I can’t believe I keep doing this, but don’t you understand that EVERY law “oppresses” somebody? Laws against speeding punish aggressive people who wish to drive fast. Laws against polygamy oppress people who wish to live in multiple person households construed in that fashion. Civil rights laws impose on private property rights.
But it doesn’t matter, you say, because homosexuality is an inherent trait and that any type of law that distinguishes on that ground is bigotry and not worthy of a good faith opposition. I say that is a dangerous position to take because I could say that opposition to concealed carry means that you want my family unprotected and by definition, want to kill them. Not a worthy position.
Then you would come back and say that is different because there are other ways to protect my family, it’s not an inherent trait. I will say that the right to self-defense is inherent…then we descend into a 52 page thread.
The bottom line is that Godwinizing a position by simply labeling it bigotry and unworthy of debate is something that divides the country and what your side has accused our side of doing. The next time you argue something, I’m going to say it’s the same thing as legal slavery was in 1860, and marginalize you.
[QUOTE=Sir T-Cups]
There is a big difference in me posting here saying “I think marriage is between a man and a woman and a same sex union should be a different title”, and standing on the street corner with a “God Hates Fags” sign.
[/quote]
So the opinions of homosexuality of Fred Phelps and his family, people who even Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell denounced as first order lunatics, are as reasonable as anybody else’s?
Are you perhaps equating the adjectives reasonable and legal?
First off, this has been one of the greatest posts I’ve ever read on the dope period, much less in a thread that’s one giant argument. I never thought you were being attacking or snarky, you were being logical straightforward and posed questions without being derogatory or…well…just plain mean. I’ve sat and thought about everything and I have no idea how to do those little quotes in between phrases so I’ll do them in a list format.
You are correct in that there is no verse in the Bible that uses the phrase as I did, to be totally honest that was probably just a buzz phrase that I grew up hearing and took it as such. The verse, and mindset, that I am going off of is in Genesis when “a man and a woman are to become one flesh”, coupled with the numerous references in the bible as marriages being between men and women, not necessarily while talking about marriage about about loving your woman and how special women are (more precious than rubies).
Yes God created gay people, but I do not believe he created people as gay or straight. God gives us free will and I believe part of that free will is being gay or not. When it comes to gay animals (like monkeys I don’t believe they are making the conscious effort to be gay, but rather just like sex. (On a side note I believe there are people who aren’t truly gay but just like sex so much they just don’t care, which I put into a different category than a gay man).
If Jesus came to Earth today and we asked him this question I believe his answer would be this, which is the way that I live my life and hold my viewpoint when it comes to gay people: “My father created men and women so that they may be here on Earth for each other, compliment each other in ways that only men cannot, and that men and women are to leave their homes and become one flesh together in marriage. But this does not mean that gay people are any less of people, or that their love for each other is any less then that of a man and a woman and they should receive no hate because of who they are. After all the number one rule is love thy neighbor as yourself”.
Your entire last paragraph is 1000% true. Every. Single. Word of it. I have no doubts that after some long and hard reflection over the topic (which I haven’t done because I’m honestly not THAT adamant about it) I could very easily change my opinion on it when I get some good healthy arguments against it.
I can’t believe you think that’s a rational argument.
Yes, all laws disadvantage someone to some degree or another. But the measure of a good law is, “Is the disadvantage to those people outweighed by the advantages this law gives to society, or the protections it grants to other people in that society?” A 55 mph speed limit disadvantages people who want to drive really, really fast, but it advantages society by making it possible for the rest of us to use the roads in a reasonable degree of safety. Laws against sexual assault disadvantage rapists, but that’s outweighed by allowing other people to walk the streets in some reasonable degree of safety. And laws against gay marriage disadvantage gay people, but that’s made up because outlawing gay marriage helps society by…
Okay, you’re going to have to help me out on this part. How does that help society again? What advantage is there to outlawing gay marriage, other than being a dick to gay people? I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that you don’t have a good reason for that. When people pass laws that disadvantage a group of people for no good reason, we generally call that oppression. We generally do not apply the term to anyone who is prevented by any law from doing whatever the hell they want to do. Because if we used the word to mean that, the word would be pretty much useless.
No because that is not a reasonable way of expressing the opinion. The fault isn’t by HAVING the opinion, the fault is the means to express it…which is usually (and often in the case of the big nutjobs…religious ones included) where the reason goes way out the window
Each person with that opinion has their own reasons for having it, which is why the opinion itself is reasonable. But legality has a big effect on when it stops being legal
Society has been served for many thousands of years by heterosexual only marriage. The burden is on the opposition to prove the need for change.
That being said, “for no good reason” is a matter of opinion. I don’t think that there is any good reason that the law requires me to wear a seat belt in my own car when I have my own health insurance with money in the bank to pay for any excess charges.
The term “group of people” is also subjective. You see gay people as a “group.” I could easily define polygamists, prostitutes, drug users, alcoholics, or people building without a permit as “groups of people”. You say homosexuality is inherent. We can disagree over what is inherent. Child molesters certainly have an inherent propensity.
We could debate on how they affect or not affect other people (never mind that affecting other people has never been a standard of law) but we can stop all of that by just drawing a line in the sand and saying, “You bad, me good.”
That’s yet another attempt to create a false equivalency. Preventing someone from oppressing others is not the same as oppressing them.
It’s bigotry because it’s motivated by malice and religious fanaticism, not facts of any kind.
Considering that homosexuals were one of the groups put into Nazi concentration camps, and imprisoned all over again once the Allies found out what the pink triangle meant, it’s rater ridiculous to complain about the issue being “Godwinized”. Especially when you add in things like the support of American Christians for things like the Ugandan push to make homosexuality a capital crime; I see no reason to think that they wouldn’t gleefully push for the mass extermination of American homosexuals as well if they thought it was achievable. Present day homophobes are the intellectual brethren of Hitler, whether they like to admit it or not.
Just out of curiosity for those who oppose SSM, how does it feel being on the wrong side of history? Because no matter how much you rail against or try to prevent this, it’s going to happen. So, what does that make you think?