I did computer security for a major San Francisco medical marijuana club, a very well respected non-profit group that was instrumental in working with the city health department to craft guidelines and city card procedures, and with the police in sensitivity training. After a long day of product testing, I relaxed with some more product testing.
All in all, you'd be surprised by the high quality of work that got done. And so would I, as I can't remember any of it.
The medical marijuana community encourages the use of techniques including vaporizing, tinctures, hash oil and other concentrates, pot goodies like brownies, and other methods of reducing harm. People with severe HIV or cancer often can't even use a vaporizer, so edibles or tinctures are called for. People using marijuana as replacement therapy for harder drugs sometimes don't have the money for a vaporizer, and need a longer lasting high, so they are encouraged to try edibles.
Remember, pipes and joints and even vaporizers spread hepatitis. Use a chillum when sharing.
And then MacGuyver would build a fractionating column to distill hash oil to use in his vaporizer, so the quality of the marijuana would matter very little to MacGuyver, and he wouldn't need these reviews.
I thought only pinko lefty hippie PC police were allowed to whine that the phrase 'don't get your panties in a bunch' is sexual harassment.
If the incidents you mention actually happened, that was wrong. All I can say is, people get angry when they feel that other people are trying to tell them what they can and can't do. Not an excuse, just an observation.
Most homosexuals I've known have had FAR WORSE things happen to them at least once in their lives.
Look, I know you aren't allowed to talk about what you really do in your religion, which means you are kind of required to call me a liar, so I forgive you.
1. I agree. But you haven't presented a case NOT to redefine marriage, and I have presented a case for redefining it, which can be encapsulated by 'Separate but equal is inherently unequal.' Look it up, it's kind of a famous case.
2.) It doesn't matter whether marriage is a right or not. The whole concept of rights is just a semantic game played by the powerless to try to convince the powerful not to screw with them. We are a democracy, so whatever the people say, goes (so long as it follows the constitution. If you want to change THAT, you need a lot more people to agree.) The real issue is the rights that come with marriage, if we can get those, the rest is not as important, except that the definition of marriage as 'one man, one woman' is the law of a particular family of religions, and by imposing that religious definition on all of us, you are restricting our freedom of religion.
3.) We agree about tax exempt law, okay? 501(c)3 organizations are restricted in what they are allowed to do. Certain people felt that certain 501(c)3 groups that happen to be religious went beyond that, and they brought it to the attention of the authorities. Nobody was trying to restrict religion, just the actions of 501(c)3 organizations they believed were breaking the law.
4.) I never even implied what you state here. OF COURSE religious people should vote their conscience. BUT, as I said before, tax exempt 501(c)3 organizations can lose their tax exempt status if they cross the line, and that is not persecution of religion, it is THE LAW.
Well, it's almost time to go home. Lucky for me, I'm a very good sysadmin and most days, I don't have much to do because everything is just running smoothly. It was nice debating with you. While I disagree with you, I'm glad we both live in a country where we can have these kinds of arguments. That is something we can both feel good about. Public policy debate by regular old citizens like you and me is the rock we grow our Republic on. Remember that, whoever wins this one.
Well, we'll see who wins this fight, won't we? Obviously, you know which side I'm rooting for. In the long run, my side wins. The younger generation just doesn't care. Homosexuality has become commonplace, routine, accepted. They are not growing up with a culture of hate and fear. They accept homosexuality. Your side has already lost. It just might take a generation for it to catch up with you.
Okay, I'm willing to agree that marriage is a privilege, granted by the STATE. So, we can use our democratic process to change the criteria for privilege, and you can no longer claim the religious high ground, because you've just discounted it.
It does not matter whether marriage is a privilege or a right, gays want it, and you haven't stated why gays should be denied the privilege. Remember, 'that's the way things have always been' is not a reason why things should stay that way. And while "I don't like it" is certainly a legitimate personal reason to oppose something, it won't go very far in converting the undecided.
No, no law could possibly require churches to perform gay weddings against their will. Separation of Church and State. It would require a constitutional amendment, and last time I checked, your side was the one pursuing that option.
You guys are BOTH Mormons? I should have guessed. You guys got schooled on the marriage thing WAY back, and if you can't have your fun, why, no one else can, either.
Wait, sexual harassment? Where did THAT come from? Man you religious types love your persecution complex, don't you? Although, to be fair to the other Christians, I probably shouldn't group you in with them. You know they don't want you guys, right? According to them, you aren't even Christian, you're just some cult that got lucky.
Look, you Mormons are the ones who think talking about underwear in public is rude, because no matter how you try to defend it, you know how your little customs look to outsiders. Especially Christians.
We in the modern world have no qualms talking about our underwear. Mine are Haines boxer briefs and they are quite comfortable. Do you know, I'm allowed to take them completely off? Anytime I like? I don't have to wear them around one leg when I'm in the shower. It's awesome. I also don't have to leave one pair around one leg as I start putting another one on the other leg. You see, I don't use my underwear to repel sin, so there is no requirement that I keep at least one pair of magic sin repelling underwear on at all times.
Okay. I should stop now. I should probably apologize, too. I'm sorry. That was mean. Look, I really try to respect people's religions, even though I don't agree with them, or think they are goofy. Religions are all equally goofy to me, but I'm glad you have one if it makes you happy.
It's just, you know, you guys have a history of being oppressed for your religion and I'd expect a little more sympathy out of you. Why do you continue to try to fit in to a Christianity that rejects you? Let's team up, we can get gay marriage for the gays and polygamous marriage for you guys!
I know what garments do. He doesn't call them magic underwear, I do.
Anyway, you guys really got your scripture out of a hat? From one guy translating a language no one had heard of before, using magic lenses? And when a clever skeptic claimed to have lost the translation, and asked your dude to retranslate, he got furious and claimed that, because she lost the translation, God had changed things and he couldn't retranslate the same way? And you BELIEVE all this?
And God Sent Jesus to America, but no one except you guys have ever heard of it? And the 'Red Man' is somehow cursed, and a lesser person, for what reason, exactly?
You honestly have no idea to what I am referring? No clue why the majority of Christians, let alone anyone else, thinks of your church as a cult that grew too big, a legal hustle for con men, something invented out of whole cloth by a guy who just wanted to marry lots of women? Do they not let you watch TV in the compound? Not to be a bigot or anything, I think most religions are as wacky as yours, but you guys don't have the best reputation amongst other religious types.
I don't want to change people's definitions of marriage, I just want to change the law. You can go on defining it however you like, but I don't want you continuing to impose your definition on me. You are conflating 'definition' and 'law' as if they were the same thing, they are not. The law says a corporation is a person. Would you define a corporation as a person?
You are trying to continue to limit my freedoms, without justification. I am not trying to impose anything on you, if you want to keep on considering marriage to be between a man and woman only, be my guest. I just refuse to allow you to continue to force your religious beliefs on me.
Yes, I want to change the law. That's how a democracy works, we get a say in shaping the law. You can advocate to keep it the same. We'll see who wins, won't we?
But you keep switching back and forth between personal definition and law, between what is and what should be, between democracy and religion, without stopping to consider the boundaries you've crossed as you do so.
If this is a democracy, and law is only what the citizens say it is, as limited by the Constitution, then you can't claim the moral high ground over the definition of marriage, as that definition comes from a vote, and we can just vote it out. If your side turns out to be the minority, it would be really, really gauche to turn around and try to claim oppressed minority status, to claim that the majority imposed its will on you. Yes, if we do force our will on you, we force our will on you, as intended by our founding fathers. That's how democracy works. You can't pick and choose, upholding it when you win, reneging on the agreement when your side loses. By participating in our Democracy, you agree to follow the laws the majority sets, until and if you can get them changed.
In the end, I fail to see how changing this law imposes anything real on you. It would mean you need to, OH MY GOD! change the definition of a word. Oh no. Horrible. I'd just kill myself if I had to change my definition of a word! Nothing would require you to actually do anything. Or not do anything. In fact, aside from having to acknowledge that the majority as changed our definition our definition of word, and that the law has changed, nothing at all would be required of you. You wouldn't even need to change your definition of marriage. You could continue to say, 'To me, and to my religion, marriage means one man one woman.' Nobody would stop you. You could even look a gay couple in the eyes and say, 'In my eyes, you two aren't married and you are living in sin.' No one could stop you.
I have demonstrated that changing the law would not require you to change anything, but would allow others more freedom. And you are against that. While I support your freedom to express your opinion, my opinion is that your position is immoral, tyrannical, oppressive, bigoted, closed minded, petty, and mean.
Right, so you'd be fine with the country changing its mind and democratically granting the right to marry to anyone. You aren't even presenting an argument anymore, you are just stating, 'this is how things currently are.' Well, duh. Yes, we know that's how things are, and I, for one, have presented an argument, that is, a series of assertions and logical connections leading up to a conclusion, as to why things should change. You, on the other hand, have not presented an argument as to why they should stay the same. Just to be clear, 'that's the way things are' is not a reason why things should stay the same.
I'm not saying religion can't be involved. I'm saying, tax exempt 501(c)3 corporations, including tax exempt religious institutions, are limited by law in advocating legislation, unless they want their tax exempt privileges taken away. If a religion does not care about 501(c)3 status, it can advocate whatever it likes, but if it goes around collecting signatures to change the law, it is in violation of the law. Which is all the gay activists were pointing out. They just want justice to be applied impartially, and the law is the law, right?
I mean, let's put things in perspective, YOU were the one bleating about the nasty gay activists trying to silence you, right? Which is a blatant misrepresentation, those gay activists just want the law, as it currently stands, applied impartially, and you, by your own logic, are all for that, so we've got no argument on that count, right? The gays are right and you know it. Tax exempt churches collecting signatures to change laws are breaking the law, and should lose their tax exempt status.
Well, it really is the best way forward on this. The government issues civil union contracts for anyone, granting them all the same rights, like hospital visitation, inheritance, things like that, that are the concern of civil government. Religions that have an opinion on it can issue their own marriage contracts to whoever they feel qualifies, with whatever rights and responsibilities the religion is concerned with. Getting a religious marriage license does not mean you have a civil union in the eyes of the state, or vice versa. If you want both, you get both. There are plenty of churches and pastors out there that will marry gays, right now, today, if you ask them to. 'Marriage,' in that system, would not mean anything special to anyone outside of your religion, it would be a religious agreement. If a particular religion wanted to marry cats and dogs, that would be fine, because the religious contract would carry no legal rights, and 'marriage' would be a legally meaningless concept.
Ah. You are a Mormon. Just so you know, the man my wife and I are dating was a Mormon. He's still Christian (some would say, NOW a Christian, as most Christians don't think you guys are) but he goes to a more tolerant Lutheran church now.
We hear ALL about your religion from him. Not that there's anything wrong with it. Just that, you know, all the, hmmm, silly little things your religion advocates? I know ALL about them. Even the patently ridiculous ones you wish people don't know about, the stuff that could get you excommunicated (you guys are plain CRAZY for that one, eh?) for talking about, yeah, we know that stuff.
Hope the magic underwear isn't bunching up too badly.
Denying marriage to polygamous families is just as wrong as denying it to homosexuals.
You have it backwards. I don't care how you define 'marriage,' but you are not allowed to impose your definition on me. That is what you are trying to do, and you have the utter hypocrisy to claim that by refusing to let you impose your view on me, I am the one imposing my view on you.
If you can't see the complete lack of logic there, I can't really help you.
Nobody is saying trying to limit what you say. You, a human, have freedom of speech. A 501(c)3 corporation is not a human, and has more limited rights. A religious person may help shape the law, a tax exempt religious institution may not, and that IS the law. Your religious institution is not allowed the privilege of tax exempt status while advocating for changes in the law.
Assuming for the moment that you are right and that marriage is a privilege, you need to show why we should restrict certain people from enjoying that privilege. And, as marriage is a privilege granted by the state, religion has nothing to do with it. It is not a religious matter, marriage is a matter for the state. If you can't show a reason why gays should be restricted from marrying other gays, then you have no case.
What 'duties' does marriage legally entail, that gays can not fulfill? If you can not show any, then we have to assume your drivers license comparison is spurious, because we can show logical reasons for every person we restrict from having one.
Wow. So you're saying anything not explicitly prohibited is permitted?
I don't know. It's your religion, right? What does it say, hmmmm, you tell me.
Who are you to decide what the spirit of the law is? I say, the spirit of the law is 'love each other and treat each other as you would be treated,' and you are completely ignoring THAT, the CORE of your religion's value system, so don't even try that argument.
My religion practices gay marriage. By restricting 'marriage' to only what your religion defines it as, you are imposing your religious beliefs on me, and limiting my religious freedoms.
You can vote however you like, and espouse whatever kind of bigoted, hateful crap you like. You are even free to cloak it in spurious and unsupported arguments about religion and God, if you like.
I AM a polyamorist, ten years into a man-woman marriage, two years into a man-woman-man relationship. I DO advocate for poly marriage rights, as much as for gay marriage rights. So, looks like someone kinda got egg on their face there, trying to appeal to a prejudice that simply doesn't exist in me.
Now, I would be fine with your last suggestion as well, as long as two men married by a church could call themselves married, if they got a civil union from the state and a separate marriage ceremony from their church. There are two parts to marriage, the part the state has an interest in, and the part religion has an interest in. If they were fully separate, I would be fine with that. But my religion is legitimate, and it practices gay marriage, and I will continue to use MY definition of marriage, not yours. You do not get to impose your religious beliefs on my religion, no matter how you try to justify it, you can't do it thanks to the Constitution.
You say your religion teaches that homosexual marriage will damage the fundamental building blocks of society. Fine, that is a minority opinion even in Christianity, but whatever, people are allowed to be wrong. You don't say how, or why you think that, except that your religion told you so. I say the institution of marriage is a stabilizing factor in society, regardless of the sexual orientation of the participants. Married people are more stable, contribute more to society, are less apt to engage in risky behavior, and care more for their community in general. They provide more stable family situations to any foster or adoptive children they may take in. All in all, marriage is a benefit to society, and there is simply no good reason to restrict anyone who wants to engage in it from doing so. In fact, restricting marriage in any way is against societies best interest.
You should be able to marry your sister. And if genetic screenings say you won't make web footed duck babies, you should be able to have kids with her too.
Why should anyone have the power to determine who gets to produce children and with whom?
LK
Damn it, they shouldn't! I was trying to head off the 'but think of the resulting web footed duckboys!' arguments that were sure to ensue if I had just said, 'You should be able to marry your sister.' People in these kinds of arguments love to run a tangent completely out of bounds and then claim a touchdown.
Well I'm glad you agree that marriage is defined by the state, and not by religions. Therefore, religions should have no say, this is a civil matter. The fact that your religion does not approve of gay marriage has no bearing on whether it should be allowed or not, by your own logic.
Now, what would you call it, a privilege? If so, why should that privilege be reserved for only certain people? If a privilege, it is one that entails certain advantages, those advantages should be open to all, equally. As we have shown in court in the past, 'separate but equal' is not equal. Drinking from a water fountain isn't a right, either, yet we ruled that everyone, regardless of color, must be allowed to drink from the same fountain.
I respect your line of reasoning. It is, in its way, very compelling. I, however, do not hold any sort of reverence for abstract property rights. Now, rights to personal property, I respect. But I believe rights to control of the means of production derive not from individual property rights, but from society. The means of production should be under democratic, not individual control.
You see, respect for property rights above all else leads to evil, in my opinion. As Adam Smith said, "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all. "
Absolute property rights are just a way of institutionalizing power, by an elite few, over the rest of us, and justifying economic slavery as liberty.
Your religion is not the only one, and the Constitution protects all religions equally. My religion recognizes same sex marriages, and performs said ceremonies. By denying me the right to call what my religion does 'marriage' you are infringing on my freedom of religion. Sorry, you lose and my right to religious freedom wins. Ahhhh, love that US Constitution, don't you?
You guys keep setting them up, I'll keep knocking them down. You can't win. Especially in the long run. You know what your grandkids are going to think of you? Very likely, what the integrated grandchildren of racists think of them. The next generation simply is not frightened of homosexuality and sees no need to make this an issue.
Just so you know, fifty years from now nobody will even understand how you could have held the position you do now. Bigotry is ending and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it in the long run. It's a done deal.
Freedom of religion is a right enshrined in the Constitution. My religion practices ceremonies related to marriage, and does so for same sex marriages. By denying my religion the right to practice those ceremonies, you are denying my freedom of religion.
Show me where in the New Testament homosexuality, including lesbianism, is forbidden. I'll wait while you look that up. I'll want a passage that restricts all forms of homosexuality, not just certain types of sexual practices. Otherwise, we'll need to make some exceptions.
You do understand that people have differences of opinion over what scripture means, right? Luther thought one thing, the Pope thought something else. Who decides who is right? Last I checked, God doesn't seem interested in making those calls, so it is up to fallible human beings to make the decisions as to the correct interpretation of scripture.
I already mentioned religions that approve of gay marriage. I assume you would be fine with religions that approve of it performing it and calling it 'marriage.' If not, please explain why fundamentalist Muslims should not be allowed to tell you that your wife needs to wear a bhurka at her marriage. Either you want to dictate what other religions consider marriage, or you don't, and if you do want that, it can work against you far easier than it can work for you.
I can't 'show you the rights that would be lost' because very few states even have domestic partnership laws. Those that do, do not confer all of the rights of marriage. As far as I'm concerned, the major right that is lost is the right to practice your own religion. If you say that NO RELIGION can practice gay marriage, no matter what their beliefs, you are limiting my religious freedom and infringing on my rights.
You may change your stance now, thank you very much.
Freedom of religion is enshrined in the Constitution. My religion recognizes gay marriage. You have no right to limit my practice of religion, according to the Constitution, and my religion practices gay marriage, and calls it marriage. You have no right to limit my freedom of religion, get it? And you have no right to say what is and what is not a legitimate religion, says so in the Constitution.
I'll be awaiting your change of stance with bated breath.
Your definition of marriage is not the definition of marriage. Your religion can define what your religion's version of marriage means, but it can not define what my religion's definition of marriage is, and you can not tell me that my religion isn't as legitimate as yours, that is kind of in the Constitution.
You realize that what you call 'backlash,' gay people call 'defending their beliefs,' right?
Also, you state that homosexuals don't want to force churches to marry them. This has been proven untrue. Many adoption agencies, doctors, and churches have been sued for similar cases in the United States and outside of the United states.
[citation needed] or put another way [you are lying.]
You can argue from religion. But there are many religions in this free land of ours, and yours doesn't trump anyone else's.
As I stated before, no 501(c)3 organization, be it educational, religious, or charitable, is allowed to campaign, donate to a campaign, or advocate for changes to the law. That does not apply only to churches, in fact, if churches wanted to give up their tax exempt status they can lobby all they like, and some do. The law applies to anyone claiming tax exempt status. So, either keep your church out of the legislative process like it should be, or lose your tax exempt status like any other 501(c)3 caught cheating.
This is the Internet. When you make outrageous claims such as 'Specifically, some studies have shown that the child-rearing environment provided by gay couples is less healthy for children than that provided by heterosexual couples.' You need to cite those studies. Otherwise, people simply won't believe you. Same thing for your 'raised by gays makes you gay' claim.
There are definitely no ill effects to being raised by two gay people, outside of the oppression that goes along with being gay. Do away with the oppression, and you've done away with the problem.
What rights, in what states, do civil unions confer? You don't even know, do you?
Nobody is forcing anyone to change their definition of the word marriage. You can believe marriage is a bowl of ice cream for all I care. We are asking the government to not exclude homosexuals from being married. Nobody is going to force you to marry a gay.
We aren't talking about definitions of words, we're talking about laws. People who support gays marrying aren't the minority, people who want to restrict other people's rights are. You and the other religious bigots like to think you are the majority, but you aren't. Look at any polls on the matter and you will see that you aren't. You can go on thinking marriage is whatever you like, nobody is asking you to change your definition. We are saying, you can't dictate what others call marriage. You think it is okay for you to dictate to me what my definition of marriage is, but not the other way around. That's hypocritical.
You still have not shown any reason to deny gay people the right to marriage. The only reason you have given boils down to, 'it would make me uncomfortable, and I believe the majority of people are just like me.'
If we did manage to get gay civil unions, which we don't actually have yet, gay people would still say they were married and you would be unable to stop them. They would not say, 'this is my civil partner, Frank.' They would say, 'This is my husband, Frank.' Heck, they do now.
But how does any of this even impact you? Why do you care? Are you similarly worked up over other redefinitions of words, like how awful used to mean 'full of awe or awe inspiring' and now it means 'terrible,' or how property used to mean 'places, or things, or animals, or black people,' and now it does not include the latter?
You do not get to define religion, sorry. You don't get to say that someone's 'changes' are not legitimate. By your logic, Martin Luther had no right to change things.
But in any case, Buddhism has never had a ban on gay marriages, so any Buddhist sects performing them would have to be legitimate in your eyes, as they haven't changed anything that was originally in their religion, and they are legitimate religion recognized in the United States.
You do understand that homosexual civil unions don't exist in most states, right?
Marriage is a legal right. You see, there are two different definitions of marriage. There is marriage as it relates to the state, and marriage as it relates to a particular religion. While religious marriage might not be a legal right, one does not even need to practice a religion in order to be legally married by the state. That is a right, as recognized by the state, not a particular religion. I was not married in a church, but I am legally married and that status confers certain rights and responsibilities on my partner and I.
Historically, the word 'marriage' did not include partners of different races. We saw that that was unfair, and changed it. Just because something is a particular way does not make it right, That's known as the 'is/aught fallacy.' We used to consider black people to be property. It was part of the definition of property. We changed that too.
Your argument boils down to 'this is the way it has always been, and therefore this is the way it should always be.' You do see the problem with that line of reasoning, don't you?
As I and others have stated, there are far more societal benefits of marriage than the production of children. Married people tend to be wealthier, contributing more to the economy, and more stable, less apt to engage in destructive behavior. Married people are also better foster and adoptive parents, perhaps unable to have children, but able to raise other people's children to be productive members of society. So, your whole argument is based on a false premise, that the only societal benefit, and thus the only reason to give financial benefits to couples, is the production of children.
Slashdot Mirror
I did computer security for a major San Francisco medical marijuana club, a very well respected non-profit group that was instrumental in working with the city health department to craft guidelines and city card procedures, and with the police in sensitivity training. After a long day of product testing, I relaxed with some more product testing.
All in all, you'd be surprised by the high quality of work that got done. And so would I, as I can't remember any of it.
The medical marijuana community encourages the use of techniques including vaporizing, tinctures, hash oil and other concentrates, pot goodies like brownies, and other methods of reducing harm. People with severe HIV or cancer often can't even use a vaporizer, so edibles or tinctures are called for. People using marijuana as replacement therapy for harder drugs sometimes don't have the money for a vaporizer, and need a longer lasting high, so they are encouraged to try edibles.
Remember, pipes and joints and even vaporizers spread hepatitis. Use a chillum when sharing.
And then MacGuyver would build a fractionating column to distill hash oil to use in his vaporizer, so the quality of the marijuana would matter very little to MacGuyver, and he wouldn't need these reviews.
I thought only pinko lefty hippie PC police were allowed to whine that the phrase 'don't get your panties in a bunch' is sexual harassment.
If the incidents you mention actually happened, that was wrong. All I can say is, people get angry when they feel that other people are trying to tell them what they can and can't do. Not an excuse, just an observation.
Most homosexuals I've known have had FAR WORSE things happen to them at least once in their lives.
Look, I know you aren't allowed to talk about what you really do in your religion, which means you are kind of required to call me a liar, so I forgive you.
Okay, point by point.
1. I agree. But you haven't presented a case NOT to redefine marriage, and I have presented a case for redefining it, which can be encapsulated by 'Separate but equal is inherently unequal.' Look it up, it's kind of a famous case.
2.) It doesn't matter whether marriage is a right or not. The whole concept of rights is just a semantic game played by the powerless to try to convince the powerful not to screw with them. We are a democracy, so whatever the people say, goes (so long as it follows the constitution. If you want to change THAT, you need a lot more people to agree.) The real issue is the rights that come with marriage, if we can get those, the rest is not as important, except that the definition of marriage as 'one man, one woman' is the law of a particular family of religions, and by imposing that religious definition on all of us, you are restricting our freedom of religion.
3.) We agree about tax exempt law, okay? 501(c)3 organizations are restricted in what they are allowed to do. Certain people felt that certain 501(c)3 groups that happen to be religious went beyond that, and they brought it to the attention of the authorities. Nobody was trying to restrict religion, just the actions of 501(c)3 organizations they believed were breaking the law.
4.) I never even implied what you state here. OF COURSE religious people should vote their conscience. BUT, as I said before, tax exempt 501(c)3 organizations can lose their tax exempt status if they cross the line, and that is not persecution of religion, it is THE LAW.
Well, it's almost time to go home. Lucky for me, I'm a very good sysadmin and most days, I don't have much to do because everything is just running smoothly. It was nice debating with you. While I disagree with you, I'm glad we both live in a country where we can have these kinds of arguments. That is something we can both feel good about. Public policy debate by regular old citizens like you and me is the rock we grow our Republic on. Remember that, whoever wins this one.
Well, we'll see who wins this fight, won't we? Obviously, you know which side I'm rooting for. In the long run, my side wins. The younger generation just doesn't care. Homosexuality has become commonplace, routine, accepted. They are not growing up with a culture of hate and fear. They accept homosexuality. Your side has already lost. It just might take a generation for it to catch up with you.
Okay, I'm willing to agree that marriage is a privilege, granted by the STATE. So, we can use our democratic process to change the criteria for privilege, and you can no longer claim the religious high ground, because you've just discounted it.
It does not matter whether marriage is a privilege or a right, gays want it, and you haven't stated why gays should be denied the privilege. Remember, 'that's the way things have always been' is not a reason why things should stay that way. And while "I don't like it" is certainly a legitimate personal reason to oppose something, it won't go very far in converting the undecided.
No, no law could possibly require churches to perform gay weddings against their will. Separation of Church and State. It would require a constitutional amendment, and last time I checked, your side was the one pursuing that option.
You guys are BOTH Mormons? I should have guessed. You guys got schooled on the marriage thing WAY back, and if you can't have your fun, why, no one else can, either.
Wait, sexual harassment? Where did THAT come from? Man you religious types love your persecution complex, don't you? Although, to be fair to the other Christians, I probably shouldn't group you in with them. You know they don't want you guys, right? According to them, you aren't even Christian, you're just some cult that got lucky.
Look, you Mormons are the ones who think talking about underwear in public is rude, because no matter how you try to defend it, you know how your little customs look to outsiders. Especially Christians.
We in the modern world have no qualms talking about our underwear. Mine are Haines boxer briefs and they are quite comfortable. Do you know, I'm allowed to take them completely off? Anytime I like? I don't have to wear them around one leg when I'm in the shower. It's awesome. I also don't have to leave one pair around one leg as I start putting another one on the other leg. You see, I don't use my underwear to repel sin, so there is no requirement that I keep at least one pair of magic sin repelling underwear on at all times.
Okay. I should stop now. I should probably apologize, too. I'm sorry. That was mean. Look, I really try to respect people's religions, even though I don't agree with them, or think they are goofy. Religions are all equally goofy to me, but I'm glad you have one if it makes you happy.
It's just, you know, you guys have a history of being oppressed for your religion and I'd expect a little more sympathy out of you. Why do you continue to try to fit in to a Christianity that rejects you? Let's team up, we can get gay marriage for the gays and polygamous marriage for you guys!
I know what garments do. He doesn't call them magic underwear, I do.
Anyway, you guys really got your scripture out of a hat? From one guy translating a language no one had heard of before, using magic lenses? And when a clever skeptic claimed to have lost the translation, and asked your dude to retranslate, he got furious and claimed that, because she lost the translation, God had changed things and he couldn't retranslate the same way? And you BELIEVE all this?
And God Sent Jesus to America, but no one except you guys have ever heard of it? And the 'Red Man' is somehow cursed, and a lesser person, for what reason, exactly?
You honestly have no idea to what I am referring? No clue why the majority of Christians, let alone anyone else, thinks of your church as a cult that grew too big, a legal hustle for con men, something invented out of whole cloth by a guy who just wanted to marry lots of women? Do they not let you watch TV in the compound? Not to be a bigot or anything, I think most religions are as wacky as yours, but you guys don't have the best reputation amongst other religious types.
I don't want to change people's definitions of marriage, I just want to change the law. You can go on defining it however you like, but I don't want you continuing to impose your definition on me. You are conflating 'definition' and 'law' as if they were the same thing, they are not. The law says a corporation is a person. Would you define a corporation as a person?
You are trying to continue to limit my freedoms, without justification. I am not trying to impose anything on you, if you want to keep on considering marriage to be between a man and woman only, be my guest. I just refuse to allow you to continue to force your religious beliefs on me.
Yes, I want to change the law. That's how a democracy works, we get a say in shaping the law. You can advocate to keep it the same. We'll see who wins, won't we?
But you keep switching back and forth between personal definition and law, between what is and what should be, between democracy and religion, without stopping to consider the boundaries you've crossed as you do so.
If this is a democracy, and law is only what the citizens say it is, as limited by the Constitution, then you can't claim the moral high ground over the definition of marriage, as that definition comes from a vote, and we can just vote it out. If your side turns out to be the minority, it would be really, really gauche to turn around and try to claim oppressed minority status, to claim that the majority imposed its will on you. Yes, if we do force our will on you, we force our will on you, as intended by our founding fathers. That's how democracy works. You can't pick and choose, upholding it when you win, reneging on the agreement when your side loses. By participating in our Democracy, you agree to follow the laws the majority sets, until and if you can get them changed.
In the end, I fail to see how changing this law imposes anything real on you. It would mean you need to, OH MY GOD! change the definition of a word. Oh no. Horrible. I'd just kill myself if I had to change my definition of a word! Nothing would require you to actually do anything. Or not do anything. In fact, aside from having to acknowledge that the majority as changed our definition our definition of word, and that the law has changed, nothing at all would be required of you. You wouldn't even need to change your definition of marriage. You could continue to say, 'To me, and to my religion, marriage means one man one woman.' Nobody would stop you. You could even look a gay couple in the eyes and say, 'In my eyes, you two aren't married and you are living in sin.' No one could stop you.
I have demonstrated that changing the law would not require you to change anything, but would allow others more freedom. And you are against that. While I support your freedom to express your opinion, my opinion is that your position is immoral, tyrannical, oppressive, bigoted, closed minded, petty, and mean.
Right, so you'd be fine with the country changing its mind and democratically granting the right to marry to anyone. You aren't even presenting an argument anymore, you are just stating, 'this is how things currently are.' Well, duh. Yes, we know that's how things are, and I, for one, have presented an argument, that is, a series of assertions and logical connections leading up to a conclusion, as to why things should change. You, on the other hand, have not presented an argument as to why they should stay the same. Just to be clear, 'that's the way things are' is not a reason why things should stay the same.
I'm not saying religion can't be involved. I'm saying, tax exempt 501(c)3 corporations, including tax exempt religious institutions, are limited by law in advocating legislation, unless they want their tax exempt privileges taken away. If a religion does not care about 501(c)3 status, it can advocate whatever it likes, but if it goes around collecting signatures to change the law, it is in violation of the law. Which is all the gay activists were pointing out. They just want justice to be applied impartially, and the law is the law, right?
I mean, let's put things in perspective, YOU were the one bleating about the nasty gay activists trying to silence you, right? Which is a blatant misrepresentation, those gay activists just want the law, as it currently stands, applied impartially, and you, by your own logic, are all for that, so we've got no argument on that count, right? The gays are right and you know it. Tax exempt churches collecting signatures to change laws are breaking the law, and should lose their tax exempt status.
Well, it really is the best way forward on this. The government issues civil union contracts for anyone, granting them all the same rights, like hospital visitation, inheritance, things like that, that are the concern of civil government. Religions that have an opinion on it can issue their own marriage contracts to whoever they feel qualifies, with whatever rights and responsibilities the religion is concerned with. Getting a religious marriage license does not mean you have a civil union in the eyes of the state, or vice versa. If you want both, you get both. There are plenty of churches and pastors out there that will marry gays, right now, today, if you ask them to. 'Marriage,' in that system, would not mean anything special to anyone outside of your religion, it would be a religious agreement. If a particular religion wanted to marry cats and dogs, that would be fine, because the religious contract would carry no legal rights, and 'marriage' would be a legally meaningless concept.
Ah. You are a Mormon. Just so you know, the man my wife and I are dating was a Mormon. He's still Christian (some would say, NOW a Christian, as most Christians don't think you guys are) but he goes to a more tolerant Lutheran church now.
We hear ALL about your religion from him. Not that there's anything wrong with it. Just that, you know, all the, hmmm, silly little things your religion advocates? I know ALL about them. Even the patently ridiculous ones you wish people don't know about, the stuff that could get you excommunicated (you guys are plain CRAZY for that one, eh?) for talking about, yeah, we know that stuff.
Hope the magic underwear isn't bunching up too badly.
Denying marriage to polygamous families is just as wrong as denying it to homosexuals.
You have it backwards. I don't care how you define 'marriage,' but you are not allowed to impose your definition on me. That is what you are trying to do, and you have the utter hypocrisy to claim that by refusing to let you impose your view on me, I am the one imposing my view on you.
If you can't see the complete lack of logic there, I can't really help you.
Nobody is saying trying to limit what you say. You, a human, have freedom of speech. A 501(c)3 corporation is not a human, and has more limited rights. A religious person may help shape the law, a tax exempt religious institution may not, and that IS the law. Your religious institution is not allowed the privilege of tax exempt status while advocating for changes in the law.
Assuming for the moment that you are right and that marriage is a privilege, you need to show why we should restrict certain people from enjoying that privilege. And, as marriage is a privilege granted by the state, religion has nothing to do with it. It is not a religious matter, marriage is a matter for the state. If you can't show a reason why gays should be restricted from marrying other gays, then you have no case.
What 'duties' does marriage legally entail, that gays can not fulfill? If you can not show any, then we have to assume your drivers license comparison is spurious, because we can show logical reasons for every person we restrict from having one.
Wow. So you're saying anything not explicitly prohibited is permitted?
I don't know. It's your religion, right? What does it say, hmmmm, you tell me.
Who are you to decide what the spirit of the law is? I say, the spirit of the law is 'love each other and treat each other as you would be treated,' and you are completely ignoring THAT, the CORE of your religion's value system, so don't even try that argument.
My religion practices gay marriage. By restricting 'marriage' to only what your religion defines it as, you are imposing your religious beliefs on me, and limiting my religious freedoms.
You can vote however you like, and espouse whatever kind of bigoted, hateful crap you like. You are even free to cloak it in spurious and unsupported arguments about religion and God, if you like.
I AM a polyamorist, ten years into a man-woman marriage, two years into a man-woman-man relationship. I DO advocate for poly marriage rights, as much as for gay marriage rights. So, looks like someone kinda got egg on their face there, trying to appeal to a prejudice that simply doesn't exist in me.
Now, I would be fine with your last suggestion as well, as long as two men married by a church could call themselves married, if they got a civil union from the state and a separate marriage ceremony from their church. There are two parts to marriage, the part the state has an interest in, and the part religion has an interest in. If they were fully separate, I would be fine with that. But my religion is legitimate, and it practices gay marriage, and I will continue to use MY definition of marriage, not yours. You do not get to impose your religious beliefs on my religion, no matter how you try to justify it, you can't do it thanks to the Constitution.
You say your religion teaches that homosexual marriage will damage the fundamental building blocks of society. Fine, that is a minority opinion even in Christianity, but whatever, people are allowed to be wrong. You don't say how, or why you think that, except that your religion told you so. I say the institution of marriage is a stabilizing factor in society, regardless of the sexual orientation of the participants. Married people are more stable, contribute more to society, are less apt to engage in risky behavior, and care more for their community in general. They provide more stable family situations to any foster or adoptive children they may take in. All in all, marriage is a benefit to society, and there is simply no good reason to restrict anyone who wants to engage in it from doing so. In fact, restricting marriage in any way is against societies best interest.
You should be able to marry your sister. And if genetic screenings say you won't make web footed duck babies, you should be able to have kids with her too.
Why should anyone have the power to determine who gets to produce children and with whom?
LK
Damn it, they shouldn't! I was trying to head off the 'but think of the resulting web footed duckboys!' arguments that were sure to ensue if I had just said, 'You should be able to marry your sister.' People in these kinds of arguments love to run a tangent completely out of bounds and then claim a touchdown.
Well I'm glad you agree that marriage is defined by the state, and not by religions. Therefore, religions should have no say, this is a civil matter. The fact that your religion does not approve of gay marriage has no bearing on whether it should be allowed or not, by your own logic.
Now, what would you call it, a privilege? If so, why should that privilege be reserved for only certain people? If a privilege, it is one that entails certain advantages, those advantages should be open to all, equally. As we have shown in court in the past, 'separate but equal' is not equal. Drinking from a water fountain isn't a right, either, yet we ruled that everyone, regardless of color, must be allowed to drink from the same fountain.
I respect your line of reasoning. It is, in its way, very compelling. I, however, do not hold any sort of reverence for abstract property rights. Now, rights to personal property, I respect. But I believe rights to control of the means of production derive not from individual property rights, but from society. The means of production should be under democratic, not individual control.
You see, respect for property rights above all else leads to evil, in my opinion. As Adam Smith said, "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all. "
Absolute property rights are just a way of institutionalizing power, by an elite few, over the rest of us, and justifying economic slavery as liberty.
Your religion is not the only one, and the Constitution protects all religions equally. My religion recognizes same sex marriages, and performs said ceremonies. By denying me the right to call what my religion does 'marriage' you are infringing on my freedom of religion. Sorry, you lose and my right to religious freedom wins. Ahhhh, love that US Constitution, don't you?
You guys keep setting them up, I'll keep knocking them down. You can't win. Especially in the long run. You know what your grandkids are going to think of you? Very likely, what the integrated grandchildren of racists think of them. The next generation simply is not frightened of homosexuality and sees no need to make this an issue.
Just so you know, fifty years from now nobody will even understand how you could have held the position you do now. Bigotry is ending and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it in the long run. It's a done deal.
Freedom of religion is a right enshrined in the Constitution. My religion practices ceremonies related to marriage, and does so for same sex marriages. By denying my religion the right to practice those ceremonies, you are denying my freedom of religion.
Show me where in the New Testament homosexuality, including lesbianism, is forbidden. I'll wait while you look that up. I'll want a passage that restricts all forms of homosexuality, not just certain types of sexual practices. Otherwise, we'll need to make some exceptions.
You do understand that people have differences of opinion over what scripture means, right? Luther thought one thing, the Pope thought something else. Who decides who is right? Last I checked, God doesn't seem interested in making those calls, so it is up to fallible human beings to make the decisions as to the correct interpretation of scripture.
I already mentioned religions that approve of gay marriage. I assume you would be fine with religions that approve of it performing it and calling it 'marriage.' If not, please explain why fundamentalist Muslims should not be allowed to tell you that your wife needs to wear a bhurka at her marriage. Either you want to dictate what other religions consider marriage, or you don't, and if you do want that, it can work against you far easier than it can work for you.
I can't 'show you the rights that would be lost' because very few states even have domestic partnership laws. Those that do, do not confer all of the rights of marriage. As far as I'm concerned, the major right that is lost is the right to practice your own religion. If you say that NO RELIGION can practice gay marriage, no matter what their beliefs, you are limiting my religious freedom and infringing on my rights.
You may change your stance now, thank you very much.
Freedom of religion is enshrined in the Constitution. My religion recognizes gay marriage. You have no right to limit my practice of religion, according to the Constitution, and my religion practices gay marriage, and calls it marriage. You have no right to limit my freedom of religion, get it? And you have no right to say what is and what is not a legitimate religion, says so in the Constitution.
I'll be awaiting your change of stance with bated breath.
Your definition of marriage is not the definition of marriage. Your religion can define what your religion's version of marriage means, but it can not define what my religion's definition of marriage is, and you can not tell me that my religion isn't as legitimate as yours, that is kind of in the Constitution.
You realize that what you call 'backlash,' gay people call 'defending their beliefs,' right?
Also, you state that homosexuals don't want to force churches to marry them. This has been proven untrue. Many adoption agencies, doctors, and churches have been sued for similar cases in the United States and outside of the United states.
[citation needed] or put another way [you are lying.]
You can argue from religion. But there are many religions in this free land of ours, and yours doesn't trump anyone else's.
As I stated before, no 501(c)3 organization, be it educational, religious, or charitable, is allowed to campaign, donate to a campaign, or advocate for changes to the law. That does not apply only to churches, in fact, if churches wanted to give up their tax exempt status they can lobby all they like, and some do. The law applies to anyone claiming tax exempt status. So, either keep your church out of the legislative process like it should be, or lose your tax exempt status like any other 501(c)3 caught cheating.
This is the Internet. When you make outrageous claims such as 'Specifically, some studies have shown that the child-rearing environment provided by gay couples is less healthy for children than that provided by heterosexual couples.' You need to cite those studies. Otherwise, people simply won't believe you. Same thing for your 'raised by gays makes you gay' claim.
There are definitely no ill effects to being raised by two gay people, outside of the oppression that goes along with being gay. Do away with the oppression, and you've done away with the problem.
What rights, in what states, do civil unions confer? You don't even know, do you?
Nobody is forcing anyone to change their definition of the word marriage. You can believe marriage is a bowl of ice cream for all I care. We are asking the government to not exclude homosexuals from being married. Nobody is going to force you to marry a gay.
We aren't talking about definitions of words, we're talking about laws. People who support gays marrying aren't the minority, people who want to restrict other people's rights are. You and the other religious bigots like to think you are the majority, but you aren't. Look at any polls on the matter and you will see that you aren't. You can go on thinking marriage is whatever you like, nobody is asking you to change your definition. We are saying, you can't dictate what others call marriage. You think it is okay for you to dictate to me what my definition of marriage is, but not the other way around. That's hypocritical.
You still have not shown any reason to deny gay people the right to marriage. The only reason you have given boils down to, 'it would make me uncomfortable, and I believe the majority of people are just like me.'
If we did manage to get gay civil unions, which we don't actually have yet, gay people would still say they were married and you would be unable to stop them. They would not say, 'this is my civil partner, Frank.' They would say, 'This is my husband, Frank.' Heck, they do now.
But how does any of this even impact you? Why do you care? Are you similarly worked up over other redefinitions of words, like how awful used to mean 'full of awe or awe inspiring' and now it means 'terrible,' or how property used to mean 'places, or things, or animals, or black people,' and now it does not include the latter?
You do not get to define religion, sorry. You don't get to say that someone's 'changes' are not legitimate. By your logic, Martin Luther had no right to change things.
But in any case, Buddhism has never had a ban on gay marriages, so any Buddhist sects performing them would have to be legitimate in your eyes, as they haven't changed anything that was originally in their religion, and they are legitimate religion recognized in the United States.
You do understand that homosexual civil unions don't exist in most states, right?
Marriage is a legal right. You see, there are two different definitions of marriage. There is marriage as it relates to the state, and marriage as it relates to a particular religion. While religious marriage might not be a legal right, one does not even need to practice a religion in order to be legally married by the state. That is a right, as recognized by the state, not a particular religion. I was not married in a church, but I am legally married and that status confers certain rights and responsibilities on my partner and I.
Historically, the word 'marriage' did not include partners of different races. We saw that that was unfair, and changed it. Just because something is a particular way does not make it right, That's known as the 'is/aught fallacy.' We used to consider black people to be property. It was part of the definition of property. We changed that too.
Your argument boils down to 'this is the way it has always been, and therefore this is the way it should always be.' You do see the problem with that line of reasoning, don't you?
As I and others have stated, there are far more societal benefits of marriage than the production of children. Married people tend to be wealthier, contributing more to the economy, and more stable, less apt to engage in destructive behavior. Married people are also better foster and adoptive parents, perhaps unable to have children, but able to raise other people's children to be productive members of society. So, your whole argument is based on a false premise, that the only societal benefit, and thus the only reason to give financial benefits to couples, is the production of children.