Homosexual marriage

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Lief, why don't you share your thoughts with us?
Why don't you think pedophilia should be legal? Why don't you think gay marriage should be allowed? What do these things have in common, according to you?

My main point was that brownjenkins' line of reasoning in something he said to RÃ*an was flawed. My main point is that while Christians discriminate against things that make people happy because we think they're wrong, so do secular folks. There is no difference in the lines of reasoning that Christians and non-Christians use in this area. We all act against things we view as harmful or wrong in spite of people's happiness.
EDIT: And rightfully so.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'll just spit out my main point.

Yay

So the real questions would be:
Is homosexuality harmful?
How harmful?
In what ways harmful?
Harmful enough to propose a ban on gay marriage?

Of course, many people don't see how homosexuality is harmful and as a result many can't but support gays' right to marry.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

The reason why some Christians don't want gays tobe able to marry for instance, is of course not because they want to deny people happiness. But it sure seems that way, seeing as the arguments against gay marriage are a lot more fuzzy than the arguments we have against certain drugs and pedophilia.

A lot more fuzzy? That's because we don't hate gays, while pedophiles are just plain despicable.


I would like to REclarify my point to Lotesse:

She has said that our side is "shoving legislation down people's throats", meaning the amendment to ban gay marriage (seperate states, respectively...may pc live forever*bows*)...and I point out again that it is JUST THE SAME from people who want "shove" to legislate to legalize gay marriage, forcing it down the throats of people who don't want it.

Now hopefully we can write this argumental method off our lists...

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

With pedophelia, a child won't necessarily always find the adult's ideas objectionable. So if they're both consenting, and it's making happiness for both, why not? Because it causes harm?

And why not allow all drugs, with no legal barriers? Because they cause harm (as Falagar is arguing)? After all, they provide happiness, and who are you to say how someone else is to be allowed to be happy?

The problem is largely that kids aren't ready physically or mentally, before puberty. Thus their consent is pretty irrelevant. Gays, however, are consenting adults, and in itself doesn't do any harm. To find a reason for prohibition you have to go back to religion.

[The Gaffer]

I thought christians were supposed to hate the sin, love the sinner. I didn't know there was an exception for kiddy fiddlers.

Right wingers often play this specious "it's just the same" card, as if they weren't rabid absolutists.

People who want to permit gay marriage are not arguing for it being compulsory. People who want to prohibit gay marriage want to apply that prohibition to everybody.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

A lot more fuzzy? That's because we don't hate gays, while pedophiles are just plain despicable.

Exactly. This adds to making it harder to understand why some Christians want to prohibit gay marriage. It's easy to simplify and say "it's because they hate gays".

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I thought christians were supposed to hate the sin, love the sinner. I didn't know there was an exception for kiddy fiddlers.

You know, it's kinda hard to like someone who is a pedophile...

Right wingers often play this specious "it's just the same" card, as if they weren't rabid absolutists.

People who want to permit gay marriage are not arguing for it being compulsory. People who want to prohibit gay marriage want to apply that prohibition to everybody.

People who are dying to have a gay marriage really are just desperate to beat their enemies, and once it is legalized they could probably care less.

Hey look, gay people want to live together? Fine. Nobody was ever stopping them. I thought that lefters were always the one's who were trying to justify people living together with their boyfriend or girlfriend out of wedlock, so I'm just wondering when they came to.
If it's "just our God-given right to marry!" that they want, then I would say they never understood marriage in the first place.
I suppose not allowing atheists to become roman catholic priests is also discriminating against their having full rights....
"Atheists can be catholic priests TOO!" No they cannot, not without vacuuming all the meaning out of "catholic".

I agree that there are some gay couples who love each other more than some straight couples, but that is not the issue.


I'll say just one more time: we'll just have to come up with something new after gay marriage is legalized...only a matter of time before we'll have to extend that to everyone too.

[Lief Erikson]

I'm just going to give summarizations of your arguments below each of your following sentences:

Originally Posted by Falagar

The problem is largely that kids aren't ready physically or mentally, before puberty.

Pedophelia is harmful.

Originally Posted by Falagar

Thus their consent is pretty irrelevant.

This justifies saying humbug to the happiness of the people involved.

Originally Posted by Falagar

Gays, however, are consenting adults, and in itself doesn't do any harm.

Homosexuality is not harmful.

Originally Posted by Falagar

To find a reason for prohibition you have to go back to religion.

So there is no valid reason for rejecting homosexual marriage.

You're in no way contradicting what I said in my post. The lines of reasoning that you're using and that I'm using are the same. I say that we should discriminate against things that are wrong (harmful=wrong in this case), even if they make people happy, and so do you. You think pedophelia is harmful (and hence wrong) and so should be discriminated against, just as I do, and humbug if people's happiness is conflicted. I think that homosexuality is harmful (and hence wrong), so I oppose homosexual marriage, and if that stands in the way of people's happiness, tough. I'm using the same line of reasoning that you're using. Only we have different views of the evidence involving homosexuality.

So people's happiness is not the issue here, and any of us will vote against practices that will impede people's happiness if we we consider them to be wrong. That was my whole point.

You and Jonathan are trying to make other points, points that are well worth debating, but which I'm pretty sure are a big tangent for this thread. It seems to me (though I could be mistaken) that religious freedom is the primary topic of this thread.

[Falagar]

As far as I've seen most arguing for Christian marriage, only state unions. God doesn't enter into it (as far as I've seen, might be I've missed something). Marriage isn't all religious sermony, y'know. And if some priests feel their God sanctions such marriages, why should there be anything stopping them? They'd probably have to break with the rest of the church, but hey, that's their right...

You know, it's kinda hard to like someone who is a pedophile...

Loving your enemies isn't supposed to be easy, now is it?

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm just going to give summarizations of your arguments below each of your following sentences:

Pedophelia is harmful.

This justifies saying humbug to the happiness of the people involved.

Homosexuality is not harmful.

So there is no valid reason for rejecting homosexual marriage.

You're in no way contradicting what I said in my post.

Not contradicting, just answering your question.

The lines of reasoning that you're using and that I'm using are the same. I say that we should discriminate against things that are wrong (harmful=wrong in this case), even if they make people happy, and so do you. You think pedophelia is harmful (and hence wrong) and so should be discriminated against, just as I do, and humbug if people's happiness is conflicted. I think that homosexuality is harmful (and hence wrong), so I oppose homosexual marriage, and if that stands in the way of people's happiness, tough. I'm using the same line of reasoning that you're using. Only we have different views of the evidence involving homosexuality.

So people's happiness is not the issue here, and any of us will vote against practices that will impede people's happiness if we we consider them to be wrong. That was my whole point.

You and Jonathan are trying to make other points, points that are well worth debating, but which I'm pretty sure are a big tangent for this thread. It seems to me (though I could be mistaken) that religious freedom is the primary topic of this thread.

However, while our kind of "harmful" is supported by facts and research, your "harmful" is supported by religious belief. You really don't see a difference?

Religious freedom is the topic, and you're allowed to believe whatever you want, but unless you can prove (e.g. in a court of law) that it truly is harmful it shouldn't be relevant in a secular state (separation of state and church, protecting minorities from the majority, etc.)

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Falagar

Loving your enemies isn't supposed to be easy, now is it?

Which was my point...thank you.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I thought christians were supposed to hate the sin, love the sinner. I didn't know there was an exception for kiddy fiddlers.

There isn't.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

You know, it's kinda hard to like someone who is a pedophile...

That's why we need to pray that God will give us greater ability to forgive. We should remember people like the nun in Somalia who was murdered and died forgiving her assailant. That kind of forgiveness for sin is what we're talking about.

There is a time and place for justice as well, of course. And justice involves consequences for those who violate the law. That very rightly applies to pedophiles. Sometimes exacting a just judgment against someone else is being far more loving than is allowing them to continue their abuses.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Right wingers often play this specious "it's just the same" card, as if they weren't rabid absolutists.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

People who want to permit gay marriage are not arguing for it being compulsory. People who want to prohibit gay marriage want to apply that prohibition to everybody.

So what? People who are want complete freedom for the drug trade aren't advocating that people be compelled to consume drugs. Only those who choose to buy them have to consume them. Things don't have to be compulsory to be harmful to the individuals involved and society as a whole. And conversely, some things being banned in an absolute fashion can benefit individuals and society as a whole.

[hectorberlioz]

Yeah, such as banning the sell of moldy foods....ok, thats not too great of an example.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Falagar

However, while our kind of "harmful" is supported by facts and research, your "harmful" is supported by religious belief. You really don't see a difference?

I really don't see why judging things from facts is better, on this issue especially, because when you come down to it, there's no escaping some kind of "right/wrong", even if you only use "facts". Obviously you believe using facts is the right thing to do, or you do it because it gets better results, which says that you believe in better.

[Rosie Gamgee]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I know a lot of christians as well, and not all of them feel the need to stand in the way of other people's pursuit of happiness.

What if my pursuit of happiness involves stealing? I think that people over-do the pursuit of happiness thing in this country. We'll do anything in the name of our supposedly 'God-given' right to happiness.


People, I think, need to stop making the whole gay-rights issue so personal. I realize that it hits personally, and that everyone on both sides of the fence feels personally about it. But when we start believing that the reason the other party wishes to push their beliefs over ours is because they hate us, we've taken it personally. What if it's because they love us that they are trying to get us to see their way? Is it wrong to tell someone that a bus is going to hit them if they stand in the middle of the road?

I had a point I was gonna make here, but I don't really remember what it was.

[hectorberlioz]

Point well made about taking it personally, Rosie.

I'd also like to revive my comment about us having ditched simple "polite manners" for Political correctness.

Conveniently, I might point out that the "happiness" part of "pursuit of happiness" refers to pursuing ownership of property

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I really don't see why judging things from facts is better [then from religious belief], on this issue especially, because when you come down to it, there's no escaping some kind of "right/wrong", even if you only use "facts". Obviously you believe using facts is the right thing to do, or you do it because it gets better results, which says that you believe in better.

wow....

So let me see if I have this right… using facts as your source to show something, shows you no more and possibly less then not using facts?

Originally Posted by Rosie Gamgee

People, I think, need to stop making the whole gay-rights issue so personal. I realize that it hits personally, and that everyone on both sides of the fence feels personally about it. But when we start believing that the reason the other party wishes to push their beliefs over ours is because they hate us, we've taken it personally. What if it's because they love us that they are trying to get us to see their way? Is it wrong to tell someone that a bus is going to hit them if they stand in the middle of the road?

Its not about hate OR love its about unnecessary discrimination. In the end that’s the most important point to make here.

Now that being said, I firmly believe that most Americans don’t want to ban gay marriage because they “love� gays and want to protect them from getting run over. That’s just nonsense. The vast majority do it because of one of two reasons ONLY:

1. Gays are gross.
and/or
2. My religion says being gay is bad.

Theres no other reason to openly discriminate against a group of people for no good reason at all. There are so many other much more harmful things that Christians don’t say a peep about. And yet they choose to trumpet on and on about gay marriage as if it’s the coming apocalypse. Well what does that tell you about how Christians and many other Americans view gays…

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I really don't see why judging things from facts is better, on this issue especially, because when you come down to it, there's no escaping some kind of "right/wrong", even if you only use "facts". Obviously you believe using facts is the right thing to do, or you do it because it gets better results, which says that you believe in better.

Facts should be the basis of all judgements, and facts/observations we can make in this life are easier to come to terms with than those we won't have any knowledge of until we leave this planet. Of course one has to do value judgements, but as the state isn't supposed to be based on religion religious judgements shouldn't affect the rights or priviliges of any group. Denying a group privileges based on such beliefs is thus contradicting some of the core principles of the US.

Also, the condemnation of homosexuality seems a pretty small part of Christian theology to me - except from Paulus (Jesus never condemns it) you'll have to consult the OT. The only example of something which may have been homosexuality 'ruining' a society is Sodom (or may not, there's some controversy over the text - at least homosexuality doesn't seem to have been the only reason God erased it) - and with Jesus establishing a more personal God-man-relationship Christians today shouldn't really have to worry about that.

I think that people over-do the pursuit of happiness thing in this country.

A person's 'pursuit of happiness' stops at the rights of another person; a pretty widespread thought in modern philosophy (see f.ex. John Rawls). Thus stealing is right out.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

wow....

So let me see if I have this right… using facts as your source to show something, shows you no more and possibly less then not using facts?

Well, my point was that Falagar does not necesarily use only facts. And that using facts for judgement doesn't always have THE most desired effect
I'm not saying we shouldn't use facts in judgement, only that facts are not judgement itself.

Now that being said, I firmly believe that most Americans don’t want to ban gay marriage because they “love� gays and want to protect them from getting run over. That’s just nonsense. The vast majority do it because of one of two reasons ONLY:

1. Gays are gross.
and/or
2. My religion says being gay is bad.

Those are not very bad reasons, considering the equally weak ones from your side, namely that "marriage is a right for ALL!"

Theres no other reason to openly discriminate against a group of people for no good reason at all. There are so many other much more harmful things that Christians don’t say a peep about. And yet they choose to trumpet on and on about gay marriage as if it’s the coming apocalypse. Well what does that tell you about how Christians and many other Americans view gays…

It says a lot, which is good. But now, we come here to the "reasons" that gay marriage should be legalized:

1. We shouldn't discriminate

2. It doesn't make sense not to legalize it.

3. Christians are bigots and jerks

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Falagar

Facts are the basis of all judgements, and facts/observations we can make in this life is easier to come to terms with than those we won't have any knowledge of until we leave this planet. Of course one has to do value judgements, but as the state isn't supposed to be based on religion religious beliefs shouldn't affect the rights or priviliges of any group. Denying a group privileges based on such beliefs is thus contradicting some of the core principles of the US.

But Falagar, when you said that your judgements were based on facts rather than religion, as ours, you were basically implying that it is automatically better and seperate. I'm not saying we shouldn't use facts to judge, I'm saying that knowing facts are not the only reason to judge, and that there is a natural sense of right/wrong even in atheists, and that therefore saying that judgement using facts rather than religion is a bunch of bologna.

Also, the condemnation of homosexuality seems a pretty small part of Christian theology to me - except from Paulus (Jesus never condemns it) you'll have to consult the OT. The only example of something which may have been homosexuality 'ruining' a society is Sodom (or may not, there's some controversy over the text - at least homosexuality doesn't seem to have been the only reason God erased it) - and with Jesus establishing a more personal God-man-relationship Christians today shouldn't really have to worry about that.

I suppose Sodom was destroyed because there were too many Jack Abramoffs? (He recently reported to Federal Prison, btw).
*sigh* We shouldn't have to worry about it? Well, we do our best; we don't try to suppress gays, but when it comes to marriage, we feel that it's our territory they're trespassing.