I had no idea (caution gay thread)

[56FordGuy]

Oppression is a bad thing, but it doesn't apply here.

Denying benefits to one group because they don't fit your idea of 'normal' doesn't apply?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Maybe, because I didn't reference 'rights' anywhere. The biggest thing gay couples have to gain from 'marriage' or civil unions or whatever you want to call it is equal access to government benefits. In my opinion, most of those benefits should be done away with entirely, regardless of one's sexual preference or relationship status, but that's a different issue.

I commented on the percentage. I believe it's wrong. I would say that 2% is a very low estimate, just like I would say 14-15% is a very high estimate. The problem is most of the groups that have done surveys are heavily biased in one direction or the other, and equally unreliable.

And I agree with that. That's something we have hashed to death around here. i have no idea about the percentage and really don't care, because numbers won't change anything. I'm sure that any so-called "minority" can probably get something passed to better their condition, but what good would it do to play the minority game? Remember, the largest minority is the individual. Anything else leads down a collective path.

Edited September 3, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Denying benefits to one group because they don't fit your idea of 'normal' doesn't apply?

I never used that word. Benefits are earned, not taken.

[TripleDigitRide]

Gay relationships are entirely about sexualization. Otherwise what is there? You do realize the whole "homosexual" identity is about who they have sex with right? I don't think I ever heard of a heterosexual movement.

Homosexual relationships are no more or less about sexualization than a heterosexual relationship. Most all relationships involve at least some sexualization, which is why most people choose a mate they are attracted to, hetero or homo.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

We've done this before. Smith summed up the homosexual relationship well enough for me. I don't hate homosexuals, never have, but I resent

a political argument being made that accomplishes nothing other than making a group of people "feel good", and makes the clingers on feel

even better about themselves when it won't change anything, other than possibly put a noose around everyone's neck. Look at hate crimes

legislation. That went well, didn't it? Just got the federales involved in crimes in every state when it chooses to.

Go out and make that law. Just one more to trip someone up on. I'd rather there be a lot less laws and a lot less government intrusion. Maybe it

will make some of you "feel" better", too

[strickj]

In 1775, our Founders fought and died for religious freedoms.

In 1787, the Constitution was signed. The first thing put in writing was to protect those religious freedoms.

In 1802, Thomas Jefferson [the father of the First Amendment] wrote:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

After all this time, seems we are still legislating religious opinion and showing preference of one religion other another or no religion.

Seems some could care less about that little war, the Constitution or the core desires of our Founders.

Funny thing is, the gun grabbers do the same with the Second Amendment.

The really funny thing is, the ones are all for the government legislation their personal religious opinions are the first ones to reference the First Amendment as soon as they fear Sharia law might find it's way into our laws.

Go figure.

[56FordGuy]

I never used that word. Benefits are earned, not taken.

What has a straight couple done to 'earn' the benefit of filing their taxes jointly that a gay couple hasn't?

[Smith]

Homosexual relationships are no more or less about sexualization than a heterosexual relationship. Most all relationships involve at least some sexualization, which is why most people choose a mate they are attracted to, hetero or homo.

When you identify yourself by the way or who you have sex with yes, it is much different. I have never used the term heterosexual to identify myself politically, spiritually, economically, morally, or physically. Male/Female has to do with biological makeup and signifies difference based on that bilogical birthed identifier. It is not up to me to determine or define those perameters. Homosexualiaity is soley based on the physical act of who and how people have sex and their identity to that relationship. Otherwise they are men/women which does not necessarily identify sexuality.

[Smith]

In 1775, our Founders fought and died for religious freedoms.

In 1787, the Constitution was signed. The first thing put in writing was to protect those religious freedoms.

In 1802, Thomas Jefferson [the father of the First Amendment] wrote:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

After all this time, seems we are still legislating religious opinion and showing preference of one religion other another or no religion.

Seems some could care less about that little war, the Constitution or the core desires of our Founders.

Funny thing is, the gun grabbers do the same with the Second Amendment.

The really funny thing is, the ones are all for the government legislation their personal religious opinions are the first ones to reference the First Amendment as soon as they fear Sharia law might find it's way into our laws.

Go figure.

That is incorrect and not within the inteded or expressed context.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Smith

[strickj]

That is incorrect and not within the inteded or expressed context.

Which part is incorrect?

Was the Revolutionary war not fought in part to religious freedoms?

Was the first thing put in writing something different?

Was Jefferson not the "father" of the First Amendment?

Did Jefferson not write that letter?

Are marriage laws not laws based on religious opinion?

[Smith]

Which part is incorrect?

Was the Revolutionary war not fought in part to religious freedoms?

Was the first thing put in writing something different?

Was Jefferson not the "father" of the First Amendment?

Did Jefferson not write that letter?

Are marriage laws not laws based on religious opinion?

The whole Constitution was written based on Religious opinion. To read "Seperation of Church and State" into the context you used you have to read 2A as only being for Militia.

[G27]

OK, let's try this angle - please answer this question: why are you who are opposed to 'gay marriage' opposed to it?

[strickj]

The whole Constitution was written based on Religious opinion. To read "Seperation of Church and State" into the context you used you have to read 2A as only being for Militia.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Context that.

The First Amendment was written and latter amended (based on Jefferson's letter about the intent of the First Amendment) to keep government out of religion and religion out of government.

Simple enough? Or is your religious opinion not included?

[Erik88]

OK, let's try this angle - please answer this question: why are you who are opposed to 'gay marriage' opposed to it?

duh, "it's a sin"

[Oh Shoot]

I don't see how the basic argument is religious anymore. No religious interaction or intent whatsoever is required to be married in any state.

A state's marriage certificate gives couples certain civil standing that unmarried couples do not receive -- some states issue the same civil document to same sex couples.

But the federal government doesn't recognize the same sex ones, nor do most other states.

So something will have to give eventually.

Religious people will rant and rave yea or nay, but it will be determined by courts and/or legislation.

- OS

[Guest HvyMtl]

Is this a happy thread?

To the theme of the question the OP asked: If I remember correctly, the Constitution, and law, of this land were designed to protect the minority from the majority. "Gay" is a polarizing situation, just because it is dealing with sex. And, considering the rage, violence, and fear pointed at this "class" of citizen, it is therefore necessary to protect them, in some cases. Should they be better treated then other non-"gay" citizen? No. Should they be harmed by society, becuase they are different? No. They should have the same rights as others.

My opinion on "gay" marriage: Why should only the straights be miserable? Do not force religious institutions to perform them, for it would be harming the institutions' rights.

The 10% everyone throws around as the population of homosexuals, is flawed, and based on a flawed study of prison populations.

Links2k is correct, a lot of supposed Christians act out against those who are different then they are, against Christ's teachings.

To state something a touch different than OS has, there is a separation of Church and State in the U.S. Be thankful of this separation, because it caused a lot of needless war and suffering in Europe. Our Founding Fathers well knew the European history, and wanted this nation to avoid these.

Give unto God what is God's. Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's.

Edited September 3, 2012 by HvyMtl

[kieefer]

[Smith]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Context that.

The First Amendment was written and latter amended (based on Jefferson's letter about the intent of the First Amendment) to keep government out of religion and religion out of government.

Simple enough? Or is your religious opinion not included?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Context that.

The First Amendment was written and latter amended (based on Jefferson's letter about the intent of the First Amendment) to keep government out of religion and religion out of government.

Simple enough? Or is your religious opinion not included?

Easy there tiger. You know good and well that "Seperation of Church and State" as used in the context you tried to use it is not implied or there. The framers where very clear it was about the FED government not being able to dictate a FED Church. In fact the states COULD establish there own "Church". Not abolition of religion altogether or a negating or it's role or importance. We've had this discussion before.

duh, "it's a sin"

So is murder, stealing, adultry, assault, abuse, ..... Does that negate those as well?

[Guest CCI]

In most states, it's the ability to marry and have the benefits that go along with that. The ability to file taxes jointly, hospital visitation, being notified as 'next of kin' in the event of an emergency. There's also Social Security benefits, military support for a spouse, and employer's pensions that can be left to a spouse.

The problem is, America has gotten too focused for a variety of reasons on the wrong question. Instead of asking "Why does this group not get those benefits," the better question for the majority of these issues is "Why is the government involved in these 'benefits' to begin with?"

That's what they want, give it too them! They pay into it just like the rest of us! They aren't asking for freebies, or welfare!

[Chucktshoes]

When you identify yourself by the way or who you have sex with yes, it is much different. I have never used the term heterosexual to identify myself politically, spiritually, economically, morally, or physically. Male/Female has to do with biological makeup and signifies difference based on that bilogical birthed identifier. It is not up to me to determine or define those perameters. Homosexualiaity is soley based on the physical act of who and how people have sex and their identity to that relationship. Otherwise they are men/women which does not necessarily identify sexuality.

The reason you have never felt to the need to identify yourself as heterosexual is that in our current cultural context, it is assumed unless there are evident factors to suggest otherwise.

[Erik88]

So is murder, stealing, adultry, assault, abuse, ..... Does that negate those as well?

So, allowing a gay couple to wed is now being compared to stealing and abuse?

wow.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Erik88

[Chucktshoes]

So is murder, stealing, adultry, assault, abuse, ..... Does that negate those as well?

Four out of five of those examples directly violate the individual liberties of others. The fifth (adultery) doesn't and isn't a crime in the majority of states, and where alienation of affection laws remain on the books, they are very rarely enforced.

[Smith]

So, allowing a gay couple to wed is not being compared to stealing and abuse?

wow.

Four out of five of those examples directly violate the individual liberties of others. The fifth (adultery) doesn't and isn't a crime in the majority of states, and where alienation of affection laws remain on the books, they are very rarely enforced.

Erick made the emotional attempt to negate anything religiously associated as "sin" as a nonsensical factor in legislature. I pointed out that almost everything Biblically viewed as a sin is illegal and considered morally unacceptable in our Constitution and legal codes.

Come on guys. Get off the emotion train and read in context.

The reason you have never felt to the need to identify yourself as heterosexual is that in our current cultural context, it is assumed unless there are evident factors to suggest otherwise.

Then it has been the current cultural context of humanity since the beggining of time. If that is the argument the you are implying that homosexuality is indeed and abnormality and abstract to all known human history. Which by definition does not make it "cultural" but a condition of humanity.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Smith

[Chucktshoes]

Where did I use an emotional argument? Hell, I didn't even make an argument one way or another, I just pointed out a couple of flaws in yours.

[Smith]

Where did I use an emotional argument? Hell, I didn't even make an argument one way or another, I just pointed out a couple of flaws in yours.

That's why I said Erick