Marriage Laws

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

They view homosexuals as potential sexual predators who must be contained and quarantined.

Your straw man arguments are either stunningly dumb or beautiful satire. I really can't tell.

[wig]

Straw man sighting!

[wig]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

Aside:
I thought wig's "12 year old boy" comment was perhaps the most ridiculous and generally hateful commnets I've ever read on this board.

You missed the point then.

The point was that the argument "Who is to say what is moral?" is not a good one because someone can apply the same argument to anything, no matter how distasteful.

There are actually people out there that don't see anything wrong with grown men having sex with young boys, and I'm sure they feel that government doesn't have the right to force their morals on them.

To understand what the wig is saying, you have to look beyond the sound bite.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by wig

I am so glad that Butter is here to tell me how I feel.

You won't tell us how you feel without injecting animals or children into your argument, so I had to do some inferring.

That's what I came up with. I think "Hitler" sneaked in there in the original draft, but I had to take him out since that would have automatically lost me the argument.

By the way, way to once again compare homosexuality and pedophilia. Your ignorance and bigotry speak volumes!

[wig]

Do you even read my responses?

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Samdari

I really do not understand why religious types cannot differentiate the difference between what marriage means in the law, and what it means in their religion.

If you inserted the word "certain" before "religious," I think the above sentence pretty much captures my feelings on this subject.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by wig

I am so glad that Butter is here to tell me how I feel.

Thanks, man.

Take it however you want, he's got a valid point.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by wig

Do you even read my responses?

Yes, and your ignorance about moral relativism is pretty standard among those who have this bigoted "slippery slope/gay marriage=the end of morality" view.

Thus "ignorance", "bigotry", etc. It's all up there if you care to read it.

[wig]

It is possible that people against gay-marriage have just as many complex and meaningful reasons as you pro gay-marriage people do.

You always want to sum it up as "bigotry", "ignorance" or "slippery slope", because it's easier than dealing with the real issues of the opposing opinion.

Not everyone that is against this is a religious freak or a bigot.

[wig]

I admit my sound bite posts might not be the best way to get my point across. I could write out the same kind of manefesto that some FOFC members do, but I won't. I believe that most FOFC members are intelligent enough to get the point of my sound bites, without having it spelled out for them.

If you don't get it, you aren't my target audience.

[stevew]

Wig, realistically, is there anything wrong with being a homo-phobe. I dont think so

[wig]

Isn't a homo-phobe afraid of gay people?

Dude, you don't need to be scared. They don't think you're hot.

[edit for political correctness ]

[RendeR]

In all of this conversation I've come to a couple thoughts:

A: Christian and possibly some other religious believers(and anyone else on this side of the arguement) want to make it illegal for same sex couples to have the legal status of "marriage" because it goes against their beliefs.
1. Can the people on this side of things honestly give a reason that is NOT
validated by the religious views?
2. Do you believe then that we should pass laws based on religious rules/laws
in the future? Even if doing so at some point goes against YOUR specific
beliefs?

B: Those who are for making same sex marriages equal under the law with hetero
marriages seem to be doing so for the good of the families involved, benefits,
protections, estate rights, visitations etc etc.
1. Can anyone on the negative side honestly say and support their stance
that they should be denied these rights? And please don't go to the bible
for this, I've already asked for more valid arguments than spirituality.
2. If it comes to pass that same sex marriages/unions/whatever are made
legal and binding, what real damage, injury, worries are there that you see
coming to pass? What is it that you see this hurting in the long run?

I appreciate the fact that everyone has really kept a level head here and given good input to the discussion! Thank you!

Ren

[wig]

Just to clear this up, I am not a Christian.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Butter.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by wig

Isn't a homo-phobe afraid of gay people?

Dude, you don't need to be scared. They don't think you're hot.

[edit for political correctness ]

Yeah, but unlike you, I could kick their ass. Pansy boy. Nifty told me you were a little bit of a "runt."

[Fritz]

Some days it is only the compass provided by a moral society that keeps one from getting up on top of a watertower and taking out whoever passes by with a high powered rifle.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by wig

Just to clear this up, I am not a Christian.

So, why are you against it? Enlighten me. I need it "spelled out", because I'm not part of your target audience.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Fritz

Some days it is only the compass provided by a moral society that keeps one from getting up on top of a watertower and taking out whoever passes by with a high powered rifle.

thats a great line, but how is this relevant to the topic at hand?

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by wig

It is possible that people against gay-marriage have just as many complex and meaningful reasons as you pro gay-marriage people do.

You always want to sum it up as "bigotry", "ignorance" or "slippery slope", because it's easier than dealing with the real issues of the opposing opinion.

Not everyone that is against this is a religious freak or a bigot.

Wow, something weird is going on. I agree with a wig again.

[Fritz]

unless, or course, an immoral society has taken away all the high powered rifles

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

Wow, something weird is going on. I agree with a wig again.

I think the point cuckoo, was that it IS possible that they have many reasons, but the ONLY reasons anyone is giving is that their religion says its wrong. We're not seeing any other reliable or relevant arguements. Thats why I asked the further questions in my post just above here.

[Fritz]

I suppose one could then fling themselves off the tower and hope to hit a passer by.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Fritz

unless, or course, an immoral society has taken away all the high powered rifles

Man, if you are gonna start shooting, just give me a heads up first, so I can get the hell off of the Penninsula. If you want to, you can start by capping people at the Unitarian church on Colley.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by stevew

Man, if you are gonna start shooting, just give me a heads up first, so I can get the hell off of the Penninsula. If you want to, you can start by capping people at the Unitarian church on Colley.

If this is the height of your ability to enter this conversation, I ask that you refrain. There is no reason or place for something this completely ignorant in this thread.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I think the point cuckoo, was that it IS possible that they have many reasons, but the ONLY reasons anyone is giving is that their religion says its wrong. We're not seeing any other reliable or relevant arguements. Thats why I asked the further questions in my post just above here.

RendeR, I've read every post in this fairly pointless thread, and I can say absolutely that there have been reasons other than religion given. You say they aren't "reliable or relevant," but to the people who believe them, they are most certainly relevant and quite important. I think you'd answer every one of your questions if you went back and read the thread again, viewing the opposition as a valid objection rather than dismissing it as bigoted or ignorant.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by RendeR

If this is the height of your ability to enter this conversation, I ask that you refrain. There is no reason or place for something this completely ignorant in this thread.

I think he was only being incompletly ignorant. Colley Ave. is on the South Side.

No way could could a bullet from up here get all the way across the bay, cross the Naval base, and come down anywhere on Colley.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by RendeR

If this is the height of your ability to enter this conversation, I ask that you refrain. There is no reason or place for something this completely ignorant in this thread.

This thread is ignorant. Everyone who doesnt agree with you is a Homophobe. So why do you even post this shit? Nobody else's opinion matters to you.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Fritz

I think he was only being incompletly ignorant. Colley Ave. is on the South Side.

Damn, so I thought I lived on the Penninsula. My Bad.

[Fritz]

Peninsula - surrounded on three sides by water.
South Side - sweltering pile of dung

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

RendeR, I've read every post in this fairly pointless thread, and I can say absolutely that there have been reasons other than religion given. You say they aren't "reliable or relevant," but to the people who believe them, they are most certainly relevant and quite important. I think you'd answer every one of your questions if you went back and read the thread again, viewing the opposition as a valid objection rather than dismissing it as bigoted or ignorant.

I've read the thread quite thoroughly actually, and have yet to see an argument that is not based on religious belief. If I've missed something please feel free to point it out.

I can accept that those who believe it use their religious dictates as the basis for their argument, in their eyes it is perfectly valid for them to do so. My arguement is that there shouldn't be laws made based on religious belief. because laws govern ALL people in this country, and unlike many would have you believe this is NOT a religious state, it never has been. This is why I've kept asking for something other than their religious faith. I personally cannot accept banning same sex marriage because a religous group or following doesn't like it, however, I am open to being persueaded by other factual reasons that it should be banned.

Religion is not an acceptable reason for making law in this nation.
Tradition is not acceptable for making law in this nation.

these are MY beliefs, not blanket statements as I'm sure any layer could show precedent for either one.

Show me some evidence that same sex marriages is going to hurt/injure/damage anyone beyond the sensibilities of religious belief, and you might get me to agree with you.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Fritz

Peninsula - surrounded on three sides by water.
South Side - sweltering pile of dung

Damn, that sums it up as good as anything I've ever heard.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Religion is not an acceptable reason for making law in this nation.
Tradition is not acceptable for making law in this nation.

are you satisfied going through life being wrong?

[rkmsuf]

http://www.wiredvideo.com/clips/av3/marriage.mp3

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by stevew

This thread is ignorant. Everyone who doesnt agree with you is a Homophobe. So why do you even post this shit? Nobody else's opinion matters to you.

Of course you know me SO well that you can say this...yeah. whatever. I've been more accepting of the other sides arguements than anything else. think before you post, most people find it helps.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Fritz

are you satisfied going through life being wrong?

Its a belief fritz, they are neither right nor wrong for anyone but me. So I haven't been going through life being wrong, as I believe they are right. If you disagree, more power to you

[Maple Leafs]

RenderR, while it's not necessarily my view and I'm probably not qualified to argue it, I do know that there are plenty of people who are deeply concerned about what's happening in SF for reasons apart from religion. The idea that a city mayor would take it upon himself to order that existing laws be ignored because he does not personally agree with them is a little bit troubling to many.

[Chubby]

Someone please post a reason that has been stated in this thread that is against same sex marriage yet isn't based in religous beliefs.

[Butter]

Fritz, it's pretty easy to take the moral high ground when your arguments consist of non-sequiturs interlaced with random jabs that seem to be backed up with some sort of personal conviction that you're too jaded to share with anyone. It's kinda tired and makes for frustrating reading.

[Fritz]

I have no argument with the fact that you have beliefs. I think we can see that you do. But just because you believe the world to be flat does not mean you will ever find the edge.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Its a belief fritz, they are neither right nor wrong for anyone but me. So I haven't been going through life being wrong, as I believe they are right. If you disagree, more power to you

I know I'm shouting into the wind at this point, but this kind of thing drives me crazy.

If I believe that torturing babies for fun is OK, that doesn't make it right for me. I'm still wrong, whether I believe it or not.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

It's kinda tired and makes for frustrating reading.

then put me on ignore, duh

[John Galt]

I don't think the slippery slope argument need be based on religion (and I don't think it has been used exclusively as a religious argument in this thread).

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

RenderR, while it's not necessarily my view and I'm probably not qualified to argue it, I do know that there are plenty of people who are deeply concerned about what's happening in SF for reasons apart from religion. The idea that a city mayor would take it upon himself to order that existing laws be ignored because he does not personally agree with them is a little bit troubling to many.

I agreee with you that the mayor doing so is setting a frightening precedent along the government line, its showing just how fragile our government can become because of a subject like this. It will be interesting to see the fallout of that. I also have to see it as a bit of revolution not being a bad thing sometimes. while they may have thrown some wrenches into the legislative side of things for california, they have also shown a point to every other legislature in this country that they need to be mindful that the people may not follow blindly into what they write into their laws.

very interesting indeed.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Fritz

then put me on ignore, duh

Fritz, if he puts you on ignore then he might forget that . . .

[Noop]

I have a question who on here is gay? I' m sure that of all the members on this site there a few gays/bisexuals who post.

[Chubby]

Someone please post a reason that has been stated in this thread that is against same sex marriage yet isn't based in religous beliefs.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Fritz, if he puts you on ignore then he might forget that ...

shhhhhh. he has sigs turned off and i wanted to see how long it took for him to say something.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Noop

I have a question who on here is gay? I' m sure that of all the members on this site there a few gays/bisexuals who post.

Given this forum, I'm not sure you will get everyone to come "out," but I've already done so. For lack of a better term, I'm "bi."

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I know I'm shouting into the wind at this point, but this kind of thing drives me crazy.

If I believe that torturing babies for fun is OK, that doesn't make it right for me. I'm still wrong, whether I believe it or not.

are you there yet? cause I've got other fairs to drive crazy today too, I want to drop you off soon.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Fritz

shhhhhh. he has sigs turned off and i wanted to see how long it took for him to say something.

Edited. But man that thing is big.