Convince me

[Some Friggin Guy]

As a person with an open mind about law and government, I have been thinking a great deal about the proposal to ban gay marriage and I hear a lot of people (not necessarily here, mind you) who claim that allowing gay couples to marry will cause harm or damage to the institutioon of marriage and it will lessen the value of heterosexual marriage.


Since that is an assertion they make, I am making the following invitation:

I am a heterosexual married man. If someone can provide me with a logical reason why my gay neighbours being married is a threat to my own marriage, or to my children, I will pledge my support to an amendment (for what my support is worth.)

Bear in mind that I will not take any religious argument, since religion may play no part in law in the US.

 

[Yahweh]

I really dont know of any means of justifying the revoking of certain legal rights on a basis of sexual orientation, so I guess you'll remain unconvinced (not like that's a problem).


(If you take the time to ask your question to some of the more bigoted folks your bound to meet in your life, dont be surprised at all when you hear a good old fashioned pseudo-apocalyptic slipperly slope of some kind or another...)

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

I won't be surprised, Yahweh. In fact, I've heard them before, but they don't pass any logical tests, so I remain unconvinced.

 

[evildave]

Well, uh, lessee...

If'un they gets married, it uh, cheapens muh bond with muh sister/wife.

An' muh Dad/Uncle and Mom/Aunt's 'lationship, too.

An' day'd hafta add a checkbox on the weddin' form next to 'marry kin' on ever' county's weddin liessenseses, an' dat wud cost billionsabillionsa bucks.

Now 'scuze me, I gotta scrub mah flippers.


Seriously...

Is it your spouse, wife, husband, partner, what? We need a whole new chapter of Politically Correct (TM) vocabulary to insert into every marital discussion. Every form of contract and prying government and business form there is will get an extra "relationship" box of some sort. Electronic forms. Electronic records. Oodles of cash to be made by lawyers in their feeding frenzy to explore every possible new way to sue people based on "discrimination", and then oodles of chump-change cash for paper and electronic forms where new "relationship" classes have to be entered.

Actually, if you want a "gay marriage", simply mutually execute a total "power of attorney" and "will". Then all you miss is getting "benefits" like family plan medical coverage and such. If designated "family members" in insurance were supported, there would probably be no big drive for "gay marriage" at all. Of course, once "gay marriage" is shot down, probably various kinds of wording in adoption law could be exploited.

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

MC Dave, master of Funk and Evil:

The politically correct issue is no different for a gay married couple than for a straight married couple these days. For example, my wife did not change her last name and takes offense if referred to by mine. Some women prefer to be referred to as Ms. rather than Miss or Mrs.

I don't see the necessity of creating an extra relationship box, since "Married" would serve that purpose.

As for the discrimination lawsuits, I don't see how that would be any worse than it is now, since gays are often discriminated against. In fact, by allowing them to attain legal marriage, they would now be given the legal rights of straight married couples, eliminating lawsuits regarding next of kin, etc.

However, if you disagree with this argument, think of it another way, by creating more work for lawyers and courts, they are stimulating the economy.

 

[iain]

Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Homosexuals (or "deviants", to use the correct language) cannot be married in the eyes of the Lord.

You have to think about the effect of having two people living next door to you who are not only committing a mortal sin, but revelling in their evil ways.

Let's say you had two murderers living next door; and they didn't keep it secret; they dragged victims back to their house and you and your family could hear the screams as their victims died. I'm sure you wouldn't suggest that this would have no adverse affects on you and your family.

The same goes for homosexuals. Because they are flaunting their sinfulness, enjoying it, not even feeling ashamed of it, your family is likely to be disturbed by the proximity to evil.

The state can say whatever it wants, but the state calling them "married" does not change one iota the way God perceives them.

If these people choose to turn their faces away from the Lord, we know that eternal damnation will be their reward. They have chosen their path and must suffer the consequences. That does not mean that we should accept these dens of iniquity in our neighbourhoods.

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Homosexuals (or "deviants", to use the correct language) cannot be married in the eyes of the Lord.

You have to think about the effect of having two people living next door to you who are not only committing a mortal sin, but revelling in their evil ways.

Let's say you had two murderers living next door; and they didn't keep it secret; they dragged victims back to their house and you and your family could hear the screams as their victims died. I'm sure you wouldn't suggest that this would have no adverse affects on you and your family.

The same goes for homosexuals. Because they are flaunting their sinfulness, enjoying it, not even feeling ashamed of it, your family is likely to be disturbed by the proximity to evil.

The state can say whatever it wants, but the state calling them "married" does not change one iota the way God perceives them.

If these people choose to turn their faces away from the Lord, we know that eternal damnation will be their reward. They have chosen their path and must suffer the consequences. That does not mean that we should accept these dens of iniquity in our neighbourhoods.

#1. Since there is no god, most of your argument is moot.

#2. Since the law cannot deal with the existence or non-existence of any god, your argument is moot.

#3. Since murder is an act which directly effects people not involved in the practice (ie, it is a crime with a victim), but homosexuality does not, that part of your argument strains any sense of logic well beyond its breaking point.

#4. Since church leaders sometimes (possibly often) practice pedophelia, I find it unacceptable to have churches (read: dens of iniquity) in my neighbourhood, yet the law permits it.

I remain unconvinced, and irritated that I received a response from someone who obviously did not read the entirety of my initial post.

In the future, anyone responding to my challange of convincing me, please be sure to read the ENTIRE post first. Thank you.

Edit to add: "devient" is not a term ascribed to homosexuality in any form of psychological or sociological circles, merely some religious circles, which, again, makes it moot to this discussion.

 

[iain]

I really thought about adding a smiley to my post but then I thought "why should I? No one could possibly take that seriously; it's so obviously a joke from beginning to end." Oh well, my mistake I guess.

Edited to add : I was also going to point out the unlikeliness of someone with my avatar holding the views expressed; but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have avatars turned off.

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

My apologies.

I live in Nashville, Tn, where on my street alone, I have 5 churches sittining literally side-by-side with 5 brothels. As you might imagine, nothing would surprise me.

 

[Yahweh]

I really thought about adding a smiley to my post but then I thought "why should I? No one could possibly take that seriously; it's so obviously a joke from beginning to end." Oh well, my mistake I guess.

Cheer up, I laughed the whole way through.

 

[shemp]

Oh sure iain, you turn into a religious woo, post your REAL beliefs, then try to weasel out of it with the old smiley explanation. Well we ain't a-buyin it!

Do I need a smiley here, or is it obvious?

 

[iain]

My apologies.

I live in Nashville, Tn, where on my street alone, I have 5 churches sittining literally side-by-side with 5 brothels. As you might imagine, nothing would surprise me.

Apology accepted

I can imagine how having a brothel next door to your church would be handy for the faithful; especially when the sermon gets just a bit too boring.

 

[pgwenthold]

I am a heterosexual married man. If someone can provide me with a logical reason why my gay neighbours being married is a threat to my own marriage, or to my children, I will pledge my support to an amendment (for what my support is worth.)

Bear in mind that I will not take any religious argument, since religion may play no part in law in the US.

1) The traffic from all the others coming to the gay orgy will be parking on your lawn.
2) Your wife might view the gay orgy as an opportunity to finally get some sexual satisfaction.

 

[whitefork]

Homosexuality is icky. It makes me uncomfortable. Therefore it's morally wrong. And in addition to that, my feeling of ickiness makes it difficult for me to enjoy clean procreative sex with my wife. So if homosexuals are allowed to get married, I might not have any children on account of ickiness and since I'm a typical representative of the procreative community, my feelings are shared by a huge majority of people and must prevail if there's a just god in heaven.

 

[geni]

I am a heterosexual married man. If someone can provide me with a logical reason why my gay neighbours being married is a threat to my own marriage, or to my children, I will pledge my support to an amendment (for what my support is worth.)

Doesn't your govenment provide tax breaks for marrage? If this is the case alowing homeosexuals to marry will result in more people getting these tax rates. This must be delt with by either increasing the level of taxes you pay (thereby reducing the amount of money you can spend on your children) or by cutting servies thereby reducing the services avaible to your children.

 

[elliotfc]

As a person with an open mind about law and government, I have been thinking a great deal about the proposal to ban gay marriage and I hear a lot of people (not necessarily here, mind you) who claim that allowing gay couples to marry will cause harm or damage to the institutioon of marriage and it will lessen the value of heterosexual marriage.


Since that is an assertion they make, I am making the following invitation:

I am a heterosexual married man. If someone can provide me with a logical reason why my gay neighbours being married is a threat to my own marriage, or to my children, I will pledge my support to an amendment (for what my support is worth.)

Bear in mind that I will not take any religious argument, since religion may play no part in law in the US.

It isn't a threat to your marriage, unless you are a stickler for definitions (marriage, in the dictionary, has always meant union of man and woman). You could possibly say that since the definition of marriage has been changed, or made less restrictive, your marriage has been cheapened, but I really doubt you would say that, agree with that, or care.

Homosexual unions are essentially, and not accidentally, sterile. If two friends want to get married, that probably doesn't bother you. It bothers other people because marriage is a stabilizing force in society, and never, in all of human history, have same-sex marriages been allowed in any civilization.

Personally, I am against same-sex marriages. However, if the majority of people are for them, or don't care, I won't lose any sleep over that. Even if by the courts they are legalized, I don't think it's the end of the world. If abortion is legal and constitutional, I guess anything can be legal and consitutional.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

I really dont know of any means of justifying the revoking of certain legal rights on a basis of sexual orientation, so I guess you'll remain unconvinced (not like that's a problem).

You can't revoke what was never possessed.

(If you take the time to ask your question to some of the more bigoted folks your bound to meet in your life, dont be surprised at all when you hear a good old fashioned pseudo-apocalyptic slipperly slope of some kind or another...)

And don't be surprised to hear level-headed and respectful disagreement either.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

The state can say whatever it wants, but the state calling them "married" does not change one iota the way God perceives them.

I agree. The state, or a group of people, can say anything, could call a mouse a truck, and it doesn't mean much. But I don't think most people here care about theological definitions. They'd settle for what they would call a rectification of legal definitions.

People choose to turn their faces away from the Lord, we know that eternal damnation will be their reward. They have chosen their path and must suffer the consequences. That does not mean that we should accept these dens of iniquity in our neighbourhoods.

Right, unless they decide at some point to turn their faces toward the Lord.

Yes, people must suffer the consequences of their path, but even the most evil of paths can be redeemed (and I hardly think that sodomy is the most evil of paths).

I think we should treat everyone with love. I'm embarrassed that you as a Christian think otherwise. Are you advocating burning down the houses of homosexuals? Do you have the same passion for houses where men and women commit adultery and children fornicate? Keep it in perspective man. Sodomy is not as bad as adultery. Adultery is a crime against a sacrament. Do you have the same outrage for adultery?

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

#1. Since there is no god, most of your argument is moot.

How do you know there is no God? Who told you there is no God? On what authority do you say there is no God? Can you prove there is no God? Why do you think there is no God?

#2. Since the law cannot deal with the existence or non-existence of any god, your argument is moot.

???

The most cursory glance at the history of law shows that the law does IN FACT deal with the existence and non-existence of God, or gods. This is elementary. You may not like that history, or, your ideal may be that law should have nothing to do with God, and I resepct that, but the facts are against you here.

Since murder is an act which directly effects people not involved in the practice (ie, it is a crime with a victim), but homosexuality does not, that part of your argument strains any sense of logic well beyond its breaking point.

Homosexuality has lots of victims, just look at the statistics. See, lower lifespans in homosexuals does not just hurt homosexuals, but hurts other people as well. If I had a homosexual family member I would be hurt if they were hurting themself. If homosexuality leads to a general lessening of morality, that hurts me too. Higher health care costs, etc. There are many effects of homosexuality.

Everything affects everybody. Chaos theory. I've worked and lived with homosexuals, and I'd bend over backwards for them (that's a little har har) but I'm not going to say that they live in a vacuum, moral or otherwise.

#4. Since church leaders sometimes (possibly often) practice pedophelia, I find it unacceptable to have churches (read: dens of iniquity) in my neighbourhood, yet the law permits it.

Pedophilia happens in non-churches too. Since some churches have housed acts of pedophilia, you find it unacceptable to have all churches in your neighborhoods? Just looking for clarification. And since some residential houses have pedophila occur in their walls, are you also against all residential houses in your neighborhood?

Edit to add: "devient" is not a term ascribed to homosexuality in any form of psychological or sociological circles, merely some religious circles, which, again, makes it moot to this discussion.

Thanks for bringing that up.

Just 30 years ago, it was. That's part of the traditional argument.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

I really thought about adding a smiley to my post but then I thought "why should I? No one could possibly take that seriously; it's so obviously a joke from beginning to end." Oh well, my mistake I guess.

Edited to add : I was also going to point out the unlikeliness of someone with my avatar holding the views expressed; but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have avatars turned off.

It was well done, and I suspect many people would have similar thoughts.

Obviously the thoughts are unfortunate, but not completely disordered (in my opinion).

-Elliot