To those that think gay marriage is wrong...Moving video

reply to post by kaylaluv


How are they not being treated fairly under the law?

That is a BS argument.

They have the same marriage rights as a hetero. They want laws changed for them. They want to be the same but different. In other words, they want to legislate acceptance of a lifestyle and that isn't going to happen.

Originally posted by markosity1973


Yes you are correct, but most common law has it's roots in the bible. A lot of it has changed over the years, but the original concept of law and morality still traces back to there in Western society. In the middle east they very eagerly follow Sharia law in some places, which is from the Qu'ran - same concept, different set of rules.

I absolutely disagree with this. There are numerous studies that show that base morality is the same across religions and civilisations. This in itself is more than enough to say that morality does not originate from the bible.

And once again (I think my comment at the end of page 2 was missed), marriage is not a religious institution. Precluding people from marrying on the basis of religious differences assumes an ownership that is not there.

reply to post by hypervalentiodine


I have to agree. I think religion comes from morality, not the other way around.

reply to post by slugger9787


All I can say is wow...................

Originally posted by 200Plus
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

How are they not being treated unfairly under the law?

That is a BS argument.

They have the same marriage rights as a hetero. They want laws changed for them. They want to be the same but different. In other words, they want to legislate acceptance of a lifestyle and that isn't going to happen.

Are you allowed to marry another consenting adult that you love and are attracted to? Yes. Are they allowed to marry another consenting adult that they love and are attracted to? No. Unequal treatment.

One by one, the states are allowing gays to marry the person that they love. Eventually, the Supreme Court will rule that not allowing gays to marry the person that they love is discrimination - then all states will be forced to allow gay marriage.

Love has zero to do with the marriage debate.

Look into the cause a little deeper. It's mostly about survivor benefits.

Can I as a man marry a man? No, same rules apply to a homosexual. Equal treatment.

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine

Originally posted by markosity1973


Yes you are correct, but most common law has it's roots in the bible. A lot of it has changed over the years, but the original concept of law and morality still traces back to there in Western society. In the middle east they very eagerly follow Sharia law in some places, which is from the Qu'ran - same concept, different set of rules.

I absolutely disagree with this. There are numerous studies that show that base morality is the same across religions and civilisations. This in itself is more than enough to say that morality does not originate from the bible.

And once again (I think my comment at the end of page 2 was missed), marriage is not a religious institution. Precluding people from marrying on the basis of religious differences assumes an ownership that is not there.

Yes, you are right in that morality is quite similar (but not exactly the same) in world religion. However, in the western world and to be more specific countries such as the USA, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand their common law is or at least was based upon biblical law. Countries such as Afghanistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have their common law based upon Sharia law.

So, I agree and disagree with you here. Yes, base morality is very similar the world over - although you will find things such as cannibalistic tribes who are out of sync with the rest of the world's moral concept that it is wrong to kill another person however. That being said common law in a number of countries is very definitely rooted in religious text.

Marriage is a very loose term that can mean either a religious blessing on a union between two people or also the legal rights that come with said union. That still does not cover it, as I have already pointed out Atheist people get married legally in the complete absence of said religious blessings. As you have quite correctly stated, religion does not own marriage, although the assumption is oft made that it does.

The whole point of this thread is a very graphic real world example of what happens when the law of marriage excludes gay relationships. I have provided an example of an old and very much missed friend who was also in the same scenario, so this example in the video not isolated, nor is the general pretense it eludes to made up.

reply to post by markosity1973


I in no way argue against homosexuals. It's their life to live as they see fit. It's none of my business who anyone other than me (and my girl at the time) sleeps with.

The argument is about changing the laws of marriage. I disagree with changing the laws on this. It's that simple.

Show me a valid reason (non-emotional) that the law should change. I am not saying I cannot be taught if my opinion is in error.

ETA - I think your law/religion/morality argument is the chicken and egg issue. Which came first, morality or religion?

Originally posted by 200Plus
Love has zero to do with the marriage debate.

Look into the cause a little deeper. It's mostly about survivor benefits.

Can I as a man marry a man? No, same rules apply to a homosexual. Equal treatment.

The point is, you don't want to marry a man. Good news is, you don't have to. But no one can stop you from marrying the person that YOU want to marry. To be equal, no one should stop a gay man from marrying the person that HE wants to marry. Regardless of why he wants to marry him. The why is none of your business.

reply to post by kaylaluv


not to paint you into a hypocritical corner, but what about cousins? relatives? Is that peoples business or are we going to judge them.

I am not comparing incest to homosexuality (at least I am not meaning it that way). I just want to know where the freedom and right to marry extends.

ETA - the point is the homosexual movement is not about equality as much as it is about acceptance.

Originally posted by 200Plus
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

not to paint you into a hypocritical corner, but what about cousins? relatives? Is that peoples business or are we going to judge them.

I am not comparing incest to homosexuality (at least I am not meaning it that way). I just want to know where the freedom and right to marry extends.

Personally, I don't care who marries whom, as long as there are no victims. Hollywood people get married for all the wrong reasons (money, publicity, status, etc.), but we allow it - as long as they're heterosexual. Why do we allow it? Because who cares, it does not affect our marriages in the least. If tax-paying, law-abiding consenting adult citizens of the state want to partner up with a marriage license, it should be allowed. As long as there are no victims.

Originally posted by 200Plus
reply to post by markosity1973

 

I in no way argue against homosexuals. It's their life to live as they see fit. It's none of my business who anyone other than me (and my girl at the time) sleeps with.

The argument is about changing the laws of marriage. I disagree with changing the laws on this. It's that simple.

Show me a valid reason (non-emotional) that the law should change. I am not saying I cannot be taught if my opinion is in error.

ETA - I think your law/religion/morality argument is the chicken and egg issue. Which came first, morality or religion?

edit on 13-5-2013 by 200Plus because: (no reason given)

Simple non emotional example; Social conditioning.

We are all raised from the cradle with the concept that when you grow up, you get married to a person of the oposite sex and you have kids. Society everywhere from our TV shows, to real every day life examples on the street, to community leaders to religious organisations support this very strong psychological training.

This model of how life is supposed to be is meant to be what gives us our life satisfaction. Apparently it does not matter if you are a king or a pauper so long as you have a wife (or husband for the girls) by your side that loves you and a family that you are proud of.

Where does a gay person fit into that scenario? Quite simply, they can't because the social conditioning model does not allow for it. So, when a person finds out they are gay and that hey, everything they have been taught to strive for in life no longer applies to them. Right at this point a not insignificant number of gay people die through suicide because the inner conflict between what they have been conditioned to be and what they are is too hard to bear. Suicide in the gay community is huge and not often talked about.

So, those who don't kill themselves do their best to live to the standard that has been set, in what ways that they can. But at every single turn, whether it be legally, socially or via acceptance of their peers they find roadblocks and obstacles.

Gay marriage is not about unleashing some toxic horror upon society that is going to suddenly see every man leave his woman or see the heterosexual family unit break down. Straight people are responsible for their own failings thankyou very much. The fact that so many people are so passionately against the existence of gay people shows how much a straight person can actually be swayed by a gay person.

Gay marriage is simply the act of giving some civil rights to people who already exist in our communities, and letting them attempt to live to the model that was trained into them by society from day one. Nothing more and nothing less.

reply to post by markosity1973


That was 100% emotional actually.

Again, you cannot legislate acceptance. You cannot pass a law that creates "normalcy".

The vast majority of people are still going to have heterosexual relationship, that is nature. The continuance of the species. Television is still going to cater to the majority. Everyday life is still going to contain more heterosexuals.

Passing a marriage law will in no way make homosexuals more accepted by the public.

Originally posted by 200Plus
reply to post by markosity1973

 

That was 100% emotional actually.

Again, you cannot legislate acceptance. You cannot pass a law that creates "normalcy".

The vast majority of people are still going to have heterosexual relationship, that is nature. The continuance of the species. Television is still going to cater to the majority. Everyday life is still going to contain more heterosexuals.

Passing a marriage law will in no way make homosexuals more accepted by the public.

Let me ask you this. What horrible thing is going to happen if gay marriage is legal across the U.S.? How will it affect anyone who isn't gay?

reply to post by Hopechest

Originally posted by Hopechest
I find it funny how those that support gay marriage insist on having their views accepted yet they do not extend that same curtesy to those that may not like it.

Very very hypocritical of them.

Who cares what others think? Taking away someone's right to marry just because of their belief is completely unfair. That is one's person's religion or view taking away the RIGHTS of another which is supposed to be illegal in the first place.

reply to post by 200Plus


This is an emotive subject therefore anything and everything that is said will gain an emotional response. The fact is that social conditioning is a real thing. It's what causes people to go all crazy and blow up pressure cookers and marathons for instance. The problem is that people don't fully grasp the concept of how powerful it is until they fall on the wrong side of that conditioning.


However, let's turn the tables and you give me a non emotive argument against it then. I want to hear something original and that can show cause and effect like my 'emotive' argument for marriage did.

The arguments that I always hear are preprogrammed autoresponses that do not show any cause and and effect, the most common ones being (with rebuttals);

It's not 'normal' or 'natural' - emotive and what exactly is 'normal' and 'natural' anyway?

I don't like it, it's just not natural. - pure emotive. I hate brussels sprouts, I think they are the demon vegetable from hell. But society expects me to accept them being for sale in supermarkets. Homosexual behaviour in animals is very common. I grew up on a farm and the things you see down there, my word!

Marriage is between a man and a woman - emotive and yes it is, but who's to say that is the only possible permutation of it?

Marriage is supposed to bear children. - then why not ban infertile couples from getting married too?

Marriage is a union of Man and woman under the eyes of God - only if you believe in God. Ask the Atheists for their opinion on that one.

God doesn't approve of it because the bible (or associated religious text) says so. - emotive and pure speculation at best. The bible also says it is a sin to wear clothes of mixed fibre and that eating clam chowder is a sin. (clams being shellfish) - Jesus never said otherwise on this subject for those religious people...

I hope nobody minds but I am going to combine these two posts in order to keep clutter down

reply to post by kaylaluv


I do not think anything is going to happen if DOMA is struck down. I do not believe I ever alluded to the idea. I would simply rather see marriage dissolved rather than see it butchered for the PC crowd. The gay movement could have argued for legalized unions and I would champion their cause. I would do everything in my power to see them have the rights and responsibilities as heterosexuals. They didn't want that. They want to have marriage and "be like" everyone else. Guess what? They aren't like everyone else. No law is going to change that.

Then they want husband and wife removed from the forms and "party one and party two" substituted. Then they complained that the catholic church wouldn't give them communion. They don't want equality they want laws to change and people to accept them as normal.

reply to post by markosity1973


Money

I was a soldier and I tend to put everything into that context. Let me explain how the abuse happens:

Single soldiers are required to live in the barracks (we all hate it too). Two soldiers (hetero) decide that if they get married to each other they can live off base. They go down and get married and immediately file for legal separation. Now as they are both married and separated they both get housing and food allowances (their pay goes from $2400 a month each to $3500 a month each). This does not seem significant until you realize that a typical barracks houses around 200 soldiers with 15-40 or more barracks per military base. A majority of them will play this game I assure you. This will more than double the budget requests from the military.

Add onto this the civilian population that will do this for insurance policies, state/federal aid, social security, etc. the potential for abuse is staggering.

I do not support gay marriage but before you all start bashing me for it let me explain.

I live in the UK and we have what we call “civil partnerships” this is basically a law that permits homosexuals to enter into a legally binding committed relationship that grants them all of the same rights as heterosexual “married couples”.

Marriage is a religious ceremony, it always has been, many religions hold a dated position that “homosexuality is wrong”. Now I disagree with this statement however that is what their religion dictates and as such it would be just as wrong of us to diminish the rights of homosexuals as it would be to say Catholics.

I think we have a perfect balance in the UK just now, yes homosexual couples can have all the same rights as heterosexual couples but at the same time we recognise the tradition of religious faiths whose traditions do not accommodate homosexual marriage. It is just as wrong to force religious institutions into changing their traditions as it is to deny a homosexual couple the same rights as a heterosexual couple.

It may seem like semantics but to many the difference between a “civil partnership” and a “marriage” is really quite significant.

So long as the rights of both groups and maintained I have no problem with homosexuals being granted the same rights as heterosexual couples. I think that this should be universal but the respect for the religious sacrament of marriage should also be universal.

Homosexuality is a tough subject for me. On the one hand I want my fellow human beings treated with respect and dignity. I also want them to have the same legal rights that I have. On the other hand I have a very real repulsion to the idea of two men lying together in a sexual way. This isn't about religion it is about the idea of homosexuality simply being gross to me. I can't be more honest than I have just been.

So, I am logically willing and able to grant the legal rights to homosexuals to marry, but at the same time it isn't going to change the fact that I have a visceral and real negative reaction to the homosexual act. Is that fair?