Gay Marriage: Where do you stand?

[BJohnsonPP]

There is an inherent difference between the regulations God gave the nation of Israel to set them apart from the heathen nations that surrounded them and the laws against perversion.If you can't see the difference for yourself,it's doubtful there's anything I can say to convince you otherwise.

Right. Right. Because stoning disobedient children to death is justifiable if the goal is to say "Hey heathens! Neener neener. I'm not like you!". Thanks for that clarification.

[JediJohnnie]

The passage that you're referring to,Deuteronomy 21:18-21,Isn't condemning 8 year olds to stoning for not doing the dishes,as some of you would like to believe.

Read in context,it's talking about a rebellious mature man,given to drunkenness and other sin.The meaning was not to let "street punks" (as we might call them today)  get coddled by their parents,but to shape up or face a severe punishment.

[pattersondebra]

To each their own, I was surprised that as I was filling out paper they ask what sex my spouse was.

[paints]

I am totally against it.

I wasn't expecting this considering your gay name.

Way to get people on your side! 

Someone "totally against" someone having the same rights as them deserves ridicule. You're not going to sway someone that can't grasp something as basic as that. Right is right. An individuals hurt feelings does not compare to fellow human beings being treated as second class citizens.

But ridicule doesn't change anyones' mind. It simply says "You're stupid," and the only thing that accomplishes is that the person being ridiculed won't bother thinking about the right or wrong of it. And the people who see/hear the ridicule have their prejudices reinforced.

If you want people to respect your point of view, then you have to be willing to respect theirs, even if it's wrong.

[BJohnsonPP]

The passage that you're referring to,Deuteronomy 21:18-21,Isn't condemning 8 year olds to stoning for not doing the dishes,as some of you would like to believe.

Read in context,it's talking about a rebellious mature man,given to drunkenness and other sin.The meaning was not to let "street punks" (as we might call them today)  get coddled by their parents,but to shape up or face a severe punishment.

I'm familiar with the passage as I have read before in context. I'm familiar with what it entails (drunkenness and gluttony). I'm also familiar with this facepalm inducing response that basically says "No, you don't understand... If they're a drunk gluttonous MAN, their parents stoning them to death is ok". Yeah, 'cause the age is what I have a problem with. Are you actually serious with these responses?

The same thing with the she-bear passage. "Those weren't kids teasing Elijah for being bald. It was young male thugs. So having she-bears rip them limb from limb is ok  ".  Because as we all know, adult males talking about another adult males hair is worthy of death by stoning. 

[BJohnsonPP]

Someone "totally against" someone having the same rights as them deserves ridicule. You're not going to sway someone that can't grasp something as basic as that. Right is right. An individuals hurt feelings does not compare to fellow human beings being treated as second class citizens.

But ridicule doesn't change anyones' mind. It simply says "You're stupid," and the only thing that accomplishes is that the person being ridiculed won't bother thinking about the right or wrong of it. And the people who see/hear the ridicule have their prejudices reinforced.

If you want people to respect your point of view, then you have to be willing to respect theirs, even if it's wrong.

No. I can respect your right to have a view, but I don't have to respect the view if it's idiotic. I'm not trying to change the mind of an idiot. It's not worth it. They lack the capacity to understand basic concepts. I already responded to this so I'll just be repeating myself, but anyway "Someone 'totally against' someone having the same rights as them deserves ridicule. You're not going to sway someone that can't grasp something as basic as that".

If someone can't figure out that denying others rights is wrong, they're an idiot and will be treated like one. I'm not going to waste my time reasoning someone out of a position they clearly didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

[paints]

Someone "totally against" someone having the same rights as them deserves ridicule. You're not going to sway someone that can't grasp something as basic as that. Right is right. An individuals hurt feelings does not compare to fellow human beings being treated as second class citizens.

But ridicule doesn't change anyones' mind. It simply says "You're stupid," and the only thing that accomplishes is that the person being ridiculed won't bother thinking about the right or wrong of it. And the people who see/hear the ridicule have their prejudices reinforced.

If you want people to respect your point of view, then you have to be willing to respect theirs, even if it's wrong.

No. I can respect your right to have a view, but I don't have to respect the view if it's idiotic. I'm not trying to change the mind of an idiot. It's not worth it. They lack the capacity to understand basic concepts. I already responded to this so I'll just be repeating myself, but anyway "Someone 'totally against' someone having the same rights as them deserves ridicule. You're not going to sway someone that can't grasp something as basic as that".

If someone can't figure out that denying others rights is wrong, they're an idiot and will be treated like one. I'm not going to waste my time reasoning someone out of a position they clearly didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

Have you never been totally convinced of something, only to find out later that you were wrong?
Would being told you're an idiot have made any difference in what you thought? Or would it have made you question your beliefs?

And one more thing..were you born knowing right from wrong? Because if you weren't, someone taught you.

[JediJohnnie]

The passage that you're referring to,Deuteronomy 21:18-21,Isn't condemning 8 year olds to stoning for not doing the dishes,as some of you would like to believe.

Read in context,it's talking about a rebellious mature man,given to drunkenness and other sin.The meaning was not to let "street punks" (as we might call them today)  get coddled by their parents,but to shape up or face a severe punishment.

I'm familiar with the passage as I have read before in context. I'm familiar with what it entails (drunkenness and gluttony). I'm also familiar with this facepalm inducing response that basically says "No, you don't understand... If they're a drunk gluttonous MAN, their parents stoning them to death is ok". Yeah, 'cause the age is what I have a problem with. Are you actually serious with these responses?

The fact that you disagree with the passage should matter to me,because....?I'm sure you also disagree with stoning adulterers,but that was the law back then in the same way.Which brings me back to cultural/historical context being key.It was a harsher law then,and Christ came to fulfil the law.We really needn't concern ourselves with these things when the topic at hand is homosexuality,which as a behavior is expressly forbidden in scripture.

[Falconer02]

Read in context,it's talking about a rebellious mature man,given to drunkenness and other sin.The meaning was not to let "street punks" (as we might call them today)  get coddled by their parents,but to shape up or face a severe punishment.

Oh okay that justifies stoning someone to death. Way to uphold that moral superiority card there.

We really needn't concern ourselves with these things when the topic at hand is homosexuality,which as a behavior is expressly forbidden in scripture.

So let's have a vote-

1.) Follow an ancient book that implores inequality and the barbaric treatment of people.
2.) Value/cherish love and logic between human beings.

[BJohnsonPP]

The fact that you disagree with the passage should matter to me,because....?

I don't recall asking you what you felt about my disagreement with the passage. I would hope this being condoned by your god matters to you. It obviously doesn't though.

I'm sure you also disagree with stoning adulterers,but that was the law back then in the same way.Which brings me back to cultural/historical context being key.It was a harsher law then,and Christ came to fulfil the law.

There's no cultural/historical context that can make any of this ok. Your god was/is fine with it because he laid it out and presided over it. To be fine with this is just insane.

We really needn't concern ourselves with these things when the topic at hand is homosexuality,which as a behavior is expressly forbidden in scripture.

Yes, a lot of things are forbidden in the bible. A lot of things can get you stoned to death. I don't see how you separate homosexuality out as the one that sticks to today and the others can be forgotten about or somehow downgraded. Again, it's called cherry-picking. It makes zero sense. Anyone ok with denying fellow human beings rights is an a-hole.

[BJohnsonPP]

Have you never been totally convinced of something, only to find out later that you were wrong?
Would being told you're an idiot have made any difference in what you thought? Or would it have made you question your beliefs?

And one more thing..were you born knowing right from wrong? Because if you weren't, someone taught you.

Being wrong about something that must be taught/learned (like driving a car) is different than being wrong on something where the answer can be reached through reason. In those instances, when you don't even attempt to apply reason, I'm going to call you an idiot.

So, if I park somewhere I shouldn't because I didn't know or forgot the rules of the road: No idiot. If I agree with denying others rights and can't justify it (because it's not justifiable): Idiot.

[lvstephanie]

Argh! Now the debate is turning towards the end that I disagree with. Hopefully this won't incite more flaming replies (no pun intended; "flaming" in the computer sense of the term)...

The problem I have is when this topic turns into being about human rights... Marriage (esp. when you are talking about the legal definitions of it) is not a right; it is merely a contractual construct that dictates the interaction between people that form a family unit. It become a definition that can then be applied towards other laws, such as beneficiary laws, family law, tax laws, etc. As such, as long as the definition is fairly applied to all people, it shouldn't be considered to be infringing on a person's right to equal protection as defined in the 14th Amendment, even if the law appears biased, esp. if the person arguing for homosexual marriage based on a "human rights" issue uses a more common definition of marriage as being a union between two people in love. Furthermore, since "marriage" is defined in family law, the separate states are the ones that should be defining how they define marriage, and the federal government should be reflective of these many laws when it comes to a context in the national jurisdiction (eg how to handle retirement benefits of a federal worker with respect towards the person's marriage partner). So I agree that DOMA should have been struck as unconstitutional (since it would have been an unequal treatment of homosexual couples that were legally married in a state that recognizes same-sex unions as being legal marriages), and for the most part I agree with the Respect for Marriage Act.

The actual human rights of homosexuals are already applied in the law. Homosexuals are allowed to associate with, date, speak with, and love with whomever they want as protected under the 1st Amendment. And in part this argument was used when the courts correctly struck down sodomy laws in Lawrence vs. Texas (in addition to the Equal Protection clause in that many sodomy laws were only being used against homosexual type of sexual congress, but not when it came to similar actions in a heterosexual relationship) allowing people to have sex in any manner they wished to express themselves.

Thus if a state decides to define marriage as being between a man and a woman under some specious argument like wanting to increase that state's population, then I actually don't see a problem with it, as long as a) that law is equally applied (eg allowing for the "loophole" of having a homosexual man to marry a homosexual woman) and b) it doesn't infringe on other rights (eg the law doesn't ban an actual homosexual couple from cohabitating, since I feel that this does infringe on a person's 1st Amendment rights to freely associate). But by the same token, most reasons for banning same-sex marriages seem to be based solely from a religious context, and because of that I can't really understand why a state would decide to make such a law if that state is also trying to keep that separation from the church.

[sigmapi1501]

Argh! Now the debate is turning towards the end that I disagree with. Hopefully this won't incite more flaming replies (no pun intended; "flaming" in the computer sense of the term)...

The problem I have is when this topic turns into being about human rights... Marriage (esp. when you are talking about the legal definitions of it) is not a right; it is merely a contractual construct that dictates the interaction between people that form a family unit. It become a definition that can then be applied towards other laws, such as beneficiary laws, family law, tax laws, etc. As such, as long as the definition is fairly applied to all people, it shouldn't be considered to be infringing on a person's right to equal protection as defined in the 14th Amendment, even if the law appears biased, esp. if the person arguing for homosexual marriage based on a "human rights" issue uses a more common definition of marriage as being a union between two people in love. Furthermore, since "marriage" is defined in family law, the separate states are the ones that should be defining how they define marriage, and the federal government should be reflective of these many laws when it comes to a context in the national jurisdiction (eg how to handle retirement benefits of a federal worker with respect towards the person's marriage partner). So I agree that DOMA should have been struck as unconstitutional (since it would have been an unequal treatment of homosexual couples that were legally married in a state that recognizes same-sex unions as being legal marriages), and for the most part I agree with the Respect for Marriage Act.

The actual human rights of homosexuals are already applied in the law. Homosexuals are allowed to associate with, date, speak with, and love with whomever they want as protected under the 1st Amendment. And in part this argument was used when the courts correctly struck down sodomy laws in Lawrence vs. Texas (in addition to the Equal Protection clause in that many sodomy laws were only being used against homosexual type of sexual congress, but not when it came to similar actions in a heterosexual relationship) allowing people to have sex in any manner they wished to express themselves.

Thus if a state decides to define marriage as being between a man and a woman under some specious argument like wanting to increase that state's population, then I actually don't see a problem with it, as long as a) that law is equally applied (eg allowing for the "loophole" of having a homosexual man to marry a homosexual woman) and b) it doesn't infringe on other rights (eg the law doesn't ban an actual homosexual couple from cohabitating, since I feel that this does infringe on a person's 1st Amendment rights to freely associate). But by the same token, most reasons for banning same-sex marriages seem to be based solely from a religious context, and because of that I can't really understand why a state would decide to make such a law if that state is also trying to keep that separation from the church.

I do not agree, but I respect this post.  It is articulate and well thought out. It has no place on this forum.

[DandeeLyon]

No one has the ability to choose their gender preference.- Just as one can not control which person/people one is attracted to or not. - Or to what degree.

Besides, who is anyone to tell two consenting monogamous adults what they can or cannot do with each other. That is just between them and is no one's business but their own. - Just as is for anyone, be they homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual.

Another point I'd like to add is this - Everyone should be free to have their own beliefs, whether any other single person agrees or not. And no one should have to endure having other people shove their belief systems in their face. 
What faith doesn't proclaim that the next and all others are wrong and that theirs is the only true faith and you must believe or else (Except Buddhism).
And, ya know, there is a reason it is called "faith". - It isn't fact.

 - Just Saying.

[Falconer02]

The fact that you disagree with the passage should matter to me,because....?

I don't recall asking you what you felt about my disagreement with the passage. I would hope this being condoned by your god matters to you. It obviously doesn't though.

I'm sure you also disagree with stoning adulterers,but that was the law back then in the same way.Which brings me back to cultural/historical context being key.It was a harsher law then,and Christ came to fulfil the law.

There's no cultural/historical context that can make any of this ok. Your god was/is fine with it because he laid it out and presided over it. To be fine with this is just insane.

We really needn't concern ourselves with these things when the topic at hand is homosexuality,which as a behavior is expressly forbidden in scripture.

Yes, a lot of things are forbidden in the bible. A lot of things can get you stoned to death. I don't see how you separate homosexuality out as the one that sticks to today and the others can be forgotten about or somehow downgraded. Again, it's called cherry-picking. It makes zero sense. Anyone ok with denying fellow human beings rights is an a-hole.

And with that said, JJ disappears into the darkness once more after being outsmarted by basic reasoning skills!

I do not agree, but I respect this post.  It is articulate and well thought out. It has no place on this forum.

For all the stupids we have in D+D, there are a few people who know how to actually make a decent point. Cling to them!