California overturned gay-marriage ban today!

Post Reply New Topic

Well, it's not that it's "simple distate". It's a very complex, deeply-rooted, well-informed and powerful objection.
That objection will not cease from society any sooner than gay behavior will.
Therefore, gay marriage just creates more divisiveness than it's worth.
1. Marriage was always defined as a union between a man and a woman.
2. That is now being changed.
3. Which opens the door for organizations like Nambla (http://www.nambla.org)
and also people seeking incestuous marital status to start seriously lobbying
the government for a yet-more-flexible definition of marriage.

Last edited by Ragtime on 19 May 2008, 3:57 pm, edited 6 times in total.

That would work if there weren't so many different ways to interpret the word "imposition."

And the legitimate argument for banning gay PDA is what, exactly? In this country, we do have freedom of expression. Freedom to not be grossed out, conversely, is not recognized by law. The idea that a gay couple expressing affection for each other in public "disturbs the public order" is nonsense. I'm not sure how often that's actually happened--though I do know of instances where gay people have received violence because of daring to appear "gay" in public. In any case, "gay PDA" hardly warrants significant public disturbance. If such a thing were to occur, it is not the gay couple's fault that people grossly overreacted. If you want to live somewhere where you can guarantee you won't witness any PDA, move to Iran.



Ah, an appeal to majority, huh? First off, polls have shown that America is getting more and more accepting of gay people, and I doubt this theoretical "gay PDA" ban would pass nationwide, especially in highly populated areas. Second off, unpopular expression is still protected by law. (i.e. Nazis in Stokie.)



You're free to think whatever you like about this equivalency. The question is whether the government needs to look at these relationships equally, and I've yet to see any convincing evidence that it doesn't. Any distinction one could draw between same-sex and opposite-sex marriages collapses upon further examination. (i.e. Many heterosexual couples can't or won't have kids; many homosexual couples do.) If the government (not an individual religious institution) is going to discriminate on the bases of sex/gender or sexual orientation, it needs a strong secular justification.

Exactly. AG, liberals lobby to take rights away from people
through fabricating claims of "impositions" and "offenses" against other people.
It's a tactic. Everything liberals don't like is labeled an egregious and lamentable
imposition on someone else, until the squeeky wheel gets the oil,
and the law is changed to remove the "offending" item or display.
It's all about dramatizing their own suffering, and claiming it comes at the hands
of those whom they do not like.

Last edited by Ragtime on 19 May 2008, 3:40 pm, edited 5 times in total.

Gay couples are a man and man. Or woman and woman. Doesn't matter.

"Secular bigotry"? Yeah, because religion was never used to justify genocide, prejudice, racism, oppression, violence, etc.

Secular bigotry is very real, and very oppressive.
It's why I can't read my Bible aloud outside in peace, even if I'm reading it
quietly and to myself. Because the mere sight is offensive to many secular people.
(I often read aloud, because it helps me concentrate.)
Secular bigotry is why the long-present display of the Ten Commandments
in that courthouse in Alabama had to be removed.
It wasn't causing any harm, it just offended secular bigots.
Secular bigotry is absolutely everywhere in this country and in Europe.
Its presence is stifling to the point that no person -- religious or otherwise -- fails to
witness it regularly. You may have become numb or callous towards it,
but that would be about you, not about the reality of the situation around you.

Last edited by Ragtime on 19 May 2008, 5:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

And that is where the insertion of a religious dogma comes in. We have societies that override this very "complex, deeply-rooted, well-informed, and powerful objection", in fact, we are based largely upon the societies that did override it.

I don't see how it is necessarily divisive, as has already been stated, other nations have successfully implemented gay marriage. In fact, the US is rather late on implementing it.

Ragtime, that is a slippery slope argument that does not seem to hold much water because NAMBLA stands against a number of other very important legal set-ups such as the protected nature of childhood, the lack of legal rights of childhood, and the parental controls over childhood. It just wouldn't work, and from what I've heard, NAMBLA is now so disliked that barely exists as an organization.


No, not really. Imposition only has 3 definitions related to human social organization and all 3 have very similar definitions, to the point where if one really tried, they could provide more solid definitions, and well, some scholars have actually tried to go down the same intellectual route I have with definitions of terms such as coercion and such that are defined to give them more analytical content.

what rights are you having taken away?

I think the Freedom From Religion Foundation has beaten you to that.

And that is why I am not a liberal because liberals do impose things upon people.

WHY is gay marriage such a controversial issue here on WP? To those who oppose the legalization of gay marriage I say this: WHAT ABOUT THE PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS?? Opposing gay marriage AFAIC is ANTI-INDIVIDUAL! It says that individuals who seek to do something in the persuit of their own happiness should NOT be legally allowed to do it because it defies the social norms...Thats ASSININE!

1) If you take the latter argument then the US is missing out from making money by not trading with the Axis of Evil. What trades do you have in mind, however? Business opportunities or trades in social movements and contributions?


2) We support discrimination. There is discrimination everywhere from how many people of different backgrounds should be accepted into a firm or school, to the taxes that discriminate heavily on the poor. What of medical aid and financial aid?

There is more of a reason to allow polygamy than there is to allow homosexual unions.

I do see a society. It is what we assimilate into. I believe very strongly in a State and feel that the Government should play a bigger role in it while addressing the needs of its people.


3) Government shouldn't have anything to do with Marriage, but I can see why it does. To "protect" the family is the most obvious reason to me. To settle legal matters is another.


4) Legal packages. If the government doesn't become involved who will? Religion? Anyone? If the government becomes involved it must be able to define what they are making law. From what I understand It already did by signing and passing the DOMA.


5) Tyrant? My definition says cruel. There is nothing cruel in not allowing a practice become what was not intended.


6)
You posted "traditionally people of different races did not marry." You did not specify which tradition. How broad or narrow is your definition of miscegenation? I don't believe in different races so I always consider the term race to mean ethnicity.

Well, again, you didn't specify US. In Hispanic cultures the Spaniards intermixed with the locals and Africans. It was even supported and encouraged. Seriously, look into Central and South Asia, especially the Nepali people who are VERY diverse. In the Middle East, so are the Iranians. The US and Brazil are ones that forbade mixed-color marriages. No, gay marriage was not a tradition practiced everywhere. There were some nations that practiced rituals similar to Unions but same-sex marriage was dominantly discouraged throughout history.

The argument on Tradition is a quasi-important issue. Why? Because if we keep changing our definitions of practices, then such a change in definition can occur to anything from our laws to our constitution. I am certain that there might be a turn-around on my argument stating "Well, it was tradition to segregate blacks..." That was a deviation from tradition, and built upon racial superiority--the same with the miscegenation practices in America. There is nothing superior or "discriminating" in not allowing homosexual marriages.

Not in my post. What I stated is simple logic, so deal with my logic, not some red-herring religious response.

You missed my recent edit, but I added incestuous adults who wish to legally marry and thereby receive marital benefits.
AG, my point is such a basic one: that the definition of marriage will change over time, to a nonsensical degree, and legalizing and legitimizing gay marriage is the first step in that perversion of what marriage actually is.

Please, find a religion that advocates these things. Don't quote things out of contexts. Atheists love doing this. There is nothing in religion that advocates this, but the people are too stupid to understand this (just like we are too thickheaded to accept same-sex marriages)










There might not be a "Freedom to Not be Grossed out" but there are laws equivalent to them. No citizen should be subjected to witness disgusting events (I won't specify what).

First tell me why you'd care, because all indications have been that you don't.

And that's the crux of the matter: No one cares about Christians' right to religious expression.
The now-politically-charged term "tolerance" was invented in order to be intolerant to Christians.