Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ratbastid
Well, look, I think those who oppose gay marriage are generally offended by homosexuality, and have a gut reaction to anything that would legitimize it. Remember that, in most states, homosexual sex was illegal until relatively recently. There are still sodomy laws on the books in some states that make gay sex a crime (not that they're generally enforced that way, but still).
|
Not any longer. Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 struck down all existing consensual sodomy laws. They may technically still be on the books, but they're no longer in effect.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by magictoy
Since you presume that anyone who opposes gay marriage is a "homophobe," does that make everyone in favor of it a "heterophobe?"
|
No, and the two situations are not parallel. Favoring gay marriage is favoring equal rights. The equivilent position to opposing gay marriage while keeping it an exclusively heterosexual institution would be opposing heterosexual marriage and wanting it to be an exclusively homosexual institution.
Quote:
|
The general opinion, as I (and many other people) see it, is that you're calling an apple an orange.
|
No, we're calling a marriage a marriage.
Quote:
|
Words mean things. If gays and other people in search of preferential treatment are going to declare that some words are offensive to them, they're going to have to get used to the fact that some heterosexual couples think that a change in the definition of what they consider a sacred relationship is offensive.
|
Well, you've got two or three things jumbled together there, so let me see if I can untangle them.
First, we don't want preferential treatment, we want equal treatment. We want to get married, adopt children, not be fired or denied promotions or housing or equal protection under the law. Equal, not preferential.
Second, we're not addressing the sacred aspect of the institution. That's a religious matter, and churches are already free to deal with marriage as they see fit. Some will marry same-sex couples, including some Christian churches, while others won't. The laws won't touch them. This is strictly a matter of the civil marriage contract.
Third, there is no attempt to change the definition of what marriage is in terms of rights, privileges, and responsibilities, the only thing that would be changed would be which groups are granted this right. Granting equal rights to formerly disenfranchised groups has historically always turned out to be viewed in a positive light.
Fourth, there are already married couples in the sacred, religious sense. I see a dozen or so, often along with their children, at church every week. Laws prohibiting homosexuals from getting married legally are not going to prevent us from being married in churches.
Fifth, I'm assuming that you're referring to words used as slurs against homosexuals in your comparison. If so, it falls apart on it's face. We're not using "marriage" as a slur or insult, nor are we applying it to other people. We want to honor the institution, not attack it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
I'm fairly sure that you took that passage out of context. The Bible commands people to love God and hate sin. As you know, according to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin.
|
No, actually, I don't know that, because it isn't.
However, keep in mind that the bible is irrelevant. We aren't discussion Christian or Jewish marriage, or any form of religious marriage. Those are already protected. We're discussion solely laws relating to civil marriage.
Quote:
|
Marriage has always been considered to be strictly between male and female(s)
|
No it hasn't.
Quote:
|
It doesn't affect me in any way, shape or form.
|
Exactly.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
This is a moral issue stemming from religious principles, I don't see how or why that is a problem, as all of our codified law and moral beliefs stem from arguably the same place. People have beliefs, why should they have to compromise them for the agenda of a small segment of the population?
|
Recognizing gay marriage would not require anybody to compromise their beliefs. Nobody would be required to enter into a gay marriage, attend one, and churches would not have to perform them. Those who remain opposed would be free to be completely uninvolved, just as they are, I assume, in respect to existing religious gay marriages.
Quote:
|
To me it does come down to a slippery slope argument, at the same time I'm not trying to compare homosexuals to deviants or evil. Marriage is a religious institution, so lets give homosexuals civil unions and be done with it.
|
The religious institution of marriage would remain unaffected. Many homosexuals are already married in a religous sense.
Quote:
|
For the record there are a few verses from the New Testament directly relating to homosexual being Romans 1: 24-27, 1 Cor 6:10, 1 Tim 1:10 of the top of my head.
|
None of those directly condemn homosexuality or homosexuals.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Also as an aside, not to jump to far down the trail of absurdity, but last time I checked, A black man and a white woman, or any color combination thereof, can procreate. Procreation, you know natures grand decision for the survival of a species, is wholly natural; that having been said, it seems homosexuality would there by be an aberration of nature, right or wrong.
|
Irrelevant. Procreation is not, and has never been, a requirement or an element of the marriage contract. Couples are permitted to marry who are not capable of procreating, the elderly for example.
I would be incapable of procreation regardless of who I married, as I'm sterile. Does this mean I shouldn't be permitted to marry a man? I can't have a baby with him. I don't think anybody would reasonabley say I shouldn't or is attemting to prevent me from doing so.
Why then, should it prevent me from having my marriage to the woman I love legally recognized?
On the other hand, there are laws that allow certain couples to marry only if they can prove that they are not capable of producing offspring--a few states have this requirement for first cousins, a ridiculous requirement if you ask me.
Gilda