Miss California?

[BroomJockey]

I'm not trying to step around the question. I might have misunderstood what you meant.

You're still not answering the question. Again, "Should your own personal opinion, shaped by your religious upbringing, be allowed to codify into law a restriction of rights for a group of people?"

This is not a difficult question. In a society where laws are created in order not to legislate morality, but prevent harm to the greatest number of people, why should your opinion be the one adopted in to law when it harms the rights of a group?

[Rubystars]

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.

I just don't think you should have special recognition of homosexual lifestyle by the government.

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'.

Hello there.

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.

You sound like a great guy.

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.

I think homosexuality is a deviant behavior and immoral. I would tell you that if you were here in person too.

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.

What, do you want me to say something nasty to you? I don't want to say anything nasty to you. I just disagree with the homosexual lifestyle. You can't help how you feel but people can control their actions.

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.

I have a problem with homosexual political agendas and some homosexual behaviors.

[Rubystars]

You're still not answering the question. Again, "Should your own personal opinion, shaped by your religious upbringing, be allowed to codify into law a restriction of rights for a group of people?"

This is not a difficult question. In a society where laws are created in order not to legislate morality, but prevent harm to the greatest number of people, why should your opinion be the one adopted in to law when it harms the rights of a group?

Yes if I fight for my opinion and it gets adopted, of course it should be the one put into law, even if in your view, it violates the rights of others. My point was other groups have a right to fight for their opinions too. As a matter of fact, gays seem to be winning, so that should make you happy.

[BroomJockey]

Yes if I fight for my opinion and it gets adopted, of course it should be the one put into law,

*bzzt* Still not answering the question. Not "if it is adopted should it be put in to law." At this point, I have to believe you're doing it on purpose.

[Rubystars]

*bzzt* Still not answering the question. Not "if it is adopted should it be put in to law." At this point, I have to believe you're doing it on purpose.

How many different ways do you want me to try to say it so that it meets the grammar police standard?

I should have kept my response to one word: YES

On the other hand at least I'm not using words or phrases like the following:
Another words for in other words
Grap hold of for grab hold of
or shudders for shutters on a window

[Rubystars]

Let me try it one more time ok? Then I give up

In a society where laws are created in order not to legislate morality, but prevent harm to the greatest number of people, why should your opinion be the one adopted in to law when it harms the rights of a group?

Because it's the right opinion.

[Peppergirl]

Let me try it one more time ok? Then I give up



Because it's the right opinion.

And there you have it. That sums it up.

Jesus.

[BroomJockey]

I should have kept my response to one word: YES

Finally. A straight answer. So, your opinion, which isn't even held by every member of your group, should be used to not only decide morality for the country, but restrict the rights of humans by writ of law. And not a single person has said "you are not allowed to have your opinion."

Now that we have that out of the way, here's the thing: laws aren't supposed to be legislating morality, they're supposed to be used to prevent actions which are demonstrably detrimental to society.

So, do you have any ability to show that your position is correct, ie "Gay marriage will have a negative effect on the people this country"? Because that's the only standard by which laws are meant to be created, to deter behaviour which impinges on the right or lives of others.

So, if you are unable to demonstrably prove that, why should your morals be imposed on society? Just to make you more comfortable? Just to defend your personal definition of a word?

Honestly, speaking from your brain, not your heart, please justify the imposition of a moral code not widely accepted, through the use of law. Use logic and reasoning, evidence if possible. Something more than "marriage is defined as between a man and a woman." Because definitions change. Last generation's conservatives are this generation's liberals.

[BroomJockey]

Let me try it one more time ok? Then I give up



Because it's the right opinion.

Wow, the unmitigated arrogance. Guess you can ignore my previous post.

[Cat]

Let me try it one more time ok? Then I give up



Because it's the right opinion.

No.


It is not.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Let me try it one more time ok? Then I give up



Because it's the right opinion.

Wow. The arrogance is palpable, and we finally have our answer.

Let's continue, I for one would like to reiterate the request for some sort of proof regarding some sort of negative effect on society should Homosexuals be allowed to enter into a beneficial social contract many would, in common usage/conversation, refer to as 'marriage'.

Furthermore, I would like to hear a specific answer as to why restricting Homosexual marriage is any less an infringement upon a person's rights than restricting Heterosexual marriage.

[Rubystars]

So, if you are unable to demonstrably prove that, why should your morals be imposed on society? Just to make you more comfortable? Just to defend your personal definition of a word?

It was the Christian morals that were already dominant in society. It was the gay activists that were trying to change that, to impose their form of morality on the rest of society. That's why I think you have it backwards.

Honestly, speaking from your brain, not your heart, please justify the imposition of a moral code not widely accepted, through the use of law. Use logic and reasoning, evidence if possible. Something more than "marriage is defined as between a man and a woman." Because definitions change. Last generation's conservatives are this generation's liberals.

This doesn't apply to lesbians, but sex between two men is inherently more risky for transmission of diseases because of anal bleeding. This poses a higher risk to the homosexuals themselves and to society at large.

Notice this pro-gay article
http://gayteens.about.com/od/safesexstds/f/gay_STDs.htm

It tries to say that it's not limited to gay sex because straight couples do this too. However that doesn't change the fact that anal sex is inherently more risky as the article itself points out.

If this is true and gay men are engaging in risky sex, then it does pose a public health risk.

I'm not even asking for gay sex to be illegal. I'm just asking that the government doesn't officially condone the behavior.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Statistically anal sex is far more frequent among Heterosexuals due to the loss of stigma around the act and increased education. Also throw into the pot that there's more options out there than anal sex for gay men, and I believe your argument is thin at best.

Furthermore, we aren't talking about the government issuing statements saying that it's O.K. to be gay, because many already have, because it's true. We are talking about extending a basic and necessary right to a group of people who have been deprived of it.

P.S. Any type of sex carries risk, and every type of sex is perfectly safe if properly executed, with a few exceptions such as oxygen deprivation which are based on mortal danger.

[Rubystars]

Wow. The arrogance is palpable, and we finally have our answer.

I tried to just be as blunt as I could in that post because I felt like everything else I was posting was being misunderstood. I do think my opinion is right, but the rest of you think your opinion is right. What I tried to say, several times, was that no matter why people have their opinions, everyone has the right to advocate for what they believe in, including gays. So we both have the right to fight for our own side of the issue. Why do you want gay rights to prevail? Because you think it's a civil rights violation for it not to, right? So you want to get your way because you believe that your opinion is the right one. Make sense?

Let's continue, I for one would like to reiterate the request for some sort of proof regarding some sort of negative effect on society should Homosexuals be allowed to enter into a beneficial social contract many would, in common usage/conversation, refer to as 'marriage'.

An individual gay couple or a few gay couples probably aren't going to impact society all that negatively. However, I'm concerned about what ramifactions redefining marriage and family will have for society in the future. I'm not sure what those would be, and I don't think evidence would be easy to come by to prove those outcomes because it hasn't happened yet. I wonder what kind of societies would result from family structures that aren't based on blood and man-woman marriage. I guess my main argument is this. If it isn't broken, why fix it?

Furthermore, I would like to hear a specific answer as to why restricting Homosexual marriage is any less an infringement upon a person's rights than restricting Heterosexual marriage.

It may be an infringement on your rights if you believe that someone has a fundamental human right to marry any person of proper age that they love regardless of gender. However I don't believe that such a thing is a necessary human right. That's what the difference is. I don't see it as violating people's rights, because I don't think people have the right to get the government to condone their homosexual behavior anyway.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I would like to point you to my above post which seems to have been posted while you were still writing yours.

That said, we all think of our opinions being correct, but aren't arrogant enough to believe that our opinions are the right opinions for our entire society. Furthermore, it's arrogant to think of yourself as correct when you admit that you have no proof of anything.

I guess if it's not a basic right for people to marry the people they love, it's not necessary to have marriage at all. If it is, it's dictated by the constitution and our society that everyone is extended that right.

It's also unethical in the extreme to legislate against something you have no proof is a threat. If I were to create a billion-strong religion that believed aliens will smite us if we kiss someone somewhere other than the mouth, should that be made into legislation so as to protect us? of course not, there's no threat until proven otherwise. Furthermore, any system which does not extend equal rights is broken in this society and government.

I would also like to see something other than the 'but they can still marry women' argument. It's irrelevant because we aren't talking about the right to marry women, we're talking about the right to marry the person we want to marry regardless of gender, race, religion, etc.

It used to be that blacks couldn't marry whites, which prevented people who love each other from marrying. How is that any different, Ruby?