What's the problem?

JarysM · Post by **JarysM** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:48 pm

I dissagree, this enforces the idea that the realm of marrige is for religion to grant alone.
This means that anyone can't choose to get married, "religion" must okay the marrige first, and sactify it.
Unions and civilly joined are not the same thing. Society has certain respect and sactity towards marrige, not because it is between a man and awoman, but because it is the highest prefession of love and commitment. Many homosexuals want access the the meme that is marrige, they want to show that their love is just as strong as any married hetero couple, and thay wantto bind themselves in an equal way. Giving them a government recognition wont do that. Seperate is not euqal, they deserve to have what we have: access the the social instituion that is marrige.
If you dont want to see them as married, thats fine, you can hold your fingers in your ears until the next era for all I care, but using government to limit them isnt a compramise.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 12:11 am

Well, Jarys, which is more important? A simple word, or the concept?

... I'm not brushing it off, you make some really good points and I really am torn on if the meme/term "marriage" is important or meaningless to the issue.

JarysM · Post by **JarysM** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 12:31 am

Well, I think the word is the concept in peoples minds...
They are "wed" (haha) together . If two people fuffile the concept of married (live togetehr, wear wedding rings, share names, and create a houshold) we associate the word married to them. If We give homosexuals the right to the word, they can intigrate into being percieved and treated with the concept alot easier.

JudgeMental · Post by **JudgeMental** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 1:11 am

OK, I'm gonna have to get religious on you all. I have a number of secular reasons as to why I'm against homosexuality (and thus gay marriage), but those aren't my issue.

God said clearly that homosexuality is wrong. I'm not gonna argue with the big guy upstairs. Does that make God, and myself, a bigot? Nope. I get along great with gays and lesbians; as a matter of fact, God told me to love them as anybody else.

As much as I would love to give everybody the privileges I have, it is immoral to me to condone through my vote an action that affirms immoral behavior. Not very PC, isn't it? Certainly makes me look like an oppressive conservative, anyway.

My view is this. If government were to simply make sure society worked, then fine, it wouldn't have ANYTHING to do with marriage, as society doesn't seem to need regulation of marriage to survive.

You know, sometimes the arguement about gay marriage makes me think of some suburbian complaining about being hungry, and unable to eat because you want breakfast cereal and you're out, while reading about hunger epidemics in third-world countries. You REALLY don't have it all that bad.

chk-chk-cannibalism · Post by **chk-chk-cannibalism** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 1:29 am

I'm the new guy, so I don't expect anyone to respect my views and understand where I am coming from, so...

I believe homosexuality is immoral. I believe homosexuality is a choice and therefore shouldn't be recognized by law at all. Our constitution states that marriage is between a man and a woman. Only left-wing progressioninsts want to change what society is. The words "under god" in the pledge is another thing the lefties are trying to change. This is not right. Homosexuality is not right. Simple.

Hidden Sanity · Post by **Hidden Sanity** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 1:29 am

Hidden Sanity wrote:Well, in a county that has separated the church from the state, there’s no reason not to allow gay marriage, it’s a moral issue, I’m very much against homosexuality, along with pre-marital sex, but both of those are moral issues (neither are directly harming people) so in a government that has separated itself from any kind of moral standards, these things should be decided on a personal basis, although these gay pride extremists that want to be able to be married in ANY faith are also out of line, as a faith should be able to take a stance on any moral issue and stick to it.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 1:36 am

Our constitution states that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Uhm ... no. No it does not.

Only left-wing progressioninsts want to change what society is.

Also wrong. The right-wing people want to change society, too. Everyone basically does. I don't think I've ever met anyone who didn't think the status quo should remain unchanged.

The words "under god" in the pledge is another thing the lefties are trying to change.

Even though that's not related to the discussion at hand, you do realize it was ADDED to the pledge by ... guess who! not the "lefities"! ... in the 1950s, right?

This is not right.

Why is it "not right"? Because no, it's not "simple".

Triviarre · Post by **Triviarre** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 1:47 am

JudgeMental, to you I must ask a few questions.

You have made it clear that you are a theistic individual. Would you then agree that your religious beliefs have a large say as to what you conceived as "right" and "wrong"? Would that mean that your morals are also theistically based? If so, what about those who do not share your same beliefs?

Morality is in the eye of the beholder. It is shaped and developed entirely based on our experiences and the society that we have been raised in. For example, we see nothing morally wrong with using internet forums because society has not dictated a negative connotation to that action. Just the same, if we had grown in a society where no one gave a second thought to killing eachother then would murder be conceived as something that was "morally wrong," even when it was not influenced, by religion or any means, in society? Although it may be difficult for some of us to conceive, it is truly doubtful.

So now that I have established my views on morality, I must inquire as to how you feel you have any sort of authority to say what people should and should not do. I understand you have your personal beliefs. Everyone does. Is that enough to enforce those beliefs on all others, though, even when they are in complete disagreement?

Also, if it is acceptable to you for the government to enforce moral values, then I am lost as to where the boundaries lie. Would it also be acceptable to you for the government to ban, say... cigarettes? If it is based on morality, then many would say that the participating in any sort of drug would be immoral. You can also just as soon ban premarital sex and adultery. How is gay marriage any different if it is based upon moral values?

Nyoibo · Post by **Nyoibo** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 3:18 am

believe homosexuality is immoral. I believe homosexuality is a choice and therefore shouldn't be recognized by law at all.

I just had to respond with, Religeon is a choice also, therefore, I believe Religeon is a choice and therefore shouldn't be recognized by law at all.

Our constitution states that marriage is between a man and a woman. Only left-wing progressioninsts want to change what society is.

And your beloved constitution gives them the right to do that.
And the 14th amendment to the constitution states:No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

JudgeMental · Post by **JudgeMental** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 6:47 am

[quote="Triviarre";p="429250"]JudgeMental, to you I must ask a few questions.

You have made it clear that you are a theistic individual. Would you then agree that your religious beliefs have a large say as to what you conceived as "right" and "wrong"? Would that mean that your morals are also theistically based? If so, what about those who do not share your same beliefs?[/quote]

Yes, my beliefs are indeed what I base my concepts of right and wrong on. Same as everybody else. My beliefs are religious. Others may be secular. I am in no way special in this catagory.

[quote="Triviarre";p="429250"]Morality is in the eye of the beholder. It is shaped and developed entirely based on our experiences and the society that we have been raised in. For example, we see nothing morally wrong with using internet forums because society has not dictated a negative connotation to that action. Just the same, if we had grown in a society where no one gave a second thought to killing eachother then would murder be conceived as something that was "morally wrong," even when it was not influenced, by religion or any means, in society? Although it may be difficult for some of us to conceive, it is truly doubtful.[/quote]

In a society where morality is humanly derived, you'd be absolutely correct. Some morality IS human derived. But those moral lines I draw I believe have been dictated to me by God. I don't like all of them (promiscuity sounds like it could be fun

), but they're there. I believe that some things are built-in (for instance, MOST people would agree that raping and murdering a 6 year old would be horrendous, no matter where they come from), while other things are learned (how to view nudity, for example).

[quote="Triviarre";p="429250"]So now that I have established my views on morality, I must inquire as to how you feel you have any sort of authority to say what people should and should not do. I understand you have your personal beliefs. Everyone does. Is that enough to enforce those beliefs on all others, though, even when they are in complete disagreement?[/quote]

Glad you asked. I believe in absolute moralities. If my moral views were simply that, mine, I would feel that I have no cause to enforce anything. However, as stated, I feel that God has given me something to align my moral compass to, so I must follow as it directs as well as I can.

As it is, I have only once done something to enforce my moral views. That was when I voted against gay marriage in my state. As far as I'm concerned, saying yes would have been advocating something I feel VERY strongly against. I might as well have put my name down as Benjamin Franklin in the voter registration, and it would have been more honest to me.

[quote="Triviarre";p="429250"]Also, if it is acceptable to you for the government to enforce moral values, then I am lost as to where the boundaries lie. Would it also be acceptable to you for the government to ban, say... cigarettes? If it is based on morality, then many would say that the participating in any sort of drug would be immoral. You can also just as soon ban premarital sex and adultery. How is gay marriage any different if it is based upon moral values?[/quote]

I do not believe it is acceptable for the government to enforce moral values. But if it's going to, then I'm going to do my darnedest to keep them straight (no pun intended

)

Optimally, I would like to see that everybody aligns their moral compass with God, that way even if the government does legislate it, then there's really nothing to do. It's a pipe-dream, but I don't expect that to become a reality.

Just out of curiousity, why do you think I would want others to subscribe to my views on morality?

Azurain · Post by **Azurain** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 7:18 am

I'm not sure that it can be established that allowing same sex marriage in any way whatsoever infringes upon your rights. As such, it's hard to make a case that allowing it would be the dictation of morality, whereas it's quite obvious that disallowing it is exactly that.

Post by **Blaze** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 7:48 am

Well, it is okaying it, Azurain. I mean, union between a man and a dog is not allowed because society dictates it to be wrong. If we grant something an ok, we're at least saying, "Well, it's better than that." It may not be a statement that, "This is a good thing", but it is a statement that, "This is not a bad thing."

That said, I would like to reiterate that I hope you all can appreciate I'm being generous with the statement I made before. I also believe homosexuality is immoral, but I'm willing to put freedom of choice past that, so long as it doesn't infringe on my own morals. I find marriage to be an integral part of my religion, and to allow something immoral to take something of my religion and subvert it, with LEGAL okay, pains me. But I am willing to bend my opinions, for the good of society.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 7:57 am

I find marriage to be an integral part of my religion, and to allow something immoral to take something of my religion and subvert it, with LEGAL okay, pains me.

*cough* *cough* You know, it's not from YOUR religion. If anything, you stole it from the Jews, and that's assuming that the Romsn and the Greeks and the Pagans didn't have marriage before hand, too.

From RELIGION, general, maybe, but you can't even rightfully claim its from your religion, even if you want to argue that the word doesn't now have secular meaning, too.

Azurain · Post by **Azurain** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 8:00 am

it is a statement that, "This is not a bad thing."

Really? I thought it was generally just a statement that "We have no right to tell you you can't do this."

That said, I would like to reiterate that I hope you all can appreciate I'm being generous with the statement I made before.

The fact that you're being less of a self-righteous prick than most people who oppose gay marriage should not be misconstrued as generosity on your part.

Let me ask this: if a majority of Americans (hypothetically) decided that the worship of any deities was extremely immoral, and that as such it should not be encouraged in any way, including the encouragement of it through making it legal (as you say, "this is not a bad thing"), then removed your legal right to attend public worship... how would you feel?

The fact of the matter is that your moral views should never be allowed to restrict the freedom of others unless it directly harms you for that freedom to be granted. Abstract bullshit like "it's supporting something I think is immoral" is entirely irrelevant to the question of why your personal moral views should be imposed upon others in a way that restricts their freedoms simply because you are in the majority.

Post by **Blaze** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 8:10 am

Really? I thought it was generally just a statement that "We have no right to tell you you can't do this."

Convienient of you to igorne my reasoning for that. Nobody argues they have a right to tell people they can't marry their pets.

Let me ask this: if a majority of Americans (hypothetically) decided that the worship of any deities was extremely immoral, and that as such it should not be encouraged in any way, including the encouragement of it through making it legal (as you say, "this is not a bad thing"), then removed your legal right to attend public worship... how would you feel?

Didn't I just SPECIFY that I was willing to adapt how I feel because I believe in the pursuit of happiness? I'm not telling ANYBODY what they can or cannot do. I'm simply protecting something I believe in.

From RELIGION, general, maybe, but you can't even rightfully claim its from your religion, even if you want to argue that the word doesn't now have secular meaning, too.

I mean it as I apply it to my religion, obviously. You can't claim ownership of any word! (Unless you're a multinational corperation.)

The fact of the matter is that your moral views should never be allowed to restrict the freedom of others unless it directly harms you for that freedom to be granted. Abstract bullshit like "it's supporting something I think is immoral" is entirely irrelevant to the question of why your personal moral views should be imposed upon others in a way that restricts their freedoms simply because you are in the majority.

Didn't I just SAY that?

Point: The idea here is that currently, if people are married, they are required by law to recieve any and all benefits of said marriage, and be recognized as such. A union licence, which then allowed people to get any sort of joining they pleased would allow business, groups and organizations to choose which to recognize. MORE freedom. Not less. You want to get a gay "marriage"? Fine. I won't stop you. But I don't recognize it as such. Maybe I own an apartment complex that offers reduced rates on two bedroom appartments to married couples. This way I don't have to rent that apartment to you at the reduced rate. I don't recognize it as a marriage.

They had a hard enough time getting all PEOPLE recognized as equal over the years. But they did it, because people ARE equal. Ideas are not all equal.

Real Life Forums

What's the problem?

Who is online