Miss California?

[Fenrus]

Due to a separation between Church and State, morals have no weight against law. Christians feel they have been wronged by the fact that they have to see something they think is immoral put into law.

Whereas I feel, as a homosexual male, and a LaVey Satanist, I have been wronged due to the fact that I cannot be free to love who I choose to love, and see Christian religion as immoral and wrong, but I also RESPECT your rights to believe what you believe, and to love who you love. All I'm asking is the same respect from you, which frankly I don't believe we are getting.

Christ said "Love thy fellow man". Why can't you love me?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

@ruby
Tough fucking nuts.

I don't think drinking is entirely moral. Or gangsta rap, or any number of less savory, but legal activities.

No one's forcing you to acknowledge anything, hate gays all you want, but you're not allowed to force that on them or anyone else.

What you're missing is the fundamental right in this country to do anything you want whether it's good for you or not. That's essentially the opposite of outlawing gay marriage because you think it's not moral. There's only one exception to that rule, harming others.

So if you can say exactly how gays having the right to enter into beneficial social contracts visits harm upon you, while simultaneously telling us how stopping them doesn't deprive and therefore harm them... that would be nice.

[Rubystars]

Due to a separation between Church and State, morals have no weight against law. Christians feel they have been wronged by the fact that they have to see something they think is immoral put into law.

I don't want gay marriage to be legitimized by the government when I see it as something immoral and harmful to the people involved.

Whereas I feel, as a homosexual male, and a LaVey Satanist, I have been wronged due to the fact that I cannot be free to love who I choose to love, and see Christian religion as immoral and wrong, but I also RESPECT your rights to believe what you believe, and to love who you love.

I'm not stopping you from believing what you believe or loving who you love.

All I'm asking is the same respect from you, which frankly I don't believe we are getting.

Christ said "Love thy fellow man". Why can't you love me?

I don't have a problem with you as an individual.

[Fenrus]

I'm not stopping you from believing what you believe or loving who you love.

That's what you're not seeing. By refusing my rights to marry, you ARE stopping me from loving who I love. By saying I can marry, but can only marry a female, you are imposing your ideals on who I should love on me.

I don't have a problem with you as an individual.

If you didn't have a problem with me as an individual, you wouldn't have a problem with me marrying another individual you don't have a problem with, yes? Now, since that other individual is male, suddenly you have a problem with it. Please reaffirm your position before you post. I'm seeing quite a few holes, logical fallacies, and tired re-uses of phrases I'm not quite sure you believe yourself.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

The whole thing is a great big sack of circular logic, all of which seems to have spewed itself from a book written literally ages ago by humans who, I hate to say it, have proven themselves quite untrustworthy when given power.

Back then, the ability to write held enormous power. There's no reason why those who decided what was or wasn't in the bible couldn't have been as corrupt as any other person then or now.

Besides which, can you prove how gay marriage is harmful?
Do you have any facts?

[Rubystars]

That's what you're not seeing. By refusing my rights to marry, you ARE stopping me from loving who I love. By saying I can marry, but can only marry a female, you are imposing your ideals on who I should love on me. If you didn't have a problem with me as an individual, you wouldn't have a problem with me marrying another individual you don't have a problem with, yes? Now, since that other individual is male, suddenly you have a problem with it. Please reaffirm your position before you post. I'm seeing quite a few holes, logical fallacies, and tired re-uses of phrases I'm not quite sure you believe yourself.

If I'm re-using phrases it might be because people seem to keep saying things that I supposedly believe that I never actually posted. Where in this thread did I say I wanted to persecute gays? I have no business going into your home and telling you who you can have sex with or what religion you choose to follow. As long as it involves consenting adults it's your choice.

I just don't want official recognition of this behavior. That's what I've said at the beginning when I entered into this thread and that's what I say now.

You can't "marry" someone of the same sex as yourself because by definition that's not marriage anyway. You can have a "marriage ceremony" if you want to, and tell other people you're married, but you won't be. Marriage is between a man and a woman. I'll go even further. Even if the government hands you a marriage license and officially condones your "marriage", I still won't consider that to be a marriage. It just doesn't fit the definition of marriage.

It's gays that seek to redefine marriage as being something other than what it is. You've painted the picture that it's the conservatives that are trying to discriminate and cause problems for gays when in reality it's the gays that are doing the agitating by trying to force their lifestyle into the public eye for mass approval.

[AFPheonix]

Monogamous marriage between two people used to be more stable than it is now, with the high divorce rates that are now going on. People didn't get divorced unless they had a damn good reason. They toughed it out and worked it out. With that attitude, monogamous marriages were stable, supportive arrangements. Daughters and sons would grow up to see what a healthy male-female relationship was like and how conflicts were resolved in a healthy marriage. If grandparents were present, they could also pass down knowledge to the grandchildren. Those children would grow up to form families of their own with the model given to them by their parents and grandparents.

I don't think there's anything that needed to be changed about this arrangement, but now it seems like 3 friends can get together and call themselves a family. It's just odd to me.

That would be because once upon a time divorce carried a higher stigma than smacking your wife around. Destructive marriages stayed together because of social norms despite what would have been better for the people involved. Once both genders reached equal footing in the eyes of society, women could start leaving. This is not a bad thing and hasn't harmed society.
If you want to argue against divorce, that is a completely different topic than gay marriage. In fact, I would say that your stance that gays have the right to marry straights actually leads to more divorces, especially painful ones, for reasons I detailed in a previous post.

Also keep in mind that for some people, blood relation does not mean a lot since they come from terrible families. However, they still need that bond with others in their lives. That's why you will see non-traditional family groups.
For instance, my husband's family is pretty fractured. Some have come out ok on the other side, others not so much. He considers my family to be much closer than his. I come from a very traditional family with many siblings.
Both my husband and I are good contributing members of society, despite the differences in our upbringing. Same for my roommate who came from even more dire circumstances than my husband. We also consider her family and treat her as such.

Now, as for Christians being persecuted for having to recognize something that you don't see as moral:
That is not persecution. Sorry. If we took a poll from various members of other religions and took that into consideration when we create laws of the land, we as a society would be stuck with a lot of laws that not everyone would see as moral, and probably would view as quite restrictive.
What if orthodox jews and muslims managed to codify into law that our food supply had to be kosher and halaal? I don't know about you, but I have no moral qualms about eating pork.
How about if Jainists got their oar in and banned fly swatters?

I could go on. However, my point is that while you are allowed to have a stricter moral code than society's laws, the law of the land simply needs to codify behavior that keeps people from harming others. Gay marriage does not harm others. Harming someone's sensibilities does not count.

[smileyeagle1021]

Interesting concept smileyeagle, but I would consider those more to be social networks or groups of friends rather than your family.

Rubystars, if smileyeagle says they're his family, why does it matter what you think of them? You're obviously entitled to your opinion, but in a case like this, it has no validity. That is smiley's life, smiley's choice to call those people family.

the_std, Rubystars isn't just disagreeing with me, she's disagreeing with everyone where I work. We all consider ourselves a family. I mean, let's be honest, the boss's daughter has a dad and a mom at home then 20something aunts and uncles at the hotel... she even refers to us as aunt soandso or uncle soandso and I treat her much like I would a niece. Workplace families are extremely common, hell, that's been the theme of many dilbert strips about how losing a coworker is like losing a brother.

All that means is that they have a different definition than I do for family. To me a member of my family is someone either blood related to me, or someone related to me through marriage to blood relatives. If I were to get married then of course my husband and I would form a new family.

Groups of friends that love and care for each other are good. I just don't agree that those groups of friends form a family. They could be a "family" in a sense of being really close to one another, but that's not the same thing as an actual family. To me family is something you don't choose (except for your husband or wife, of course).

a family is something you don't chose... does that mean you are also against adoption? You just point blank said that you can't chose your family, isn't that what adoption is?

"I don't agree with you" does not equal persecution.

no, but legislating your disagreement does.

I don't want gay marriage to be legitimized by the government when I see it as something immoral and harmful to the people involved.

do you also support prohibition of alcohol, banning of smoking, criminalization of gambling, and government mandated diet plans?
After all, alcohol harms those who use it, so does smoking, gambling targets those who can least afford it and poor diet is the leading cause of many long term conditions such as heart problems, kidney problems, and diabetes.

To be a bit crude, I think I'm doing myself less harm by putting a dick in my mouth than a cigarette. The dick only might cause diseases and that is easy enough to prevent by being cautious with choice of partners, the cigarette will most definitely cause damage.

eta

It's gays that seek to redefine marriage as being something other than what it is. You've painted the picture that it's the conservatives that are trying to discriminate and cause problems for gays when in reality it's the gays that are doing the agitating by trying to force their lifestyle into the public eye for mass approval.

we aren't seeking your approval for anything. I don't know a single gay person who could give a damn whether every person approved of our 'lifestyle' (ok, so I know of a few, but none that I call friend). What we want is legal protections and privileges from our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, the same constitution republic that will protect your right to disapprove even after granting those protections and privileges. And you just said, even if the government recognizes gay marriage you won't... the government won't force you to recognize it, it won't force you to stop saying you don't agree with it... so what exactly will be lost.

Here's an idea, you keep saying that you don't have a problem with gay people, that you believe that we should be treated with kindness and respect just as everyone else... but then say that we are deviants and don't deserve government protection equal to that of heterosexuals.

say it to my face. That is the face of a deviant, one who violates the norms, one who wishes to 'force his lifestyle upon you'.
I'm working a crappy graveyard shift job to pay my way through college so I can start a stable career and be a productive member of society, I'm a kind and caring and loyal friend and will someday have the same qualities as a boyfriend, I enjoy good sci-fi, video games, and travel (for which I'm always saving up to do more of), when my mother had cancer I took time off work (unpaid) to drive back and forth to Reno to take care of her, I did the same thing for my grandma with her diabetes, I'm always helping classmates and coworkers, I once a month create and pack aide kits for those who are victims of natural disasters.
Please, now that you have a face and a person to match it, I don't want you to weasel out and say "homosexuals are wrong but I have no problem with you"
I am a homosexual, that is a part of me whether or not anyone else likes it, so tell me that I'm wrong and a deviant. Tell me all the damage I will do to society. Tell me how immoral I am. Tell me that despite me knowing in the depths of my hearth and soul that I could not love a woman in the same way as a man that I should still marry a woman because it's the moral thing to do. I will willingly bear the cross, I am a homosexual, I will stand up for the community if you have the courage to say those things to me.
You feel strongly about this, so do I. So what is it, are you willing to say those things to my face or are you going to continue to speak in vagaries. If you have a problem with who I am you should have a problem with me... so say all that you want to say, I will take it because it needs to be said at some point and I can handle it.

[Rubystars]

That would be because once upon a time divorce carried a higher stigma than smacking your wife around. Destructive marriages stayed together because of social norms despite what would have been better for the people involved. Once both genders reached equal footing in the eyes of society, women could start leaving. This is not a bad thing and hasn't harmed society.

I don't condone physical abuse within a marriage but I think people split nowadays over many insignificant things that never would have been grounds for divorce in the past.

If you want to argue against divorce, that is a completely different topic than gay marriage. In fact, I would say that your stance that gays have the right to marry straights actually leads to more divorces, especially painful ones, for reasons I detailed in a previous post.

As I said (sorry, I'm repeating stuff again). I don't think gays should marry straights, unless they're bisexual. However they have the same right to do so as anyone else, therefore they're not denied any rights that other people have.

Also keep in mind that for some people, blood relation does not mean a lot since they come from terrible families. However, they still need that bond with others in their lives. That's why you will see non-traditional family groups.

You can certainly treat someone as if they were family and that's usually a good thing, not a bad thing. I just don't like the idea of redefining the word "family" to fit this.

Now, as for Christians being persecuted for having to recognize something that you don't see as moral:
That is not persecution. Sorry.

Not any more than gays are being persecuted anyway. lol

If we took a poll from various members of other religions and took that into consideration when we create laws of the land, we as a society would be stuck with a lot of laws that not everyone would see as moral, and probably would view as quite restrictive.
What if orthodox jews and muslims managed to codify into law that our food supply had to be kosher and halaal? I don't know about you, but I have no moral qualms about eating pork.
How about if Jainists got their oar in and banned fly swatters?

They have a right to advocate for those things even though I'd be against most of it.

I could go on. However, my point is that while you are allowed to have a stricter moral code than society's laws, the law of the land simply needs to codify behavior that keeps people from harming others. Gay marriage does not harm others. Harming someone's sensibilities does not count.

The gay community along with drug users caused AIDS to spread through the USA so yes that did harm other people.

[BroomJockey]

It just doesn't fit the definition of marriage.

There's a book you need to read. It's called "The Importance of Being Monogamous," by Sarah Carter. It talks about how one man + one woman marriage was a standard enforced by the government during settlement of North America, not only on Natives, but other ethnic groups, and divorce wasn't hard to obtain, before that period. So your definition of marriage is only as old as the push to colonize the western parts of North America, and were forced on to the population in the first place.

[Rubystars]

Smileyeagle, I forgot about adoption when I made that post. Of course if someone adopts a child into their family then that child is their family. This is similar to a couple's own children, they usually plan to have them so that's another exception if you want to bring that up. However what I meant is that you don't choose who you are blood related to.

[Rubystars]

There's a book you need to read. It's called "The Importance of Being Monogamous," by Sarah Carter. It talks about how one man + one woman marriage was a standard enforced by the government during settlement of North America, not only on Natives, but other ethnic groups, and divorce wasn't hard to obtain, before that period. So your definition of marriage is only as old as the push to colonize the western parts of North America, and were forced on to the population in the first place.

Even in societies where other patterns happen, monogamy is usually the most common arangement among human societies.

[Fenrus]

The gay community along with drug users caused AIDS to spread through the USA so yes that did harm other people.

I really REALLY want to hear your stats on the gay community spreading AIDS. Especially considering the contraction rate in African American heterosexual couples.

It's true it was originally thought of as a "gay" disease... but if it's a gay disease, how do so many heterosexual couples contract it?

[BroomJockey]

As I said (sorry, I'm repeating stuff again). I don't think gays should marry straights, unless they're bisexual. However they have the same right to do so as anyone else, therefore they're not denied any rights that other people have.
<snip>
The gay community along with drug users caused AIDS to spread through the USA so yes that did harm other people.

First off, the right to marry, in the Christian tradition is about marrying the person you love. Are you saying a loveless marriage is still a marriage? Seems like marrying for convenience is a more damaging idea than allowing marriage between gays. Second off, it's already been said, gay != bi. You'd be effectively condoning the use of another human being as a prop in a sham marriage. That's a little dehumanizing, imo. "Hey honey, sorry I don't love you, but I gotta keep up appearances at the office! So put that ring back on and stop crying that I don't love you." Furthermore, under your definition, mail-order-brides, and green card marriages are less damaging to the institution of marriage than gays marrying.

Do you know WHY AIDS spread through the gay community? Because society refused to treat it as anything besides "the gay disease." "Let AIDS kill them off, the homos deserve it." If society had done some searching, research, and education, it would have been, you know, NOT spread. Instead people said "IT IS A PUNISHMENT FROM GOD FOR YOUR UNCLEAN WAYS."

[BroomJockey]

Even in societies where other patterns happen, monogamy is usually the most common arangement among human societies.

Read the book. It's not the most common.

ETA: Furthermore, marriage PERIOD was a religious construct to create couples that shared beliefs (hence the numerous prescriptions about not marrying between religions), and thus would have children raised in those beliefs, rather than being exposed to other beliefs. Marriage was a system of control imposed upon the believers. Along with the "sin" of birth control, it ensured lots of up-and-coming believers in the next generation.