What do you think of homosexuality (and gay marriage) ?

[afailedaffair]

I call it easter because if I call it anything else, no one will know what I am talking about and I will look stupid.

You can secretly laugh to yourself knowing that you are the right one!

 

[afailedaffair]

Right. Let's legalize incest, bestiality, and rape. They are, after all, kinds of sexual intercourse.

Oh dear!
A Rick Santorum has been pulled!
Alert the PC police!

 

[Hyde_is_my_anti-drug]

*sighs* Pointless.

Now getting back on topic:

I've noticed that the "strongest" anti-gay argument most people can make concerning Gay Marriage is that "legalizing same-sex marriages will undermine the institution of marriage." But this statement hinges on the argument that marriage is not a legal matter but a religious one. But as I said before, there are quite a few problems with this way of thinking. To take the above standing is to say that it's not about legal marriage in the secular or civil sense but Holy Wedlock, a Union of Two God-Fearing Members of the Opposite Sexes and this is putting the right to marriage in a religious category. So in essence, Christians are saying that the whole country should follow their ideals concerning marriage, that sounds an awful lot like an Established Church of America to me. To pass laws in America forcing citizens to follow a moral code based upon the Bible, 'the word of the Christian God', is in a sense establishing said church as the Church of America. And according to dear Mike Cash's own definition of the Bill of Rights, this is against the law.
The reason laws forbidding murder, rape etc are expectable is because these are basic moral values found everywhere not just in Christianity. They're found in other religions as well as completely outside of religion. But the moral code dictating that homosexuality is immoral is found solely in religion and primarily in Christianity. Meaning by passing laws banning Gay Marriage that are blatantly based on Christianity the White House is all but officially naming that religion the religion of America. Matter of fact, President Bush used his religious convictions and therefore anti-standing on Gay Marriage as a campaign tool when running for office the second time. In his public speeches he talks as though he considers America to be entirely Christian with the exception of the Gay Community. "Our moral values", "America's moral values" again, that sounds an awful lot like America has an Established Church to me.
Another reason laws banning murder are different then laws banning Gay Marriage is this, murder is one person infringing on another person's rights by taking the other's life without their consent. That is violating another citizen's rights. However, Gay Marriage takes place between two consenting adults, they are not violating the other's rights in any way by marrying. To make an action wrong in the eyes of the State it has to be in violation of the rights of either a third party or the person in question themselves. Gay Marriage falls under none of those categories. Which means the only reason these laws stand is due to religion, which means the United States of America is going against its own Constitution because it is establishing Christianity as America's Religion.

 

[No-name]

There are lots of laws that prevent acts between consenting adult that don't infringe on another and do not violate the rights of a third party. I don't believe that is a relevent legal standard.

 

[Hyde_is_my_anti-drug]

And that's probably because none of those laws apply to you. But these laws apply to me, me personally, I am effected by these laws.

 

[No-name]

I believe you misunderstand my point. We have laws against plural marriage, against marrying close relatives (including those related only by marriage), against certain consetual sex acts, against prostitution, against the consumption of drugs, against the ownership of prohibited items, against painting your house a particular color in a particular area... it need not infringe on the rights of another to be considered a law-- there are dozens of exceptions.

 

[Hyde_is_my_anti-drug]

And all those laws I find ridiculous.

"We have laws against plural marriage,"
Plural marriage is a person's choice and if everyone involved knows what's happening then that is not something to be outlaw.

"against marrying close relatives (including those related only by marriage),"
Marrying a member of one's family...okay, if they love each other then they're gonna do whatever they want anyway and again it is a choice.

"against certain consetual sex acts"
I souldn't even have to say it :wary:

"against prostitution,"
Position is the one of the oldest professions there is and it is that person's choice.

Oh, and I will paint my house whatever color I wish. :haihai:

 

[No-name]

That would make you a libertarian in this area.

I was just saying that the current legal standard is quite different than what you are assuming and what libertarians hope for.

 

[Hyde_is_my_anti-drug]

Did I say the legal system based it's laws on whether or not something is in violation of rights? No. Did I say it should? Yes. And please do not label me, thank you.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

And all those laws I find ridiculous.
"We have laws against plural marriage,"
Plural marriage is a person's choice and if everyone involved knows what's happening then that is not something to be outlaw.
"against marrying close relatives (including those related only by marriage),"
Marrying a member of one's family...okay, if they love each other then they're gonna do whatever they want anyway and again it is a choice.
"against certain consetual sex acts"
I souldn't even have to say it :wary:
"against prostitution,"
Position is the one of the oldest professions there is and it is that person's choice.
Oh, and I will paint my house whatever color I wish. :haihai:

Laws against incest, that in no way can be compared to gay marriage. Those laws against incest have a basis in physical health of the child.

What happens in the room between two consenting adults is their own business. Just as how it should be with whoever signs the civil marriage papers that should bring ALL the same benefits or negatives as ANY marriage.

"Prostitution," -- regulated like any other business should be fine. If those are consenting adults following stringent health care policies, then fine. Let a person, in many cases one with no skills for employment, have a means to make a living without harrassment and the dangers of walking the streets or visiting truck stops. However, it is not comparable to gay marriage where two people simply want equality before the law.

 

[Hyde_is_my_anti-drug]

Yes, with incest the health of the child is a major thing. But I still find the law somewhat...I don't know what word I'm looking for here.

And yes, you cannot compare those situations with homosexuality. It's like people who say homosexuals are sinners by comparing them with pedophiles. Did you know there are more straight pedophiles then gay? It's a mute point and besides that the two things have NOTHING to do with each other.

 

[No-name]

Actually you did imply in post #143 that you thought it was some sort of legal standard. That is exactly what I was responding to. My response was not an attack and it was rather neutral. And the libertarian was a label for the legal position you advanced. I noted that you are a libertarian in this area... not a label of you, but of your specific position. It was not meant as an insult.

 

[Hyde_is_my_anti-drug]

I simply said laws shouldn't stand unless they are proventing the violation of rights that doesn't mean that that's the way it is. It just means that is how it SHOULD be. Granted I could have phrased that more clearly but you are still putting words in my mouth and I would like it if you didn't.

 

[No-name]

To make an action wrong in the eyes of the State it has to be in violation of the rights of either a third party or the person in question themselves.

These are the words you used and the implication is clear throughout your post. I am putting no words in your mouth and it is clear that you are looking for a fight where clearly there is none.

Have I offended you in any way?

 

[Hyde_is_my_anti-drug]

I just said I should have worded that better. What do you want me to do? Get on my knees and gravel?

 

[No-name]

I was only responding to what you posted.

You have not offended me in any way, and there is no need to appologize. I was taken aback and puzzled by responses that seemed unnecessarily and rather hostile.

What I want you to do is keep posting and expressing yourself in whatever way you feel is proper. I think you will find a broad and diverse sample of humanity on this forum that is amazing, accepting, honest, and always frank.

 

[Hyde_is_my_anti-drug]

I wasn't apologizing, I was using a phrase to express myself. It's called a figure of speech.

 

[No-name]

What do you want me to do? Get on my knees and gravel?

The figure of speech you chose suggests an act of contrition-- a physical symbolic apology-- which I was saying is entirely unnecessary.

Your hostility is unwarranted. I am not fighting you, demeaning you, ridiculing you or showing the least bit of disrespect.

 

[Hyde_is_my_anti-drug]

*sighs* Okay, not even going to get into that first point. I already have a headache as 'tis.

I am not being hostile. But if you want me to be then I will be happy to do so. Being strong in stating one's opinions does not always mean one is being hostile.

 

[No-name]

Not being able to hear the tone of what you are writing, I have to depend on what you have written to covey not only the message, but all the intent.

It has nothing to do with stating your opinion strongly. The following bits from your last posts seem a bit edgy-- exasperated if not hostile:

I simply said .... It just means that is how it SHOULD be. Granted I could have phrased that more clearly but you are still putting words in my mouth and I would like it if you didn't...I just said I should have worded that better. What do you want me to do? Get on my knees and gravel?...I wasn't apologizing, I was using a phrase to express myself. It's called a figure of speech...*sighs* Okay, not even going to get into that first point. I already have a headache as 'tis...I am not being hostile. But if you want me to be then I will be happy to do so. Being strong in stating one's opinions does not always mean one is being hostile.

I am not your enemy. Perhaps this is why Mike Cash thinks you have a chip on your shoulders. You don't need to sigh...or get defensive. I think you will find that people in our community are welcoming and quite civil for the most part and will defend their positions strongly without getting upset or personal unless cornered on rare occasion.

Perhaps we should just drop this and get back to the topic.