Democrat? How is that any different than voting for Bush because he is a Christian? Why dont' you criticize them for that, they didn't use any thought process to vote, only went and pulled the Democrat lever.

Honestly, Bryan, I didn't mention those people because that wasn't the original question is the initial post. So let me expand my argument just so people know I'm an equal opportunity contrarian: Bloc voting by anyone on either end of the political spectrum is stupid. While people may be members of the NRA, NEA, Christian Right, ACLU, etc., the issues those groups concern themselves with should never be the only issues the people in those groups concern themselves with. Teachers care about issues outside of education, gun owners care about issues outside of those related to gun ownership, civil libertarians care about things outside of that area. Christians should care about issues other than those related to gay marriage, prayer in schools, and abortion. I'm not saying those shouldn't be on a Christian's list of voting issues--they're on mine, just not as high as others--I'm just saying that in my opinion, there are issues more important than those. That argument can be made about any issue held dear by either side. Bottom line: bloc voting-dumb. Straight party line voting-also dumb.

[Qingu]

Flamingo,

I don't have time right now to respond to your post, but in the meantime, please answer this question:

Do you think it should be illegal, in America, for men to have sex with men (and women with women)?

[Minor]

Originally Posted by Qingu

I could make the same appeal to "traditional society" to justify continuing American slavery.

I'd be amused to see you make this argument in front of a group of working class black people.

Why should we allow homosexuals to marry? Because (ignoring what the Bible says) absolutely no social harm comes from it. This is demonstrably true--one only needs to look to Canada to see whether or not gay civil unions have deteriorated marraige or society (they haven't). Another reason is that our American society is supposed to be founded on an ideal of equal rights. Just because gays, like women, blacks and slaves, have traditionally been denied those rights does not mean they have no rights.

I stand by my statement. "Homophobia is everywhere" is an excuse, not a reason to ban homosexual marraige.

Yes, American society is founded on rights. But I become leery of people "discovering" rights that eluded not only American society for 200 years, but all of civilization. I don't ascribe to the belief that people attained amazing insight into the human condition in the 60's and that all that preceded were a group of knuckle dragging rednecks.

This "right" stems not from the color of someone's skin, or gender, or any number of other things, but from a sexual preference. Putting aside Biblical values, homosexuals have the right to do whatever they like in the privacy of their own home, just like they can call themselves the King of Mars, or say they are married to their TV. That does not give them the right to force other people to recognize that claim. These are not areas of shared social concern. It is to societies benefit, indeed, humanities benefit to recognize and incubate marriage between a man and a woman.

Saying "it does no social harm" does not provide a solid reason for affording homosexuals the right to marriage. What social harm does having more than one wife have? Or two men and a woman marrying each other? Or a brother and sister? If you change the meaning of marriage, as it has survived throughout generations, on what moral ground do you deny any person to marry anyone or anything? NAMBLA (The North American Man Boy Love Assoc...it exists) stands on the same grounds. If a parent consents, and the boy consents, what grounds do you have to deny them their "rights".

"Homophobia is everywhere" is not an excuse but a truth. The majority of people throughout the ages have seen homosexuality as an abnormality. Some see the possibility of two men sharing love through the same lenses as they would see a 38 year old man cultivate a love for a preteen. It doesn't seem logical to apply marriage laws to unions that lack the very characteristics that caused the laws in the first place.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Minor

I'd be amused to see you make this argument in front of a group of working class black people.

I suggest you try it; or better yet, re-iterate your argument in this post in front of a group of homosexuals.

Yes, American society is founded on rights. But I become leery of people "discovering" rights that eluded not only American society for 200 years, but all of civilization.

Like the woman's right to vote?

This "right" stems not from the color of someone's skin, or gender, or any number of other things, but from a sexual preference. Putting aside Biblical values, homosexuals have the right to do whatever they like in the privacy of their own home, just like they can call themselves the King of Mars, or say they are married to their TV. That does not give them the right to force other people to recognize that claim.

And churches would not have to recognize that claim ... what is your point?

These are not areas of shared social concern. It is to societies benefit, indeed, humanities benefit to recognize and incubate marriage between a man and a woman.

What does that have to do with extending gays -- who would not be getting married to the opposite sex anyway -- the same economic benefits that straight couples have?

Saying "it does no social harm" does not provide a solid reason for affording homosexuals the right to marriage. What social harm does having more than one wife have? Or two men and a woman marrying each other?

Good question.

Or a brother and sister?

Incest results in birth defects; I imagine families would be eligible for comparable economic benefits as married couples anyway.

If you change the meaning of marriage, as it has survived throughout generations, on what moral ground do you deny any person to marry anyone or anything?

So don't use the word marraige; call it civil unions. Most gays wouldn't care. I'm concerned with the economic benefits associated with civil unions. As no social harm comes from two gays haveing sex in their own home (as you have admitted) and nobody would be forced to recognize them as "married" in a religious connotation, what reason--other than irrational homophobia--do you have for disallowing them the same legal and economic benefits that straight couples have?

NAMBLA (The North American Man Boy Love Assoc...it exists) stands on the same grounds. If a parent consents, and the boy consents, what grounds do you have to deny them their "rights".

Minors by definition cannot consent to certain things; this is a longstanding legal tradition and one that I happen to agree with because it is psychologically supported. Almost all children who supposedly "consent" to sex with adults later renig ... sort of like women who are raped who supposedly "want it."

"Homophobia is everywhere" is not an excuse but a truth.

Same with racism, religious intolerance and discrimination against women. Call it a truth--the fact is that you are using the "truth" that intolerance is universal to justify said intolerance. It's circular, and it makes you a hypocrite for supporting abolitionism and women's rights (to vote), among other things.

Some see the possibility of two men sharing love through the same lenses as they would see a 38 year old man cultivate a love for a preteen.

And they would be mistaken, as homosexuality is not only natural (penguins are gay!) but is not an issue of consent (in other words, rape) as pedophelia is.

It doesn't seem logical to apply marriage laws to unions that lack the very characteristics that caused the laws in the first place.

I see two people who love each other and consenting to a legally binding relationship eligible for the same laws. If it's because gays can't have kids, you shouldn't let sterile straight people get married. If it's because the bible says homosexuality is bad, well, it says atheism is bad; you shouldn't let atheists get married (or adulterers, or unruly children, I could go on). If it's because you just don't like the idea of men having sex with men ... why should your irrational intolerance be a basis for legislation? Besides, you're a sinner too, Christian.

[the flamingo]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Flamingo,

I don't have time right now to respond to your post, but in the meantime, please answer this question:

Oh sure. Chances are I probably won't reply. I've said my piece.

Do you think it should be illegal, in America, for men to have sex with men (and women with women)?

Ah, so you're onto the trick questions now, aren't you? Well, here's my answer.

In a perfect world homosexuality wouldn't exist at all, but this isn't an ideal world and Christians are forced to make compromises in a democratic society because it's not our right to force all of our religious beliefs on everyone else.

Gay marriage is an easy target for religious debate, which it can be taken down that avenue, it's really an issue of morality. It's not saying those who wish to have homosexual relations cannot (that would be very hard to regulate anyway), but upholding a moral code that has been instituted since the beginning of time (devoid of 'religion'): man & woman being united. This is just how things are.

You're being very idealistic, making everything an issue of black and white. This world is not idealistic, and because of that, things start turning gray, and we all need to adapt to that.

I know you're probably upset that people voted against gay marriage, but that's just how a democracy works. Majority rules.

Qingu, I have a question for you. Do you think Christians shouldn't be able to vote in elections because you don't like what we believe in?

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by the flamingo

Oh sure. Chances are I probably won't reply. I've said my piece.

No, you made some very good points. I promise I will try to address them; it is very hard for me to deal with the Bible quotes at work, though.

Basically, I am getting the sense that your opposition to gay marraige is a compromise position, based more on practicality than ideology.

In a perfect world homosexuality wouldn't exist at all,

Of course, Liebniz and other Christian philosophers would say that this is a perfect world.

but this isn't an ideal world and Christians are forced to make compromises in a democratic society because it's not our right to force all of our religious beliefs on everyone wish to have homosexual relations cannot (that would be very hard to regulate anyway), but upholding a moral code that has been instituted since the beginning of time (devoid of 'religion'): man & woman being united. This is just how things are.

Here, like Minor, you stray out of your Biblical argument into an argument from tradition. If you think something is right simply because it is traditionally held to be so, you've got problems. (Polytheism, for example, was traditionally held to be right, and the Christians were fed to the lions. Slavery, women lacking voting power, other examples).

You're being very idealistic, making everything an issue of black and white. This world is not idealistic, and because of that, things start turning gray, and we all need to adapt to that.

Agreed.
Call them civil unions, let the gays have their economic benefits, and stop treating them like second class citizens because they do not believe in the Bible. You don't have to call it marraige if you don't want to. How's that for compromise?

I know you're probably upset that people voted against gay marriage, but that's just how a democracy works. Majority rules.

I can still be upset. Just as you would have a right to be upset if the majority allowed gays to be married nationwide.

Qingu, I have a question for you. Do you think Christians shouldn't be able to vote in elections because you don't like what we believe in?

Of course not. I don't believe anyone on this forum has ever asserted that. My problem with Christians voting is that their (irrational) belief in Christianity seems to lead them into a mindframe where they are incapable of rationally evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of candidates.

For example, I have no big problem with a Christian who fully admits facts--that the Iraq War was unjustified, that our economy sucks, and that we are losing the war on terror--but nevertheless votes for Bush because they feel incredibly strongly about the abortion issue and hopes that Bush will appoint pro-life judges. I have a big problem with a Christian who, because he feels strongly about the abortion issue, unquestioningly supports Bush and everything his administration does. Blind support of government is always anathema to democracy functioning, and that has always been my criticism of Christian voting habits.

[the flamingo]

Originally Posted by Qingu

No, you made some very good points. I promise I will try to address them; it is very hard for me to deal with the Bible quotes at work, though.

Basically, I am getting the sense that your opposition to gay marraige is a compromise position, based more on practicality than ideology.

At the risk of sounding stupid, I'm not quite sure what you are saying by that last statement.

Of course, Liebniz and other Christian philosophers would say that this is a perfect world.

I know nothing of these philosophers so I'll claim ignorance on this one.

Here, like Minor, you stray out of your Biblical argument into an argument from tradition. If you think something is right simply because it is traditionally held to be so, you've got problems. (Polytheism, for example, was traditionally held to be right, and the Christians were fed to the lions. Slavery, women lacking voting power, other examples).

For one, it was not a general statement and applied specifically to biological and emotional gender unions. Men have _____es, women have ______'s. Homosexuals emulate the relationship men and women have together. If homosexuality was "okay" and "normal" -- this would not happen, at all.

Agreed.
Call them civil unions, let the gays have their economic benefits, and stop treating them like second class citizens because they do not believe in the Bible. You don't have to call it marraige if you don't want to. How's that for compromise?

Some may argue Civil unions are still showing "second class citizenship."

Marriage is not JUST a definition, but a concept. Civil unions brings up new questions. I have not explored them all, and to prevent myself from making an ass of myself, I'll simply leave this be for now until I have more time to really explore this alternative.

I can still be upset. Just as you would have a right to be upset if the majority allowed gays to be married nationwide.

Agreed.

Of course not. I don't believe anyone on this forum has ever asserted that. My problem with Christians voting is that their (irrational) belief in Christianity seems to lead them into a mindframe where they are incapable of rationally evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of candidates.

For example, I have no big problem with a Christian who fully admits facts--that the Iraq War was unjustified, that our economy sucks, and that we are losing the war on terror--but nevertheless votes for Bush because they feel incredibly strongly about the abortion issue and hopes that Bush will appoint pro-life judges. I have a big problem with a Christian who, because he feels strongly about the abortion issue, unquestioningly supports Bush and everything his administration does. Blind support of government is always anathema to democracy functioning, and that has always been my criticism of Christian voting habits.

I hope you realize ignorance goes both ways.

[fiveminuteplan]

Originally Posted by Qingu

I see two people who love each other and consenting to a legally binding relationship eligible for the same laws. If it's because gays can't have kids, you shouldn't let sterile straight people get married. If it's because the bible says homosexuality is bad, well, it says atheism is bad; you shouldn't let atheists get married (or adulterers, or unruly children, I could go on). If it's because you just don't like the idea of men having sex with men ... why should your irrational intolerance be a basis for legislation? Besides, you're a sinner too, Christian.

Sir, you seem to be missing the point of democracy. Were you asleep in class the day they explained it in grade school? Everyone in this country has the right to vote their conscience as they see fit, and no one has the right to say that anyone is wrong for voting their conscience or that they should be disallowed from doing so. There are people in this country who are white supremecists and believe that all other races should be kicked out of the country. They have an equal voice along with you and I come election day. This is the beauty of our system. It isn't perfect, but it's what we're obligated to uphold.

You, on the other hand, seem to think that just because you disagree with what Christians believe, that you have the right to say that we shouldn't be able to vote our conscience. This is diametrically opposed to the system which you base your theories upon (the legislative body of government). Logically, you have no standing for any of us to listen to anything you have to say, because not only is your theory flawed, but the very reasoning you posit this theory on is specious.

If you start taking one group's voice away, what's to stop someone from ultimately taking your own voice away or the voice of anyone else? I'll give you an example. My uncle is a homosexual, but he believes that homosexual marriage is morally wrong and shouldn't be allowed. He thinks it ridiculous that anyone is even trying to push it. Where does he fit into your idealized society? He is one man with a unique position. If Christians (a large group) are disallowed from voting their conscience, then his voice and the voice of anyone in the same situation (a miniscule group) is easily done away with.

You sir, are the one who needs to take a look at your position. You are the one trying to jam your beliefs down people's throats (a common attack against Christianity). Your attacks on the Bible are unfounded and come off as sophomoric and immature. I've read through your scathing, ridiculously baseless accusations against our belief system and I can tell you that I haven't wavered in my resolution in the slightest, tiniest bit. Better men than you have tried to shake Christianity to its foundation and it hasn't worked. The reason for this may be beyond you, but my assurance is that the gates of Hell won't prevail against the body of Christ. If the gates of Hell can't do it, how can one man sitting at a computer do it?

In this case, one man can't make a difference.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by the flamingo

At the risk of sounding stupid, I'm not quite sure what you are saying by that last statement.

You think this is a battle you can win, as opposed to banning homosexuality itself, or unbiblical remarraige -- so you fight it, and you don't fight the others.

For one, it was not a general statement and applied specifically to biological and emotional gender unions. Men have _____es, women have ______'s. Homosexuals emulate the relationship men and women have together. If homosexuality was "okay" and "normal" -- this would not happen, at all.

But it does happen; it has happened for all of human history, and it's happened in non-human history too (someone posted an article about penguins having gay sex)

Some may argue Civil unions are still showing "second class citizenship."

True, but most gays are perfectly okay with it, I believe. Most gays are wary of the word "marraige" anyway and would be content with having the same legal/economic benefits as straight couples.

Marriage is not JUST a definition, but a concept. Civil unions brings up new questions. I have not explored them all, and to prevent myself from making an ass of myself, I'll simply leave this be for now until I have more time to really explore this alternative.

Marraige, as a word, has a lot of baggage. If you have no problem with civil unions, then we are simply arguing semantics.

I hope you realize ignorance goes both ways.

I am not a fan of Michael Moore.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by fiveminuteplan

Sir, you seem to be missing the point of democracy. Were you asleep in class the day they explained it in grade school? Everyone in this country has the right to vote their conscience as they see fit, and no one has the right to say that anyone is wrong for voting their conscience or that they should be disallowed from doing so. There are people in this country who are white supremecists and believe that all other races should be kicked out of the country. They have an equal voice along with you and I come election day. This is the beauty of our system. It isn't perfect, but it's what we're obligated to uphold.

Strawman; I never said you shouldn't vote your conscience.

I have argued that you should vote rationally and not have blind faith in Bush or Kerry.

I have argued on several occasions that your conscience on certain matters is wrong or hypocritical.

Would you care to discuss what I've said, rather than deconstruct an invented litany of stupid things I didn't say and spout a bunch of rhetoric?

[the flamingo]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Why should we allow homosexuals to marry? Because (ignoring what the Bible says) absolutely no social harm comes from it. This is demonstrably true--one only needs to look to Canada to see whether or not gay civil unions have deteriorated marraige or society (they haven't). Another reason is that our American society is supposed to be founded on an ideal of equal rights. Just because gays, like women, blacks and slaves, have traditionally been denied those rights does not mean they have no rights.

I stand by my statement. "Homophobia is everywhere" is an excuse, not a reason to ban homosexual marraige.

Judging from history, whenever a society demoralized itself with sexual impurity and etc, there was severe and quite often, drastic reprocussions. The fall of Rome, Ancient Greece, Pompeii, Sodom & Gomorah, etc. Rethorical question: Is this merely coincidence?

I don't think you can say if gay marriage has deteriorated society yet because they aren't legal yet. That's like some moron telling me the gay community has a low divorce rate. How can they divorce if they aren't married?

However, I don't think it's just one issue that would cause a society to fall. It's a myraid of things. IMHO, homosexuality is just one piece of the pie.

I also think that the affect it would have on our society wouldn't be as visiable as something more tangiable, such as war. It's more of an internal thing, since it involves morality. Just look how desensitized we are to violence, look how our hearts are hardened by 911 already.

[fiveminuteplan]

Originally Posted by Qingu

If it's because you just don't like the idea of men having sex with men ... why should your irrational intolerance be a basis for legislation? Besides, you're a sinner too, Christian.

This is what you said. This may or may not be the basis for anyone's disdain for homosexual marriage, but my point is so what if it is? People have the right to vote and believe what they want. There was just an election and the majority of people (Christians and non-Christians alike) voted against gay marriage in a number of states.

You may believe it's irrational, that's a matter of opinion, but it's not a basis to disallow legislation (or, to logically take a step further, to disallow voting your conscience because voting is directly linked to legislation), which I hate to tell you, is exactly what you inferred in the above statement.

[Simo]

I could be wrong, but i think that the first ever gay marrige lasted like a couple of days... interesting isin't it, they wed no for "love" or whatever but as a stunt! now whatever reason they got married for is none of my concern, im just worried about the way in which society is going and the fact that if i anounced my view say at work, university etc, i woulkd be told i was being intolerant. I think our only way is to make sure that we do vote for the people who stand for the same kind of values that we do, and put up with whatever criticism comes our way!

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by the flamingo

Judging from history, whenever a society demoralized itself with sexual impurity and etc, there was severe and quite often, drastic reprocussions. The fall of Rome, Ancient Greece, Pompeii, Sodom & Gomorah, etc. Rethorical question: Is this merely coincidence?

Seeing as only one of your societies fell because of sexual impurity--and that one is only according to the Bible, which is not historically accurate--I would say, no, it's not a coincidence; in fact, it's not a correlation at all.

Of course, ancient Israel not only fell (three times!) but was eventually obliterated off of the face of the earth, when the Romans destroyed the house that the Jewish god lived in.

Judging from history, societies with intractable, traditionally-based moral codes unwilling to embrace new ways of thinking suffer severe and drastic reprocussions. Societies like Rome, Greece, medieval Islam and Rennaissance Christendom and America are the ones that flourish.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by fiveminuteplan

This is what you said. This may or may not be the basis for anyone's disdain for homosexual marriage, but my point is so what if it is? People have the right to vote and do what they want.

Did I ever deny you the right to vote?

There was just an election and the majority of people (Christians and non-Christians alike) voted against gay marriage in a number of states.

And so far the only answer to the question you quoted me on is "because I have a right to."

You may believe it's irrational, that's a matter of opinion, but it's not a basis to disallow legislation (or, to logically take a step further, to disallow voting your conscience because voting is directly linked to legislation), which I hate to tell you, is exactly what you inferred in the above statement.

I'm sorry that you think I inferred that people with wrong opinions should not be able to vote, but I did not. How about you provide a basis for your irrational homophobia? I'm still waiting.