Spencer278
Diamond Member
You following the teaching of one book is not a valid reason to deny equal rights to another and therefor any attempt to hide behind the religion is just an attempt to justifiy your bigiottrey.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Would you support same-sex marriage in your state?
Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
You following the teaching of one book is not a valid reason to deny equal rights to another and therefor any attempt to hide behind the religion is just an attempt to justifiy your bigiottrey.
Before you get so damned sure "the Bible" is accurate, you'd better think about which "the Bible" you're babbling about. Even before Christianity, there were so many versions that calling any one of them THE Bible is a an exercise in futility. Then, along came generations and sects and divisions among Christians of various social, political and other motivations who mucked it up further with various THE Bibles.
Get over it! Gays are as human as the rest of us. If your religion doesn't preach love, tolerance and acceptance, its version of "the" Bible isn't worth the paper it's printed on. There is nothing wrong with allowing gays who love each to participate in the same civil rights as other committed couples. They're not asking to rape your children or even demand that you participate in their lifestyle.
Personally, I think so called "Christians" who would deprive gays of these rights are among the most un-Christian people on the planet. They give me yet another reason to be glad I'm an atheist.
eplebnista
Lifer
Yes
Monkeyshack
Senior member
Folks what you are missing here is the real issue; this so called social movement has no merit. This is not like the Civil Rights Movement (CRM), not even close. With the CRM, they were fighting for equal opportunity to the work place, schools, housing and public facilities.
This movement is about equal rights to marriage, they have equal rights to everything else. The CRM was about a public problem, where hey we are not getting treated right out in the public. This movement is about telling me that your culture must be infringed on me. This is a cultural movement, so they are telling me that I have to let them marry, fine but how does this benefit you? How in our society are your civil rights being taken away because you cannot marry? It does not benefit nor hinder you within our society.
More and more, less people are getting married, they just shack up instead... so why is this why do these folk choose not to get married? That?s a better question to talk about. It would seem that if marriage where such a great and powerful public institution that everyone would get married to reap the benefits.
I just say to all of you, how come you don?t push your culture on them, make them wear a kilt, do what you do in your micro/sub culture. If they don?t comply sue them, in fact mobilize your troops and get laws passed that specifically recognize your culture and what you stand for...
This may or may not fly, but conceder how gay marriage benefits the rights of gays. How does it benefit non-gays? If it does not benefit them, except for a public record (which you can still will things to others, lawfully) then why fight so hard for it. There are people in the past that have died for Civil Rights, and they think this is just as big as an issue.. I think not.
This movement is about equal rights to marriage, they have equal rights to everything else. The CRM was about a public problem, where hey we are not getting treated right out in the public. This movement is about telling me that your culture must be infringed on me. This is a cultural movement, so they are telling me that I have to let them marry, fine but how does this benefit you? How in our society are your civil rights being taken away because you cannot marry? It does not benefit nor hinder you within our society.
More and more, less people are getting married, they just shack up instead... so why is this why do these folk choose not to get married? That?s a better question to talk about. It would seem that if marriage where such a great and powerful public institution that everyone would get married to reap the benefits.
I just say to all of you, how come you don?t push your culture on them, make them wear a kilt, do what you do in your micro/sub culture. If they don?t comply sue them, in fact mobilize your troops and get laws passed that specifically recognize your culture and what you stand for...
This may or may not fly, but conceder how gay marriage benefits the rights of gays. How does it benefit non-gays? If it does not benefit them, except for a public record (which you can still will things to others, lawfully) then why fight so hard for it. There are people in the past that have died for Civil Rights, and they think this is just as big as an issue.. I think not.
You uninformed assumptions of me and religion are showing in your emotional and attacking response. It is obvious you didn't even read half of this thread and if you did you need to read it again because you seem to be attacking me on many assumptions. You didn't even read what you replied to.
Nebor
Lifer
The fact is, the government should treat everyone equally. Christians are trying to force their views on gays by keeping them from getting married, this is obviously directly harmful to gays. Gays are not trying to push their views on Christians, they don't care ANYTHING about them, they just want equality, what they do does no direct harm to Christians.
You can legislate religious beliefs. As much as you may think being gay is wrong and horrible, you have to realize that passing laws against it isn't right. What if Jewish people wanted to pass laws against pork in this country? Would that be fair? Basically, mind your own business. Let everyone be equal.
You can legislate religious beliefs. As much as you may think being gay is wrong and horrible, you have to realize that passing laws against it isn't right. What if Jewish people wanted to pass laws against pork in this country? Would that be fair? Basically, mind your own business. Let everyone be equal.
My reasons for thinking homosexuality is wrong has very little to do with my religious philosophy it's based in science. I won't get into it but I don't want you think I'm against same sex marriages. And you are correct, homosexuals are not trying to change religion. And if a man wants to marry a man or woman wants to marry a woman that's fine for them it won't change my life as I know it (I can't think of a way it will). But you also have to acknowledge that not only religious people are trying to stop same sex marriages, they are the majority but not 100%. At least those who use religion as their reasons against it actually have a reason they truly believe in, others oppose it simply because it offends them. And nobody is trying to pass laws restricting same sex marriages, laws are trying to be passed to change the wording of the states documents that as they are read now do not recognize the marriage as valid.
Because the same reason most of our law are based on religious (or basic human logic) principals. The government found a way to profit from the union and also to issue some benefits to all. So eventually the religion was removed or made not necessary. This is where homosexuals want equality.
Gay marriage is important for gay people because:
(IMHO)
1) It legitimizes gay relationships in the eyes of society and promotes healthy, monogamous coupling.
2) Lets people display their commitment to one another, which helps them keep it, and creates family units and stable, postive role models.
3) Provides legal and economic benefits
4) Reduces the stigma and tears down some stereotypes about gay people, and promotes healthy life choices among gay people.
5) Gives all the gay wedding planners, caterers, designers, musicians and clergy a chance to work for their friends.
(IMHO)
1) It legitimizes gay relationships in the eyes of society and promotes healthy, monogamous coupling.
2) Lets people display their commitment to one another, which helps them keep it, and creates family units and stable, postive role models.
3) Provides legal and economic benefits
4) Reduces the stigma and tears down some stereotypes about gay people, and promotes healthy life choices among gay people.
5) Gives all the gay wedding planners, caterers, designers, musicians and clergy a chance to work for their friends.
What is our most basic instinct? To live. What is the second basic instinct? To reproduce and further the species. Tell me how a man and a man or a woman and a woman can reproduce (now not in the future)? It goes against our basic nature as humans. I know there are many "argument" that animals participate in "gay" relations with others in the pack, group, etc. But in every case it is only to show dominance or because the dominate male has laid claim to the females, other males then "act out" in an instinctual way not only to do satisfy a deep rooted need to reproduce but to also establish they are dominate among the other lesser males. In all cases when these males become the dominate male they will then mate with a female.
Scientists are feverishly trying to crack the gene that hold homosexuality to scientifically prove it is a born trait. To me this is insignificant to the cause. Those going down this path are missing the point. The point (IMO) is not to prove scientifically or spiritually that they are equal and deserve the same basic rights as heterosexuals. If we went by that logic blacks would still be slaves as they do have different genes that make them black. Homosexuals are human and make choices, they are not bound by gender to determine their love. Just as they find the concept of heterosexual sex revolting, I find homosexual sex revolting. That?s not to say they want to stop me or I stop them. Live and let live.
Maybe saying scientifically it is ?wrong? was bad wording on my part. Maybe to better reflect my view on it would be to say; there is no natural reason for or natural betterment to homosexuality. No that still doesn?t do it. Anyway I put it you will cut it up but you see the point I am trying to make. In the end it?s not about science, nature, politics or religion, it?s about one?s right to live as they want to with whom they want.
Originally posted by: TMPadmin
I agree on the basic instincts part to a degree, but I would say that as people evolve, the instinct to reproduce has grown from not just one of wanting sex with woman to make baby, but also a drive to understand the science behind reproduction, and allow all kinds of people to do so. We aren't cave people anymore, and IMO, we have started evolving externally faster than internally. (ala stephen hawking's idea). A man and a man can reproruce easily with the aid of a third party woman. There isn't anything weird about that at all, esp. if the third party woman wants to give up her child, or the couple adopts. Survival of the species is a lot more about care and nurture of our very helpless and vulnerable young than it is about planting the seeds to make them. That's basic science of evolition. It's about survival of the fittest, not propagation of the fittest.
This feverish work is already in a late enough stage that there is pretty solid evidence that genetics are partially involved in whether one is homosexual or not. There are environmental factors that may cause said gene to switch on or not, or so the latest theory I have seen goes. The point to this isn't so prove that homos are different. The point is to eradicate the misinformed notion that sexuality is a choice people make. It is not. What sex one is attracted to is a product of alot of complex factors including genetics, and is not about being recruited by a homo, or any other such nonsense.
I mostly agree with you. It is about one's right to live and the responsibility we have in an ethical society to "let live." I might take issue with the "no natural reason or natural betterment" part, because homosexual people are a variation, as are people that say, have an IQ over 200, or are born deaf. There is no ethical reason to deny them access to the institutions in our society. Gay couples make society better by helping provide stable gay role models for younger gay people so they can get out of the "gay ghetto" mentality and realize that they can have a fairly normal life if they choose. Gay people in couples also often provide extra parents for children whom would otherwise have none. Gay parents are more willing to adopt children with disabilities or with chronic diseases than other couples, maybe because they feel that they have fewer options, but it still a valid observation.
I respect your effort to live by the tone of your Christian upbringing. Christianity should be about compassion, not about conversion, fear, and judgment. I wish more Christians would see the rabid fundamentalism for what it is, and move to a more enlightened view of the teachings behind the dogma, rather than taking it literally as gospel words to live and die by. "Old Time" religion is just as it is called. We dont' live in the dark ages anymore. The time for intolerance and fear of each other is rapidly drawing to a close.
I agree on the basic instincts part to a degree, but I would say that as people evolve, the instinct to reproduce has grown from not just one of wanting sex with woman to make baby, but also a drive to understand the science behind reproduction, and allow all kinds of people to do so. We aren't cave people anymore, and IMO, we have started evolving externally faster than internally. (ala stephen hawking's idea). A man and a man can reproruce easily with the aid of a third party woman. There isn't anything weird about that at all, esp. if the third party woman wants to give up her child, or the couple adopts. Survival of the species is a lot more about care and nurture of our very helpless and vulnerable young than it is about planting the seeds to make them. That's basic science of evolition. It's about survival of the fittest, not propagation of the fittest.
This feverish work is already in a late enough stage that there is pretty solid evidence that genetics are partially involved in whether one is homosexual or not. There are environmental factors that may cause said gene to switch on or not, or so the latest theory I have seen goes. The point to this isn't so prove that homos are different. The point is to eradicate the misinformed notion that sexuality is a choice people make. It is not. What sex one is attracted to is a product of alot of complex factors including genetics, and is not about being recruited by a homo, or any other such nonsense.
I mostly agree with you. It is about one's right to live and the responsibility we have in an ethical society to "let live." I might take issue with the "no natural reason or natural betterment" part, because homosexual people are a variation, as are people that say, have an IQ over 200, or are born deaf. There is no ethical reason to deny them access to the institutions in our society. Gay couples make society better by helping provide stable gay role models for younger gay people so they can get out of the "gay ghetto" mentality and realize that they can have a fairly normal life if they choose. Gay people in couples also often provide extra parents for children whom would otherwise have none. Gay parents are more willing to adopt children with disabilities or with chronic diseases than other couples, maybe because they feel that they have fewer options, but it still a valid observation.
I respect your effort to live by the tone of your Christian upbringing. Christianity should be about compassion, not about conversion, fear, and judgment. I wish more Christians would see the rabid fundamentalism for what it is, and move to a more enlightened view of the teachings behind the dogma, rather than taking it literally as gospel words to live and die by. "Old Time" religion is just as it is called. We dont' live in the dark ages anymore. The time for intolerance and fear of each other is rapidly drawing to a close.
DesolationWilliams
Member
meh..... marraige is a joke right now anyways. we might as well make it a gay joke?
However unfortunate it may be, the sacred value in marriage has been lost for several years (possibly decades) now. At this point when arguing this topic "Sacred Value" will never work. NOBODY listens to any argument that has religious backing they just call you a religious bigot.
ArmchairAthlete
Diamond Member
No. I'm glad it's illegal here in Georgia.
Disgusting...
Disgusting...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
