gay rights - U.S. vs. rest of the world

[Valkysas]

Re: gay rights - U.S. vs. rest of the world

its in the old testament. I know people constantly say that only the new testament matters, but I really don't care about that. it's still in a religious text.

Won't this oppress those who do not want religion left out of law-making

Then they can go to a different country that doesnt profess to have a seperation of chruch and state. If our country said straight up that there was no separation of church and state, I wouldnt be complaining about this.

[thetruecoolness]

Re: gay rights - U.S. vs. rest of the world

But aren't both part of the word of God. Funny how people disagree on which one is more correct, when they are both supposed to be the word of God.

So I don't see how not allowing gay unions the same legal rights as hetero unions would be infringing on anyone. We're not asking the churches to ordain these unions, and they don't even need to be called marriage, since people are so hung up on language.

But not allowing them the same rights is discrimination to me, and infringing on gays rights to the same benefits as straight people when they decide to become life partners.

Also shouldn't we love our neighbor, and not take away his benefits and rights.

Also ideas and laws can be changed, religion normally cannot, so wouldn't you rather have something humble enough to look at itself objectively and admit when it's wrong and change to be right. This is what the government is supposed to provide, an ability to keep order, while still allowing a large diversity in beliefs that individuals can have. So the government is supposed to strive to allow the most people the same rights without infringing on anyone elses. So in this case I don't see how allowing gay unions is infringing on anyone.

[Geno Blue]

Re: gay rights - U.S. vs. rest of the world

Edit:

We're not asking the churches to ordain these unions

Actually you are because people in the church vote.



But then your forcing your beliefs on us to tell us to move somewhere else? The old testament does matter but its the context that its in...the rules where there back then because Jesus had not come yet. When he came he gave the world grace that judgement would be set aside for a time.

[Valkysas]

Re: gay rights - U.S. vs. rest of the world

But then your forcing your beliefs on us to tell us to move somewhere else?

No. because the seperation of church and state is a major part of what is supposed to make this country great. this isnt a christian nation no matter how many retarded presidents say it is. want religion to effect laws? go to a country thats founded on that then.

Oh, and just for the hell of it:

Psalm 14:1 To the chief Musician, [A Psalm] of David. The fool
hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they
have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good.

I'm a corrupt fool who does abominable things, and I am incapable of ever doing anything good.

awesome.

[Chad]

Re: gay rights - U.S. vs. rest of the world

Actually you are because people in the church vote.

You should not be allowed to vote on people having rights. So what vote is counting in the union of two people?

[Kefka Jr.]

Re: gay rights - U.S. vs. rest of the world

There are about a dozen times more passages in the Bible about greed and pride than about homosexuality...

[Geno Blue]

Re: gay rights - U.S. vs. rest of the world

Well no matter what, you can't have objective reasoning or thought because you already have a personal bias towards religion being wrong, and everyone has bias so never are law makers going to live up to all or even some of people's standards its flawed.

[thetruecoolness]

Re: gay rights - U.S. vs. rest of the world

Edit:

Actually you are because people in the church vote.



But then your forcing your beliefs on us to tell us to move somewhere else? The old testament does matter but its the context that its in...the rules where there back then because Jesus had not come yet. When he came he gave the world grace that judgement would be set aside for a time.

But you want to force us to just believe the bible by not allowing us to allow for other viewpoints that are contradictory to yours. So we're not forcing anyone to view these as legitimate marriages in the theoretical sense if they don't want to. It's about giving them the legal benefits that come with agreeing to be a life partner to someone.

So yes eventually at some point someones beliefs will get stepped on. This is how humanity is, some people think cannibalism is right and probably have a religious text that tells them it is so, but this is not the majority and seen as detrimental to society as it promotes anarchy and takes away from safety. So yes majority rule is not the best, so that is why we use majority view, but also try to allow for as many minority views as possible. Striving to allow as many the power to believe what they want as is possible while still maintaining a stable society.

[Karim]

Re: gay rights - U.S. vs. rest of the world

Some law may be biased to a degree, but that doesn't mean its acceptable to just throw out any ideas of trying to keep it as neutral as possible in favor of what you believe.

[Alex]

Re: gay rights - U.S. vs. rest of the world

"Well no matter what, you can't have objective reasoning or thought because you already have a personal bias towards religion"

Oh man. lol

[Valkysas]

Re: gay rights - U.S. vs. rest of the world

Well no matter what, you can't have objective reasoning or thought because you already have a personal bias towards religion being wrong

I don't think religion is wrong. I just choose not to participate in it. Religion gives many people much-needed structure, a strong sense of community, and it promotes helping people and caring for each other. I have nothing against that. I'm not against religion at all, just the people who want to force it on me.

[Czechs Mex]

Re: gay rights - U.S. vs. rest of the world

WHY is any of this even relevant? It's all beside the point, and it's clouding the issue.

It definitely is not beside the point. Again, the argument I was making was this:

1. Supporting gay marriage is supporting the gay lifestyle,
2. The gay lifestyle is detrimental to society.
3. Our government should not fund anything that is detrimental to society.

Thus, our government should not support gay marriage.

You said that, because we have never seen a society without gays, we cannot possibly show that the gay lifestyle is detrimental to society. Thus premise 2 is delusional, and the whole argument is false.

I then said that your claim is untrue - even if we haven't seen such a gayless society, it would still be possible to show that the gay lifestyle is detrimental to society, as is the case with murder. Thus, you have not shown that premise 2 is delusional.

Then you said that the claim doesn't matter and is clouding the argument. It does matter, though, because if your original claim is true, my entire argument has broken down (which you actually said yourself). It does not prove my argument to be true, but it prevents you from automatically proving it to be false.

So what I'm saying is that your original claim is not true, and am asking if you now agree with that. And you're saying, "bah, it doesn't matter." I think most here would agree that your claim is false, so it doesn't matter to them, but if you cannot accept your original claim to be incorrect, we are at an impasse.

Now, your new argument is something to the effect of:

1. Gay people are an important part of society.
2. Society is very complex and not easily understood.
3. You should not change things that are complex and not easily understood.

Therefore, you should not change any policies regarding gay people, which could affect society.

That is an intelligent design-esque argument, and is not very compelling. If I am misrepresenting your argument, please say so.

The point we should be focusing on is whether or not supporting gay marriage is in fact detrimental to society. For example, Karim has made the argument that gay marriage only affects the individual, not society at large, and thus the rest of us should not be concerned with it. I think she has a good point.

[ErikaFuzzbottom]

Re: gay rights - U.S. vs. rest of the world

If anybody says that gay marriage is detrimental to society, I would really like them to explain why that is the case, because I really don't see how it would be.

[Caciss]

Re: gay rights - U.S. vs. rest of the world

The old testament does matter but its the context that its in...the rules where there back then because Jesus had not come yet.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

[Czechs Mex]

Re: gay rights - U.S. vs. rest of the world

Oh, and

And who are you...Geraldo Rivera? He gets paid to play devil's advocate...what's in it for you?

This is why:

I just get tired of seeing people asked why gay marriage is so wrong, and all they can come back with is various religious things.

I'm trying to make a non-religious argument against gay marriage. Originally I was trying to set it up for Geno, but he went the bible route.

I'm not insulting anyone, so I don't see the problem with this. It beats the hell out of us just berating someone convinced that, "GOD SAYS GAY IS BAD." I was hoping it would make the discussion more interesting to have a non-religious viewpoint for the opposing side.

Besides, taking the other side causes a greater understanding of the issue and all that jazz.