Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

Except its not disrespect, its just bloody words, I won't mean offense if I'm saying a word, most likely I'm saying it because its convenient, or I'm just pissed off at something, (Of which case I'm probably throwing slurs at Christians[Yay for anger managment problem])

Okay, as I see it:
You know that using certain words anger people.
Yet you insist on doing so for no pressing reason.
Therefore I can conclude that you do not respect their opinions and emotions.

Is there a flaw in my logic?

Homosexuality(and note I only mean non-bi homosexuality) is a sign of overpopulation, if people chose to expel themself from the gene pool I pity them, but I really can't hate them or stop them from doing it.
Of course I wouldn't want my child to do so, but I don't think other gay people would be responsible in that scenario.

Does this hypothesis come with any, y'know... evidence?  Cause the gays have been around for a good long time, including plenty of places that didn't face overpopulation.  And homosexuality hasn't exactly skyrocketed in the places facing overpopulation pressures.

[Kagus]

And it's not like humans are the only ones...  Most animal species engage in bisexuality, and same-sex preference individuals will pop up in just about any of them.  I would find it strange if certain endangered primate species started exhibiting symptoms of overpopulation.

I have known several other people that have one or both parents who will not speak to them because they're gay. Is that more equal than others to you?

I honestly thought that that sort of thing had at least died down...  It's just that there are people who view it as some weird status symbol to have a homosexual child, in much the same way that certain companies will attempt to show off the positions they've filled with female employees.  And that sickens me.

we don't even have fully equal protection under law yet.

Well, it would appear that I'm talking out of my arse again.  Where do you live, and what isn't covered?  The only rights dispute I was aware of was the whole marriage deal, which I personally don't respect since so far as I know the only thing they're trying to get is the Christian ceremony.  To my knowledge, they can apply for the legal benefits just like anybody else.  And, being an Atheist, I have very little interest in the ceremony (although it can certainly be fun.  But why not just throw a party, and ignore the dull stuff?  Rhetorical question, I already know the answer...  Shame we humans can't feel as logically as we can think).

There's an absolutely delightful French film called "The Closet"...

...which is a goofy comedy about a guy working at a condom factory that poses as a gay man to save his job, and the wacky shenanigans that ensue. It's not supposed to be taken seriously, let alone inform your worldview!

True, but it's still a fun film.  I was trying to use it as an example of what I was trying to explain, rather than a source...  But I didn't give enough thought to writing that thing out.

Just reminded me of another film, Australian...  'Bout some old guy and his gay son, of whom he is not only unusually accepting, but also quite (parentally) proud.  Can't remember the name of it though...  Shame, 'twas a good film.


And go easy on Rilder, I know where he's coming from.  My dad's sort of the same way, except he will intentionally use words other people find offensive because he thinks it's silly to be upset by such minor things, and is trying to show them how silly they're being by getting worked up about it.

Not the most diplomatic character, pappy...

What Rilder's trying to prove is just that people shouldn't get offended by a word, it's the meaning behind the word they should pay attention to.  Having someone else get offended because you routinely greet your friend with the line "Whassup nigger?" is indeed a bit silly, because you mean it as a friendly greeting, not an insult.  If someone were to use other, "neutral" words to illustrate a far more venomous meaning, then it's perfectly alright to get offended, because the guy is actually conveying animosity. 

Kind of a form of "don't judge a book by its cover".  I won't get offended if someone cheerfully walks up and says "how ya doin' ya honkey motherfucker?".  But then again, that might not be a good example, because I am ridiculously difficult to offend.  And I always try to listen to the meaning rather than the words, so words in and of themselves have an even lesser effect.

[mainiac]

Jesus F*ing Christ, you think Gays want to force priests to bless gay marriages?  Here's a hint:
They don't.

Gays want equal recognition from the government.  Gays don't want to end religious tolerance.  Gays are actually kinda big fans of religious tolerance, what with being victims of religious intolerance and all...

[Servant Corps]

To clarify: NO!  We are not trying to force priests into blessing gay marriages. 

Well...

If a person wants to be married at a certain church, and the church refuses, then I believe the couple has the right to sue in order to get married at that church, arguing that since marriage is a civil ceremony, they should be allowed to marry, wherever they want. Will the courts accept that, or argue that the Church has to right to exclude people? I would think the Courts will accept the arguments of the couple, because doing so would be an act of discrimination.

So, yes, you are indeed forcing priests to bless gay marriage. Not good or bad...just saying.

[Kagus]

Okay, rewind a little...  I thought it was settled a long time ago (at least in some places...) that gay couples could go to a courthouse and get the legal contract that recognized them as a "married" couple, with all the things that normally entails.

However, the church was refusing to marry them in a church because they were trying to uphold the literal interpretation of what it says in the bible about marriage.  Namely, a union of a man and woman before god.  That's where the trouble was coming from.

I thought it was established that you could just go and get married by a judge.  It was the priests who were acting pissy about it, and I couldn't understand why so many people were fighting so hard for such a silly ceremony.

Couples married by the church have to apply to the state in order to get their union recognized by the government, the church doesn't have control over that.  Separation of church and state, and all that jazz.


So...   They still haven't opened it up for folks to go in and get the contract from the state?  Dayum.

[mainiac]

Well...
then I believe the couple has the right to sue in order to get married at that church

So, yes, you are indeed forcing priests to bless gay marriage. Not good or bad...just saying.

Wait... you believe that equal rights entail forcing priests to marry.  I don't.  How does that make me an advocate for the cause?  I think it's a ridiculous idea.  And I'm guessing about 99% of gays agree with me.  We want tolerance, not gay supremacy.

No law saying you can sue for a priest to marry you is on the books.  And gay rights advocates sure as hell aren't pushing for such a law.

To explain some of the equal rights gays are actually worried about:  Gays pay higher taxes because they can't get the tax benefits of marriage.  Gays face huge hurdles adopting children (because there just aren't enough children in need of a home out there.)  Even raising their own biological children, they face legal roadblocks.  Hospital visits, inheritance law, traveling abroad, pretty much every right that straight couples can take for granted.  If a gay couple travels to a different state, they lose all recognition as a couple in the eyes of the law and start over from zero.  Gays face discrimination and it is real: I was kicked out of school as a child for being gay.  (Lawsuit?  Do you think that my parents wanted to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a lawsuit and have their business disappear due to small town prejudice?  Or do you think they quietly moved me to another school?)  Gay people aren't allowed in the military, the same military that was accepting hardened criminals a few years back.  Gay men aren't allowed to give blood, even if they only had sex once and used a condom.  Gay people can face discrimination when it comes to insurance policies and loans.  And all of this is despite the facts that, demographically, gays are excellent parents; gays are at lower risk for STDS then many other groups; gays are less likely to commit crimes and they are more likely to be good clients for banks and insurance companies.

And that's not even going into the problems faced by living in a culture that tells you from grade school that you are inferior.  Imagine for a second if every time you felt sexual attraction, it came with intense self loathing because you were told that it was your fault, and something you could change if you just tried hard enough.

Okay, rewind a little...  I thought it was settled a long time ago (at least in some places...) that gay couples could go to a courthouse and get the legal contract that recognized them as a "married" couple, with all the things that normally entails.

States granting Civil Unions: 4
States recognizing these partnerships: None
Recognition of the partnerships in national law: None
States explicitly banning Civil Unions: 30

So... you say we got equal rights a long time ago?

[Servant Corps]

Wait... you believe that equal rights entail forcing priests to marry.  I don't.  How does that make me an advocate for the cause?  I think it's a ridiculous idea.  And I'm guessing about 99% of gays agree with me.  We want tolerance, not gay supremacy.

1) You don't speak for 99% of gays.
2) Don't assume anything is ridiculous. That's for the Courts to decide.
3) Marriage laws are different, but in Arizona, you receive a marriage license, where you can get married either at a courthouse or at the church of your choice. Now, what would happen if a church turns away a couple? Well, I think that there is the possiblity that the couple can sue, it's up for the courts to decide if it is an legit claim.
4) There was a case where a gay couple wanted to adopt in Illionis, but a Catholic adoption agency refused. The Catholic adoption agency gave them a list of addresses of other adoption agencies, but the gay couple took them to court and won. The Catholic adoption agency choosen to close rather than be forced to adopt to a gay couple. So, somebody might assume that this might occur, this time for churches.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

I have known several other people that have one or both parents who will not speak to them because they're gay. Is that more equal than others to you?

I honestly thought that that sort of thing had at least died down...

I wish it had!

It can be easy to think that the gay rights movement is from a bygone era. Both the civil rights movement and second wave feminism had their heyday in the 1960 through 1980s, a time of great social upheaval in the US. But both built upon roots going back into the 1800s, with long-standing publications, talk of rights, and many supporters. The gay rights movement is just a baby by comparison -- it was literally born in a flash on June 28th, 1969, with the Stonewall Riots. Before then, nobody spoke of gay rights, gay publications, gay magazines. If you've seen the movie Milk, which just got an Oscar for Best Actor for its titular character, that took place in the 1970s, when they were still fighting for the very right to be gay without being harassed or arrested by the police. The woman who announces the assassination is Senator Dianne Feinstein of California.

Serious issues still remain today. Until 2003, you could go to jail in many states for having gay sex. In 30 states, that's more than half of the country, it's still perfectly legal to fire someone for no other reason than because they're gay. In 37 states it's legal to fire someone because they're transgendered. The federal government actually practices this sort of discrimination as a matter of law: under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", revealing that you're gay is grounds for military discharge, because it's supposed to create disorder and damage morale.

we don't even have fully equal protection under law yet.

Well, it would appear that I'm talking out of my arse again.  Where do you live, and what isn't covered?  The only rights dispute I was aware of was the whole marriage deal, which I personally don't respect since so far as I know the only thing they're trying to get is the Christian ceremony.  To my knowledge, they can apply for the legal benefits just like anybody else.  And, being an Atheist, I have very little interest in the ceremony (although it can certainly be fun.  But why not just throw a party, and ignore the dull stuff?  Rhetorical question, I already know the answer...  Shame we humans can't feel as logically as we can think).

I live in Redmond, Washington, USA, within walking distance of the Microsoft main campus.

The marriage ceremony is the only marriage right gays DO have. It's the legal rights and legal recognition that follows that is in question. The application for benefits you refer to takes the form of "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships", in only a fraction of the country. Elsewhere, it's extensive legal work to negotiate things like power of attorney to get only a subset of the rights, no government recognition, and no workplace spousal benefits. Additionally, in many states, being gay disqualifies you from adopting children.

Same-sex marriage is just the most high profile issue today, because a victory here would not only be a concrete legal victory, but would also be a moral victory that would influence future generations toward tolerance.

To clarify: NO!  We are not trying to force priests into blessing gay marriages. 

Well...

If a person wants to be married at a certain church, and the church refuses, then I believe the couple has the right to sue in order to get married at that church, arguing that since marriage is a civil ceremony, they should be allowed to marry, wherever they want. Will the courts accept that, or argue that the Church has to right to exclude people? I would think the Courts will accept the arguments of the couple, because doing so would be an act of discrimination.

So, yes, you are indeed forcing priests to bless gay marriage. Not good or bad...just saying.

What you're talking about would be a violation of freedom of religion. Nobody has to marry people if it's against their religious beliefs, and nobody is trying to change that.

There are two institutions of marriage: The religious one, and the secular one. Gays already have access to the religious institution of marriage, because that's a matter between them and their priest. I've known several priests that will marry gays. The government can no more force that "right" on people than it can take it away. The fight for equal marriage rights is about the secular institution of marriage, and equality under law with all of the rights, privileges, and social recognition that goes with that.

Marriage laws are different, but in Arizona, you receive a marriage license, where you can get married either at a courthouse or at the church of your choice.

Not if you're gay you can't. The Constitution of Arizona itself prohibits gays from getting a marriage license or having one recognized. THAT is what the gay marriage fight is about.

[mainiac]

Wait... you believe that equal rights entail forcing priests to marry.  I don't.  How does that make me an advocate for the cause?  I think it's a ridiculous idea.  And I'm guessing about 99% of gays agree with me.  We want tolerance, not gay supremacy.

1) You don't speak for 99% of gays.

I don't speak for them.  I'm just telling you how they feel.  Imagine if I said: "99% of gays don't want to institute sharia"  Would you doubt me then?  Gays wanting to force priests to perform ceremonies isn't as silly as them wanting to institute sharia.  But I can tell you quite confidently that at least 99% are gonna be opposed.  Gay right's isn't a contest to see how many people you can piss off.

2) Don't assume anything is ridiculous. That's for the Courts to decide.

No, it's not.  We have religious freedom in this country.  You can't deprive someone of their human rights due to religious practice.  But they can't force you to change religious practices so long as those practices are legal.  Most branches of Christianity explicitly define marriage within their religion as between a man and a woman.  They are entitled to do this.  If you tried to overturn this, you'd get laughed out of court.  And gay rights groups would overwhelmingly oppose this.  Gay's aren't trying to give people reasons to hate them.

3) Marriage laws are different, but in Arizona, you receive a marriage license, where you can get married either at a courthouse or at the church of your choice. Now, what would happen if a church turns away a couple? Well, I think that there is the possibility that the couple can sue, it's up for the courts to decide if it is an legit claim.

...the constitution of Arizona specifically bans same sex unions.  And even if they had same sex unions, that case would get laughed out of court.

4) There was a case where a gay couple wanted to adopt in Illionis, but a Catholic adoption agency refused. The Catholic adoption agency gave them a list of addresses of other adoption agencies, but the gay couple took them to court and won. The Catholic adoption agency choosen to close rather than be forced to adopt to a gay couple. So, somebody might assume that this might occur, this time for churches.

There are laws on the book explicitly stating that adoption agencies can't discriminate based on sexual orientation.  THAT is why the couple were able to sue.  There are no such laws about religious marriages and there never will be.
Adoption is not marriage.  Adoption is a secular practice.  Legal marriage is likewise a secular practice, this is why gays are entitled to it.  Religious marriage is NOT a secular practice.  Religious marriage can be denied on religious grounds.  Freedom of religion...

But even if the scenario you paint were remotely possible: So what?  You are going to deny people human rights because something might, possibly happen?  Something that would be swiftly fixed?  Is it somehow easier to oppose gay rights then support religious freedom?

Don't get me wrong: I'm all for supporting straight marriages.  In fact, I hope to get one someday (I'm bisexual.)  But I've never heard a remotely plausible case for how gay marriages threaten straight marriages.  The picture you paint isn't remotely plausible, gays don't want to deprive people of their religious freedom.  They want to END persecution, not create it.

[Kagus]

I don't speak for them.  I'm just telling you how they feel.

*FZZT*

...

System Error 203 detected: Deadlock while calculating contradictory statement

Shutting down...

[mainiac]

Let me clarify:

I'm not saying that my opinion is the opinion of the gay community.  I'm saying that I happen to know what the opinion of the gay community is on this particular issue.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

I just want to point out to Servant Corps and Kagus that it sounds like the reason you guys are arguing about this is because you think gay rights is something from the past, something out of history, and the modern gay rights movement is some kind of shadow of its former self that is searching for a reason to exist or asking for silly tack-on additions to fundamental rights that are already guaranteed. Understand that that's not true at all. You're living that history right now. It's just not as oppressive now because we've actually managed to persuade a majority of the country that gay people deserve some basic human rights, like not getting beaten up by cops or left to die from AIDS.

The only issue that's been completely settled in the United States is that gay people can't be arrested and thrown in jail for having sex in their own bedrooms. And that was just six years ago, following a high profile court battle and a 6-3 ruling by the US Supreme Court.

[Servant Corps]

I don't speak for them.  I'm just telling you how they feel.  Imagine if I said: "99% of gays don't want to institute sharia"  Would you doubt me then?  Gays wanting to force priests to perform ceremonies isn't as silly as them wanting to institute sharia.  But I can tell you quite confidently that at least 99% are gonna be opposed.  Gay right's isn't a contest to see how many people you can piss off.

No, you're trying to claim that the views of gays is equal to your views. You only speak for yourself, and only your experiences. You may be true, but I quite honestly dislike people thinking they represent the group.

No, it's not.  We have religious freedom in this country.  You can't deprive someone of their human rights due to religious practice.  But they can't force you to change religious practices so long as those practices are legal.  Most branches of Christianity explicitly define marriage within their religion as between a man and a woman.  They are entitled to do this.  If you tried to overturn this, you'd get laughed out of court.  And gay rights groups would overwhelmingly oppose this.  Gay's aren't trying to give people reasons to hate them.

The argument is over if churches are allowed to deny someone the right to marry at that certain location. The church may claim religious freedom, but will that trumpt that of the person's right to marry at a location?

Not if you're gay you can't. The Constitution of Arizona itself prohibits gays from getting a marriage license or having one recognized. THAT is what the gay marriage fight is about.

...the constitution of Arizona specifically bans same sex unions.  And even if they had same sex unions, that case would get laughed out of court.

I was speaking hypotethically, assuming in some future that Arizona would allow for gay marriage.

There are laws on the book explicitly stating that adoption agencies can't discriminate based on sexual orientation.  THAT is why the couple were able to sue.  There are no such laws about religious marriages and there never will be.
Adoption is not marriage.  Adoption is a secular practice.  Legal marriage is likewise a secular practice, this is why gays are entitled to it.  Religious marriage is NOT a secular practice.  Religious marriage can be denied on religious grounds.  Freedom of religion...

The Catholic Church adoption agency argued that they were excerising their own freedom of religion in denying the adoption. The Catholic Church also gave addresses to other adoption agencies, allowing them to adopt, but the lawsuit still went ahead. In that case, the "freedom of religion" defense didn't work.

Does the Freedom of Religion allow for one church to discriminate in denying a couple from marrying? I'm going to back away from my earlier state, in that I don't think the courts will handle such an issue due to the fact that I doubt people will sue. But if they sue, I think the courts will rule in favor of the plantiff.
***
Note that I am not arguing about the gay rights issue. That's for a seperate time, for a seperate period, if I even desire to argue about the gay rights issue. And the main reason I don't want to argue is because of the Golden Rule.

I am merely arguing over if, in some time in the future, certain churches may be forced to marry gays. Can that happen? That's it. Is it morally right? I don't really care! I only care what is going to happen in the future, I don't care of the "moral judgements" or making assumptions about the broader "gay rights" movements!

I'm going to concede defeat though because I don't want me to be interpreted incorrectly.

[mainiac]

No, you're trying to claim that the views of gays is equal to your views. You only speak for yourself, and only your experiences. You may be true, but I quite honestly dislike people thinking they represent the group.

-So, when I claim that I know what the prevailing view is... I'm a liar because it's impossible to know such things.  Plus I'm arrogant.
-But when you claim you know exactly what my opinion is... you are different from me?  Is there some sort of magical straight person truth sense?

Seriously dude, try to find a gay rights publication that advocates this view.

---

Another thought on the idea of forcing churches to marry people.

The Roman Catholic church has held that divorced people can't be remarried in a Catholic church for even longer then it's held that homosexuality is wrong.  Divorce has been legal in this country since 1639 at least.  Catholics have been entitled to divorce in the eyes of the law about as long.  Do you remember when the Supreme Court ordered the Catholic Church to start marrying divorced couples?  Neither do I.

[Servant Corps]

But when you claim you know exactly what my opinion is... you are different from me?

I know what your opinons are because you are telling them to me. It's not magic.

And now, let me retreat.