This is brilliant stuff.

Thank you. I don't support gay marriage myself, mainly because I grew up in a Christian household(notice I say Christian, not hateful, so don't automatically lump the two together). I don't hate gay people at all. In fact, I just went to my first local furmeet last week, and I didn't even know 2 of them were gay, and they're cool guys. I just don't approve of the lifestyle, but it's not my place to judge them. Unless they're one of those faggots wearing rainbows and shit and looking/acting very pretentious like a stereotypical gay person. They are the definition of the (slang)term faggot.

As a furry, you really should be more sensitive to stereotyping and name calling.

Generally speaking I am. I was merely making a point by using exaggeration for emphasis, good sir. :)

yep, welcome of a new world where thought police wants you to believe anyone who disagree with same sex marriage is an homophobe, a double hitler monster or some shit.
lately the drama about Mozilla's CEO shown how far these whiners can go. "BOYCOTT MOZILLA BECUASE MUH HUMAN RIGHTS".

that's a form of globalized state of mind. actually i live in france and we're dealing with the same shit here. they have their same-sex marriage - most homosexual people i know lived fine without it and were opposed to that law, but there was no referendum or vote, over 90% of the population was opposed to it but they passed it.

it's not democracy. i'm rather atheist but a society needs morals. our civilization is built on christian principles and bowing down to a minority is not a way to go.

(well imho, the big thing from socioliberals is to actually destroy all the moral and values and build their new world order, a brainless and ball-less society based on consumerism )

I've come to the point where I'm sick of everyone whining about racism and homosexual rights and this other bullshit. Yea, it sucks, and some of it should probably go away. But maybe you should just GROW THE FUCK UP AND DEAL WITH IT. THIS IS THE REAL WORLD. Like seriously, what are you, 5 years old? Going to cry because some other stupid kid called you ugly or whatever? Come on, I thought we were all adults here.

And I agree with you all the way dude. The gay rights movement is pretty much the exact same thing as the green movement was years ago: A political agenda. No one actually gives a shit about the environment, and the same thing is probably the case now with the gay rights movement.

i dunno man, friend of mine got put into the hospital for a few weeks last year simply because he kissed his boyfriend outside of the cinema. you're probably gonna say that it was an exception, but there's still plenty of violent racists and homophobes, heterophobes and transphobes. don't get me wrong, the sjw movement is a lot of bollocks, but there's still a fair few issues that need sorting out.

Slightly confused here, as you've been less than direct. What ARE the "apparent" goals of the "gay movement"? and...what the hell is the gay movement? I mean, I'm gay, and I've been missing all~ the emails over our secret agendas. Shame too, I was really digging the one about how gay marriage secretly leads to Super-AIDS.

The gay movement is the trend of various 'gay rights' organizations to push for more than just basic rights for homosexuals; they push for, through the courts (more the former than the latter, as even in liberal places people tend to vote against them), for the following;

To force all manners of business to recognize their union and participate if requested. If a florist, for instance, doesn't want to assist in the decorating of the wedding, they are sued; if a cake maker doesn't want to bake them a cake, they are sued. If a company doesn't want to cover their 'domestic partner' for insurance? They're - you guessed it - sued! They'll sue over the smallest slight, no matter the reason.

To force all manners of business to accept homosexuality itself. Not just weddings; it's on the books that it's illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Yes, it's stupid to discriminate based on sexual orientation alone, but that doesn't mean that you or I or government or anyone else has the right to force them to do business with anyone they don't wish to do business with. You are not mandated to buy your products from certain companies, or are you mandated to sell your labor to others; businesses should not, either.

To force churches to close down or face stiff fines (ie, heavier taxes) for not marrying homosexual couples. For all the talk about 'gay marriage not hurting anyone', the organization of many churches would have to be majorly and catastrophically restructured if gay marriage was recognized by the state.

To receive all of the special legal benefits of marriage that many other groups, by definition, cannot (and should not) enjoy. Besides special tax breaks afforded by marriage and the graduated income tax if there is a significant disparity in income, they can also enjoy many special forms of inheritance welfare (Social Security coming to mind, as well as certain veterans benefits) that no one else can enjoy. IMHO, no one should be getting these benefits; government should not be giving them out in the first place. Pushing for the program to be expanded in the name of 'equality' just compounds the problem.




So, no; it has nothing to do with 'superaids' or whatever other red herrings you want to throw out there. If the gay rights movement simply pushed to have its contracts honored - such as right of attorney, dual ownership of property, etc - then I could get behind it. That's all a matter of consent between two parties - private contracts and agreements - and in some places those contracts are wrongfully ignored. But, by and large, the gay movement isn't pushing for equal standing in terms of legal protections; they're pushing for special benefits, and the suppression of the rights of others in their favor.

Insurance should be entirely non-discriminatory. It should focus on health risk, not belief statements, especially now that its federal mandate.

And as far as legal/illegal discrimination, if it doesn't hurt a business, then whysit matter? If its about hate/defense of old belief systems, why support that? I was raised to push for progress, not "liberal" progress but sheer blanketed progress. I think that any organization who does not directly(or justly) benefit when they deny rights should be penalized. If the only thing you get by telling someone no is a smug sense of self-aggrandizing importance, who are you helping? Florists and Bakers who cry foul because they don't want to make a cake have more money than problems. It doesn't hurt or negatively represent someone who bakes a cake for a gay wedding, at all. First world complaints have no real standing in an argument, its there for attention or ego stroking.

Churches aren't going to be forced by the government to hold gay ceremonies. Separation of church and state readily protects a church organization from that.

And if straight couples get marriage benefits, and a gay couple is identical for all practical comparison, why cant they also get married? Provide the defining, relevant difference that denies a gay couple when it wouldn't deny a straight couple.

And as a final note, you live in the system and reap the benefits of the system. Don't carrying some separatist anarchist flag with a "butt out, guv'mint." attitude until you stop using any of the benefits of the government. No roads, no EPA, no public schooling (which did a hell of a job of inflating your ego). Nothing.

The fact of the matter is that people with an eye for progress are the reason you never worked in a coal mine or meat packing plant as a kid, and that you only have to work 40 hours as an adult. Nearly every benefit you take for granted had naysayers in its time, and so far, we've got a decent track record of staying afloat. Yes, in the present there's always going to an issue or two.



But in closing, the fact that you can get on your moral highhorse(more of a jackass in this situation, but all the same) and bitch while it does nothing to hurt you, at all, is proof that you've got no room to complain. Preservation of personal ethical morality by someone who isn't chained to a wall is an attention seeking farce. So, unless you can show a clear reason why gay couples shouldn't be allowed the same rights as straight couples, pull your head out of your ass and get some fresh air.


Oh, I'll save you some time. "Slippery slope" isn't justification, its called paranoia. They have pills for that.

Insurance companies should be allowed to set what rates they want, how they want, and bear the natural repercussions for it.

Likewise, a business should be allowed to serve or not serve who it wants. Whether their bottom line is hurt or not is irrelevant; it's THEIR business, not yours. When you tell them, "you may not discriminate against this group or we'll shut you down", guess what? That's hurting the business. I may not approve of how they behave, but so long as they're not hurting anyone (and not serving someone or hiring someone, no matter the reason, does NOT qualify as harm), they should be able to operate how they wish. And, anyway, it's revealing of your ignorance that you think 'the only thing they get' out of refusing service is a 'smug sense of self-aggrandizing importance'. These people have deeply held principles, and to dismiss them so casually...

Churches won't be forced by government to hold gay ceremonies? HAH! That's rich. Many have already been penalized. You don't have to ban something to punish it to the point of being de-facto illegal. Re-read what I said about taxes and churches.

"If a straight couple gets marriage benefits, and a gay couple is identical for all practical comparisons, therefore they should get the same benefits" - ignoring the factual debatability of that statement, you are still discriminating - people with more than one mate, for instance, are being discriminated against. As are people who want to 'marry' (but not have sexual relations with) their adult offspring, or their pets, or anything else not considered 'marriage' by contemporary culture. More to the point, and I have already said this, no one should be getting these benefits because it is not government's proper place to be giving people benefits for personal life choices.

"And as a final note, you live in the system and reap the benefits of the system. Don't carrying some separatist anarchist flag with a "butt out, guv'mint." attitude until you stop using any of the benefits of the government. No roads, no EPA, no public schooling (which did a hell of a job of inflating your ego). Nothing."

Sorry dearie, but I already pay for them - I have every right to get what I pay for. Moreover, I'm forced to pay for them, so I have every right to tell government that it's going much too far. Tell ya what; when the government allows people to secede and form their own micro-nations, we can try that out. Until then, STFU because there's no way I actually can stop paying for these things. If a group of like-minded individuals tried to settle an area of wilderness, do you know what would happen? When they succeeded in taming it, the Feds would get wind of it and come in to collect taxes.

While we're talking about ego, how about we talk about your own ego, thinking you have more right than a business to tell it how to behave and operate? At least I'm not trying to tell people how to live their own lives.

As for working in a meat packing plant, HAH. Yeah, nope. If it weren't for the steady crawl towards totalitarianism, we'd have even greater technological progress than we do now. Much of meat packing is already automated; I can scarcely imagine how much more streamlined it would be in a more free country. Mining, too, would be more automated. And let's assume for a moment they weren't. Why, supply and demand to the rescue! The miners have the freedom to go work elsewhere - and, once the economy improves further, other jobs would open up and other places would have work, drawing employees from the coal mines. There are several possibilities at this point - they may pay the miners more, or they may develop new innovations to make it more efficient, or they may shift to other forms of energy that are now less expensive than trying to attract more workers.

Oh, and don't give me that bullshit about public schooling; homeschooling, while more labor intensive for the parents, has so far proven superior to public schooling in nearly every way. I would have no problem seeing our bloated school system slowly collapse as more and more parents decide to homeschool their kids - but, see, liberals like you seem offended at the idea of allowing parents the choice, and shoot down school voucher systems wherever they crop up.


As for "not hurting me"? I go to a church, dearie, and it WILL hurt me; my church will have to reorganize, and face a much higher tax burden, if the gay movement gets its way. So will the additional transfer payments going out to more people as the Feds assume more and more control over our lives.

But, see... You didn't actually listen to any of that. Because you cannot fathom that the other side actually has legitimate grievances, you build up a mental block that prevents any and all thoughts contrary to the Party Line from entering and polluting your 'good little progressive think-meat'.

Also, because of your attitude and your insults, you are banned from my journal.

Churches won't be forced by government to hold gay ceremonies? HAH! That's rich. Many have already been penalized. You don't have to ban something to punish it to the point of being de-facto illegal. Re-read what I said about taxes and churches.

Citation needed. My next door neighbor has been legally married for over 50 years and her church won't recognize her marriage because she was divorced but never received an annulment from the church(at the time the church wanted like 3 grand to grant the annulment). Civil marriage is and should be separate from religious ones. Put bluntly, I don't believe in you're god, or his morality, why should I be forced to follow his rules?

As for the private business being sued for refusing same sex couples, the same antidiscrimination laws that they complain about protect them as Christians.

Is homeschooling being superior, I think it depends. American education system is FUBAR'd to begin with. 1 teacher with 30 students isn't going to be as effective as 1 student with 30 teachers. If that makes sense I dunno >.>


I'll end by saying one of my father's cliché's
" I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll fight to the death for you're right to say it"
That's what I love most about America.

Just because ONE couple isn't suing a church doesn't mean others won't. However, it does happen and it has happened. I cannot find the older article - it was from several years ago, but I remember it happened in a state that started with an "M", if that helps - but they are suing in other countries, and I see no reason why they can't do that here:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/i-.....r-refusing-wed

Moreover, they have sued wedding photographers:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/co.....o-gay-couples/

Florists, too:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/.....n_3516294.html

In any case, no, those anti discrimination laws don't protect them as Christians; if you wanted to discriminate against them because of their beliefs, you have every right to do so as a consumer.



So, why should anyone be forced to enter into a contract they don't agree with, regardless of their reasons? Why should they, in essence, be made a slave just to salve your delicate sensibilities?

Also, this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/....._n_154128.html

The church had a space that they rented out to people regularly; when a gay couple wanted to rent it out for their wedding, and the church refused, the gay couple sued on the grounds that it was discriminatory to offer the space for other weddings and other purposes but not their own.

Xd this don't just apply to gay movements it's how ALL the usa is there sue happy babies who if they don't get there way they try to sue some one or blame some one else besides them self..

Why do you draw an imaginary line between "basic rights" - like not being discriminated against by the government when you want equal taxation for homosexual and heterosexual couples, and, well, rights - like being served by all businesses equally. What's the difference

Because there is a difference between being secure in your life, liberty, and property, and someone else owing you something. Ideally, there would be no taxation - but barring that, the infringement upon people's rights should be done as equitably as possible. Maintaining the current situation is bad enough, and extending it will only compound the problem.

To put it another way, when I claim the right to life, liberty, and property, I claim the right to what is rightfully mine. When you claim the right to non-discrimination, you are claiming the right to force another to NOT have the right to their own property, inasmuch as they refuse you service.

So is it fair that a company may refuse to give equal service to a black couple as to a white couple? On the grounds that it's their property and they can service people as they please?

You seem to be operating under the presumption that "if it's not nice, it shouldn't be legal". This, for obvious reasons, is not a good foundation for law.

It is their right to provide or not provide service as they see fit - not because it is right for them to do so, necessarily, but because it is absolutely wrong to deny them the right to their own property.

Re: Hospital Visits; a hospital is a private entity, a private business. Who they allow to visit patients should be up to them. Yes, government has passed laws that mandate that they accept emergency cases, and has offered them funding. So? They did not ask to be forced to accept emergency cases, and if you're worried about them getting funding then maybe you should ask why the Federal Government is giving out your tax dollars so freely.

Re: Other legal benefits;
Again, these are BENEFITS, not RIGHTS, and many come at the expense of others. No one should have these 'rights', and expanding them is contrary to the liberties of all of us.

Let me guess, you're a fan of Ayn Rand?

Some of her theories, yes - many of them accurately model human behavior and the repercussions of certain political theories. Others, not so much.

I do support gay rights mainly for the simple reason that who are any of us to dictate who we can and cannot love. Also on the legality front I support gay right for the same entitlements that traditional marriage provides. Wills, insurance, tax benefits, visitation rights, etc.

Ummm... You are aware that you're free to love your gay partner, yes? Government's not busting down your door and telling you that you can't.

As far as wills are concerned, you can will your stuff to anyone you want, family or not. Any state that hampers this is violating your freedom, I agree, but that's not a gay rights issue, that's an individual liberties issue.

Insurance benefits... No. Sorry, but an insurance company should have the right to insure, or not insure, whoever they wish, as well as charge what they wish for their services. Again, you have the right to buy from and sell to whoever you wish, without regards to the reason; companies should, too.

Tax benefits... Again, nope. No one should get tax benefits or detriments just because of their own personal choices in how they live their private life, so expanding those benefits just gets government MORE into the bedroom.

Visitation rights... Should be up to the hospital, who they allow to visit and why. It's their business, no matter how much government wants to make it their business of late.

although i don't understand how because they are gay an insurance firm would change rates.
take life insurance for example, just because you're gay you're not more likely to set yourself on fire or be in more car crashes.

So if a law firm was to alter their rates because they were gay then the only reason for it would be just because they are gay, planely, which is black and white discrimination and is illegal.

Actually, no, it would not be illegal. It would be discrimination, yes, but it would only be illegal in places that make it illegal. If you wish to argue that it is immoral, well, that's debatable - but if you did argue that the law should be that way because it's immoral to discriminate, you must also accept that others can make laws that regulate morality (ie, ones that restrict homosexuals and homosexual behavior), and I'm pretty sure you don't want that. Moreover, just because it discriminates doesn't automatically make it illegal; gay people tend to perform risky sexual behaviors much more often than straight people, and this creates higher medical costs, which in turn justifies higher rates. But, even if that were not the case, you cannot ignore one simple fact...

Whether it's moral or not to discriminate, it's a violation of basic rights to force a person to engage in a contract with someone they do not wish to. It is absolutely immoral to force them to do so.

sorry to say but you're discussing here with people who will refuse to understand your point and will always try to disagree with in this thread. although you're right.

now, people are obsessed by laws and rules established by the government. no more commonsense or even communication - there's people now who need the government everywhere to rule their life and decisions.

one thing i noticed with americans, most of the time there's a question they're asking before observing or doing something:
"is this legal"

this alone says a lot, and i think it just draws the whole problematic.

I'm going to add a bit to this, even thought the post is a bit dated. I actually agree with most of what you say here. Bit of background on me, I'm an insurance/tax advisor who focuses on retirement planning and estate planning for same sex couples.

As far as wills go... this doesn't even come in to play unless the same sex couple has an estate with a value of over around 5 million. The federal estate tax only applies to estates higher than this amount. So, unless the couple in question exceeds this amount, federal estate taxes aren't an issue. There are issues with pensions where same sex partners may not be able to receive spousal benefits, however, it's something that can be addressed with proper planning. Given the phasing out of most defined benefit plans, those of us in our 20's and 30's won't be affected by this either.

For Insurance benefits, I'm assuming we're talking health insurance. We can argue all day long as to whether or not same sex spouses should be able to be on their partners plan, but I don't think that's what the main issue is. Most of the insurance companies I've looked at personally for health are willing to allow a same sex partner, the issue comes in the employer not paying for the covered partner's insurance. Again, as we see health reform move forward and more people being shifted to the exchanges, I think this is a mute point as well... sense heterosexual couples are likely going to find themselves in a similar position.

Tax benefits: I think the idea of tax benefits for being married is one of the biggest misconceptions in the gay community. There are some cases where it benefits, but there are just as many cases where it leads to a bigger tax liability. Making a blanket statement that all same sex couples are going to have lower tax bills as an argument gay rights, is inaccurate.

Visitation rights: for a few hundred dollars, a good lawyer can draw up power of attorney/personal health directive paperwork. If done right, the hospital is required to follow these directives... regardless of whether or not you are married.

In my opinion, the things that most people say are rights that the gays rights movement is fighting for are things that we actually already have...

Full disclosure, my partner and I have been together 5 years, and are not married.

"Most of the insurance companies I've looked at personally for health are willing to allow a same sex partner, the issue comes in the employer not paying for the covered partner's insurance."

Why, then, should an employer be forced to cover it?


"Tax benefits: I think the idea of tax benefits for being married is one of the biggest misconceptions in the gay community. There are some cases where it benefits, but there are just as many cases where it leads to a bigger tax liability. Making a blanket statement that all same sex couples are going to have lower tax bills as an argument gay rights, is inaccurate."

People have the right to file singly, even if they're married. At worst, they are no worse off; if there is any significant discrepancy in their incomes, however, there is a benefit to filing as married.

Consider the following:

A makes 40,000
B makes 10,000

Filing singly, they pay 5,928.75 and 1,053.75, respectively, for a total of 6,982.50. Filing as married, they pay 6,607.50. That's a 375$ difference, not accounting for other variables. Again; at worst, they simply don't take the benefit.


"Visitation rights: for a few hundred dollars, a good lawyer can draw up power of attorney/personal health directive paperwork. If done right, the hospital is required to follow these directives... regardless of whether or not you are married."

Why would it require a few hundred dollars? If you have an attorney draw up the papers, sure, but if you're savvy enough you can draw up the papers yourself, sign it, and have it recorded with the county recorder and it'll be perfectly valid. Unless you're talking about something something else entirely, in which case please enlighten me =3

"In my opinion, the things that most people say are rights that the gays rights movement is fighting for are things that we actually already have..."

Which is part of what makes them so damn annoying >.<


"Full disclosure, my partner and I have been together 5 years, and are not married."

*shrugs* You'll probably find that, since you're not trying to force your will upon the Christians out there, most won't care. They're probably more concerned about your salvation than your sin, and those that worry endlessly about your homosexuality while ignoring your salvation are like doctors that would ignore your lung cancer and try to treat the cough it gives you.

It's just such a slippery slope.

I believe in the rights of people and businesses to do as they please without anyone butting their noses in, and I believe in the invisible hand of the free market, but I also feel like we ought to stand up for the minority as well.

I mean.. what if it was a different metric, other than being gay? What if black people, jewish people, or people in poverty weren't allowed to garner the benefits of marriage like good middle-class Christian white people?

What if banks didn't have to serve them, building owners didn't have to rent to them, restaurants didn't have to serve them?

It's a slippery slope to segregated water fountains. I'm from Mississippi. This is my history. My legacy. And I think we can learn from it.

Again; those 'rights' aren't rights, they're special legal privileges. We should not be expanding them. If you would 'stand up for them', then by all means do so; protest them, refuse to patronize their business, etc. But don't try to involve government coercion in the equation; besides being just plain wrong, it can (and most likely will) be turned right back on you one day. Basically, if it doesn't do harm (and, again, NOT offering a good or service does NOT constitute harm), then they have every right to do it without others forcing them not to. If a gay couple wants to hold a marriage ceremony in their house, they have every right to do so. If a business wants to discriminate against that couple by refusing to cater to that marriage ceremony, they have the right to.

Anyway, there's a big difference between publicly owned places being segregated and privately owned businesses being segregated. With things that are owned by government - and therefore paid for by taxes - the only form of discrimination should be based on whether or not the activity disrupts the function of the property.

I agree with you.

Less government is sometimes better.

But I think you're going about this the wrong way.

You really ought to be campaigning against the Government subsidizing married couples.

Am I right?

Oh, I do complain about that. But before you can 'drive the enemy back', you must first halt it's advance. Ideally, no one should get those benefits - but for now, I'll settle for stopping their expansion.

And we see where your convictions really lie.
You'll settle for fighting equality in gay marriage, and likely stop there.
You'll talk about fighting government growth, but your actions will show which issue was really more important to you.

Growth, or gays.

What part of 'for now' don't you get? 'For now', I'll fight against expanding government's tendrils into gay marriage, and eventually I hope to get it out of marriage altogether. For now, I'll settle for not increasing taxes, even though I would eventually like to see them lowered and lowered until they're either bare-bones or eliminated entirely. Yes, 'for now' I'll fight to not expand government, as it's currently a choice between expanding government and not expanding government. If it were a choice between shrinking government and not expanding government, I would choose the former!

But it's not.

Here's a thought experiment.

A vote is coming up tomorrow that stated that government spending is going to be drastically reduced so that property taxes can be completely done away with.

For white people.

It means less government, and less taxes. How do you vote?

Now explain how this is any different.

You can't separate Americans and treat them differently from one another. That's not fair. It's not moral. And it's not in our constitution. All men are created equal. That's a founding principal, and it's one I'm going to stand by. And so should you.

I vote yes, and then hope that the outrage is enough that everyone demands the same treatment. Likewise, if it were just for black people, or Christians, or Muslims, or Atheists, or Democrats, or anyone other group...

Moreover, you seem to be ignoring the fundamental issue; by giving out special legal benefits for marriage, all you'll ever do is separate Americans and treat them differently from one another. Because, by definition, single people can NEVER get these rights, and if it's only extended to encompass homosexuals then many other groups will still be discriminated against. You keep trying to demand I push for a perfect solution rather than accepting the realistic choices ahead of me; that is counterproductive, and will get me no closer to my goals. I'll settle for the imperfect solution, one that gets us closer to liberty. Yes, it's not as equitable as getting it all at once, as making everything fair for everyone in one moment. It is, however, more fair than being ineffectual and letting government stick its tendrils into every part of our life. Moreover, fairness is not what I really care about (at least, not the liberal idea of fairness); I care about liberty. I don't care so much that some people get benefits and others do not, I care that others are made to pay for those benefits through hampering their rights.

I struggled long and hard to come up with something to say. But I think everything that's going to be said has been said.

I'd think my morals cheap if I continued a conversation with someone that would vote yes to such legislative trash, for any reason.

Thanks for your time.

If you think your morals cheap for talking to someone you disagree with, then how cheap were Christ's morals? In any case, I've stated my desires plainly; I don't care much for 'equality' so much as liberty. Moreover, a move towards expanding the scope of marriage would not be a move towards greater equality; again, by definition such special legal benefits could never be enjoyed by single people, and would never be enjoyed by others with 'fringe' interests. The only way to move toward true liberty and equality in that regard is to first *halt* the advance of government into that aspect of our lives, and then push back. I'll be glad to halt it, for now; when that battle is won, I will likewise be glad to push it back. If that does not satisfy you, then perhaps you should reconsider your position; 'good' should not be the enemy of 'perfect', and it seems perfection is all you'll accept in that regard.

Yes, it would be bad if every single business in the US were to discriminate against blacks, or gays, or jews, or whatever; where did I deny this? You seem to be confusing "it can potentially have negative consequences" and "this behavior is immoral" with "it should be banned by government force". Yes, it is theoretically possible for every single business in the US to ban some other group for a stupid or evil reason. But, let's be honest here;

That ain't gonna happen.

Yes, some places may have more businesses that discriminate than others. Some places may have few, if any, and those will be socially derided and will boycott their products for their believes.

More to the point, you seem to be confusing "social equality" - or equality of results - with "equal treatment under the law" - the true equality I'm talking about. It is equality where government doesn't try to force equal outcomes, or punish one group and favor another, as you seem to want; it's about having the rule of law equally applied. Now, let's take your scenario, where businesses are not allowed to discriminate in how they buy and sell stuff. How is this at all equal treatment under the law, when you or I are allowed to discriminate however we want? You want a business to not be allowed to discriminate in buying labor, yet you have every right to discriminate when buying whatever you want! You want a business to not be allowed to discriminate in who they sell stuff to, but you can sell your labor to whoever you want, for whatever reason you want! You're trying to legislate equal results, but you're violating the concept of equal treatment under the law to do so.

Now, it seems that we have completely different values in regards to the proper role of government. I believe government, at its core, must be limited to preventing the violations of its citizens rights. Not 'promoting' their rights, as in subsidizing the expression of those rights, but in stopping others from hurting those rights. It is the concept of 'negative rights', that is, things which others may NOT do to you, rather than what others MUST provide for you.

You seem to be viewing things from a 'positive rights' perspective - that is, you believe society owes you 'fairness' - which, really, is whatever you seem to think is the most 'fair' at the time. You think it is 'unfair' for people to discriminate against people on the basis of race, sexual orientation, etc, but seem to think it's totally 'fair' to deny a person the right to run their own business how they wish, despite the fact that they're the ones who built it up and risked their own time and money to make work. You think it's unfair that gay people can't get the special legal benefits of marriage, yet you don't consider the unfairness of those benefits coming at the detriment of others, not the unfairness of it forcing many churches to have to reorganize in order to afford the tax burden for discriminating. It is, in short, an utterly arbitrary definition of 'fairness', based more on benefiting one group over the other based on perceived imbalances in social influence.

As for the problem with me, I don't 'dismiss the social factors'; I simply think that the social problems require a social, rather than legal, solution. The problem with you, I think, is that you would use legal force to curb a social problem.

Well, fair enough. In conclusion, i think we both can agree this is more of a matter of opinion, really. One way is more effective for some, the other more pleasing to look at for some, and both have their upsides and downsides. Both have a certain amount of following, one moreso than the other, and they're practically fundamentally different. It's really up to every person themselves what they think is the one they think is the besr and the one they support. Welp, lets just say this: Both of us will probably stick to our believes, no matter what, so we might as well make the best out of it and go on with our lifes.

Still, i'd recommend you to change that icon. We have enough drama on this website, we don't really need any more arguments about anything flying around. My personal thought on this is: "If you are in a place that shouldn't be used to discuss politic believes, when your opinion is controversial and if you're only one of few people who support/are against a thing (in said place), better stay quiet bout it and only give opinions once you're asked, or if you see someone who really really REALLY makes your blood boil. And even then, in private, if you're the first to tell em about this. That's only polite."


PS, To be serious, i expected a way, WAY more violent reply here. That's the reason i hid my comment. I have once written my opinions to people in certain situations, even if it were rather small opinions that i carefully worded, who then go and insult me and shit. And this kinda sorta traumatized me a bit. Yours was way more civilized and calm than what i am used to, I 'preciate this. BTW Will repost my comment tomorrow, if you want me to. It's nighttime here, my PC is off and i am going to sleep.

Re: my icon,

It's actually a litmus test. Yes, people will flip their shit over it; that's the entire point. I know that anyone who does is someone I do not want to talk to, anyway. Mind, there is no small amount of amusement on my part when it happens; there's nothing so amusing as calmly explaining your position and watching them blow up... Such as with the following I got just yesterday;

"OUR RIGHTS WOULD NOT BE TAKEN AWAY BECAUSE TWO PEOPLE WANT THE SAME KIND OF RECOGNITION THAT 90% OF OTHERS GET.
THE ONLY REASON YOU FEAR THIS IS BECAUSE YOUR LAZY ASS TRASH COUNTRY HAS NOT CHANGED ITS WAYS."

Now, this was after a conversation much like ours; I explained my position and why I felt gay marriage would compromise several of my basic rights, as well as the rights of others. That was his response. I didn't have to attack him, or insult him, or anything like that... I just had to calmly and clearly explain why I believe as I do, and since he is simply incapable of seeing things from the other side's perspective... He blows up. It's hilarious! The more sincere, the more concise, the more I ground my argument in logic and facts, the more angry they get and the sooner they blow up X3


Re: reposting your original post; can't you just un-hide it, or is it permanently deleted? *checks...*

Oh! Apparently not; I guess you can't unhide comments... How odd, why didn't they just call it 'deleting'?

Ah okay. Still kinda rude in my opinion, but whatevs.

Douchebag has a point though, but he should kinda sorta have stated that in a less capslock-y keysmash-y manner. Now, you said something about churches needing to reorganize themselfes if homosexual marriage happens. Now, good argument, then lets make a law that only allows non-religious homosexual marriages. Now, i have no idea how it works in good ole 'murrica, but here in germany, you can also marry without churchly approval and recognition at the standesamt, the german civil-registry. Sure, it's less flashy and less symbolic and costs less, but it's something, huh? Thats the way my parents married, my ma is a not really practising muslim from a mixed family and my pa agnostic german lutheran (me 2 btw, my church is pretty chill), and marriage via church would not have been possible because reasons soooo... standesamt. Overly religious people don't need to accept they're married but hey, the state does, and it has no drawbacks (ithink). Same could be with america, i mean your country isn't church-controlled right, so i guess this wouldn't be much of a problem or would it... Okay, i may also have no idea about america, germany is a pretty agnostic place. 40 per cent of our population is atheist after all, pretty much every religious person here also has their own kind of doubts about their religion, and that is actually pretty goddamn many people. It's just my opinion after all that either everyone should be allowed to marry or nobody at all because anyone will always think that when someone else marries someone that it's wrong, even if its a straight relationship berween whites, so why even bother about them, just do it. (well, as long as it isn't incest because the results of incestrous relationships usually aren't pretty.). To be serious, when i think about it, nobody marrying noone at all actually seems the best here, but that's not going to happen.

Now now, like i said blah blah varying opinions blah blah we'll stick to our believes anyway, just wanted to state from my POV yadda yadda yah. I don't really wanna say everything again, because time reasons. Also my hand hurts from typing all that on my phone. =3=;

And how did i write a novel, again? Gee, i need to keep things shorter. D:

PS. so, should i repost the comment tomorrow or not?

Re: Special amendment to the law that allows churches to discriminate by not having to perform gay marriage ceremonies - I'm afraid that won't work, because the gay movement in the US is... less than honest. In some states, they were granted 'civil unions' - basically, they were granted all the rights of married couples, but not the name, and it allowed the religious people to keep their own rights intact. Unfortunately, it didn't take very long for the gay rights groups to file suit and demand full-on marriage, even though they said that civil unions were a reasonable compromise. Yes, yes, 'slippery slope', but they've already shown that there is no real 'compromise' for them, only steadily gaining ground. So, I'm unwilling to give them a law that grants them what they want but has a special protection built into it, as all they'd have to do is strike out the 'special protection' as Unconstitutional, or by some other means. Moreover, while such a law would solve the issue of religious freedom to some extent, it wouldn't solve the other issues I've brought up.

Also, America is primarily religious. That's the interesting thing; while the Democrats are primarily FOR gay marriage, they receive a lot of flack from their own members - primarily blacks and hispanics. That seems to be the main reason why, even in places like California, things like Prop 8 pass regularly.

Anyway, I've already proposed, several times, to just pull Government out of marriage altogether and let people form their own contracts as they will. That's made some headway among, oddly enough, both die-hard liberals and hard-line conservatives. For the time being, however, that is not an option on the table; all that is on the table right now is "expand government's definition of marriage" or "keep government's current definition of marriage", and in the absence of any other choice, I choose the latter.

It is quite clear to me that the person who banned you because they don't like your icon seems indeed sensitive to the issue and clearly wrong in calling it a mere matter of semantics. You have every right to let your opinion be known, so long as you are courteous and respectful (and on topic presumably) . As Voltaire said "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I believe a society is strongest when it encourages dissenting opinions to be shared freely and with mutual respect.

Although I will say your icon is a bit of a lightning rod on this site. At least so long as you don't have a consolidated reference point for your stated opposition. An "FAQ on why I'm not in support" may cut down on some of the ad hominem you receive.

You seem a logical and level-headed person, but I must take contention with something, when you said:

I wish I could say this is a rare occurrence, but I'm afraid it's all too common. Any time I get into a debate with a leftist, they use 'hot button words' - words like 'discrimination' and 'denying equality' and 'attacking basic rights' and other such bullshit. And, when I call them on it, or break it down in a manner they don't like, they refuse to actually acknowledge the holes in their argument and just use more emotional appeal and hot button words. Shoot, someone tried to use the fact that gay people are sometimes attacked (illegally) as a justification for gay marriage, as well as several other fallacies and non-sequiturs designed to twist the emotions rather than provide a logical reason for his position. The harder one pushes them, it seems, the more emotional manipulation comes to the forefront.

Because, in the end... that's all most of them really have. Emotion rather than reason, dogma rather than consideration, hot-button words rather than arguments.

You lose me here after the first sentence, because you show your bias when you speak of leftists using hot-button words and emotional appeal. Yet, are there not people in all groups and all political alignments, races, orientations, etc, that do this as well? Humans are both emotional and intelligent creatures by our very nature, even in our diversity whether it be social, geographical, economic or ideological. Everyone is more or less capable of very similar behaviors as anyone else. For instance anyone and everyone may suffer cognitive dissonance, make misconceptions or misunderstand something or someone. Any group can oppress another, any individual regardless of outlook on life is capable of silencing another.

I have seen impassioned people on the left and the right, gays and straights, religious and secular, et al. Many of them rally around slogans, chants, banners, buzzwords, symbols of all kinds, and make emotional appeals of their own. Why? because that is what many people do. I have beholden others of varying ideologies who were bigoted, ignorant, arrogant, greedy or cruel. I have also seen people from all sides show impartiality, wisdom, modesty, generosity and kindness. We are all of us capable of having these good and bad traits (among many others), as ultimately it doesn't matter what sides we've chosen. What matters is that we are all human, and for better or worse, we make allot of decisions based on what we think is right or wrong. The problem is there is no complete consensus on what is right and wrong and there never will be. Right and wrong is as fluctuating as the individual lives we all lead.

No, not EVERY single solitary leftist I've come across has done this, no; I was using hyperbole. But the fact still remains, it is rare that I find one that debates using any sort of factual basis; most of the time they simply refer to the same tired "but gay marriage doesn't hurt yooouuuu!", and when I point out ways in which government recognition of gay marriage WILL hurt me and many others besides, they ignore it and keep on talking about discrimination and bigotry and whatever emotional manipulation they can fling at me.

It's not about passion, it's about trying to debate logically with people who bye-and-large only know rhetoric and emotional appeal.

Also... No, right and wrong are constant, no matter what people's opinions on it are. If there were not, there could not be any true political discourse - just 'what's in it for me'.

I am curious, what are the ways that it will hurt others? And how do you think these should be addressed so that there is a compromise with some measure of agreement on all sides? Can we not find a way to give couples certain rights declined to them because of their genders, while also protecting the right to religious freedom for those who do not wish to recognize such union? I can understand a church declining to not recognize same sex marriages, but what about hospitals (many of which run by religious institutions)? Can they also decline to allow visitation rights because of their convictions? Yes, I suppose they can. But should they? I dunno, It would seem pretty cruel given the circumstances. That's just one instance of social contention I know of. There are numerous issues and complaints, honest or not, on all sides.


Personally I'd would much prefer if we all started a dialectic at least as often as we start debates. xD


Constant in what, a single society? Perhaps, but for how long? There are some rights and wrongs of course that have been upheld as generally universal and constant, like the golden rule. But there are other rights and wrongs that are not universal nor constant. As history shows most societies and civilizations tend to change, in a variety of ways, over varying periods of time and due to a myriad of factors. This change often includes attitudes on what is good and what is bad. What ancient people thought was right and wrong for instance, was often very different than what we today may think (yet there are also many things we'd agree on). We all know however that there were times when most humans did not think it wrong to enslave one another, or to exact honor-killings, or to bed 13 year olds, etc. :P

Also, there is allot of 'what's in it for me', sadly. Some people more than others, but we all behave selfish at times and have selfish desires, it's natural if undesirable. Many people are of course right out self-centered. Personally I would much prefer we all acted on what is right for ourselves while also regarding those around us with the respect and mindfulness they deserve (or perhaps don't deserve!), without bias or prejudice.

Or maybe my heads just stuck in the clouds and I'm waxing philosophic. :D

First; you falsely assume there should be 'compromise'. I've seen 'compromise'; I've seen 'compromise' in this, too. When a state - Connecticut, I think it was - passed a law that allowed 'civil unions', the gay movement there once again kept pushing for marriage. In places where gay marriage is permitted, they push for kids to be taught that homosexuality is A-Okay, and free speech is suppressed for being 'hateful' towards gays.

So, no; I'm not going to 'compromise', I've seen where it leads. You go ahead and cry 'slippery slope' all you want, it would be insanity to expect the same thing to not happen here in due time.

As for 'how it hurts us' - various people have been sued for not participating in gay weddings, where gay marriage is concerned. Photographers, florists, churches - all have been sued, and will continue to be sued. It's all well and good to say, 'oh, we're not going to take away your rights', but I've seen the evidence to the contrary; whether YOU personally would or not, that doesn't change the fact that you're paving the way for others to do so. Yes, some places may discriminate without good reason, this is true. But when you're dealing with law and the bringing of force against another, you should not just ask 'is this right' and then stop; you must also ask, 'is it good and proper to use government force to coerce them to follow my will in this, knowing full well that the law may later be twisted and turned against me and my kin at a later date'. Because, well... That's the real question. If the 'other side' of the aisle merely asked 'is it right' as the basis of law, homosexuality itself would be illegal. If you truly want 'compromise', start by asking yourself whether it's right to bring force against them for doing what they wish with what is theirs.


Re: Right and wrong; what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong - they do not change from culture to culture or person to person, they are constant. That is what I believe to be true, though it's a debate for another time.

As far as people being selfish, that is exactly the problem here; gay marriage gives those selfish people power over churches and businesses who don't like gay marriage and would rather not participate in it.

If you do not believe people should compromise then what do you believe? My way or the highway? It's that sort of self-righteous attitude that pits people on both sides against one another in the first place. Those who do not compromise instead step on others to get their way, is this not something you fight against? Or do you only fight for one side?

As for civil unions, separate but equal is not equal, even if it's close.

Homosexuality is indeed A-Okay and telling anyone that is not wrong. However children shouldn't be taught sexuality at all at young ages, it's not necessary as sexuality is something most will come into on their own and with their peers.

As for 'how it hurts us' - various people have been sued for not participating in gay weddings, where gay marriage is concerned. Photographers, florists, churches - all have been sued, and will continue to be sued. It's all well and good to say, 'oh, we're not going to take away your rights', but I've seen the evidence to the contrary; whether YOU personally would or not, that doesn't change the fact that you're paving the way for others to do so.
The fact that people are being sued over it is ridiculous. And how anyone can sue a church for it is beyond me, it's not fair that people who have religious objections and reservations are being treated like that. It shows the state of our society; America is full of sue-happy fuckers who use it to get their way. But on the other hand, what a terrible business model it is to segregate potential customers based on something as inconsequential as sexuality.

And no I'm not paving the way for anything, in fact if I had my way I would abolish marriage as it exists. It's a bloated and outdated social institution that seems to deliver more stress, pain and problems than it deserves. A simple contract establishing spousal rights and obligations is all that's necessary in modern society. But alas this will never be because we're all too inclined to cling to convoluted traditions.

But when you're dealing with law and the bringing of force against another, you should not just ask 'is this right' and then stop; you must also ask, 'is it good and proper to use government force to coerce them to follow my will in this, knowing full well that the law may later be twisted and turned against me and my kin at a later date'. Because, well... That's the real question. If the 'other side' of the aisle merely asked 'is it right' as the basis of law, homosexuality itself would be illegal. If you truly want 'compromise', start by asking yourself whether it's right to bring force against them for doing what they wish with what is theirs.
Are you saying we should be wary of the laws we pass and decisions we make because they can have numerous unseen repercussions? If that's the case then I agree, isn't that what almost always happens when new legislation is passed? There are always people who are affected adversely. The real question is who is more wronged, and by what means are they wronged.

Btw, there was a time Homosexuality was illegal, and there are many places in the world today where it remains a criminal offense.

Right and wrong; what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong - they do not change from culture to culture or person to person, they are constant. That is what I believe to be true, though it's a debate for another time.
This is the most striking statement I've seen in a long time. I've provided instances that were once seen as right but now seen as wrong, yet you still think there's only one proper code of ethics? Who defines this code and why is it clearly superior? Are you aware that moral diversity is a fact and not opinion?

And finally I must dispel something: Marriage did not get it's start as a religious institution (in truth it was more akin to property exchange between two families, given the power fathers had over their children). it's been changed and re-defined numerous times throughout it's history and wasn't even strictly set in religious traditions until the middle ages. Religious people who have objections shouldn't be made to partake in gay marriages, but they also need to stop pretending it's solely theirs.

"If you do not believe people should compromise then what do you believe? My way or the highway? It's that sort of self-righteous attitude that pits people on both sides against one another in the first place. Those who do not compromise instead step on others to get their way, is this not something you fight against? Or do you only fight for one side?"

I've just explained it to you, but apparently you didn't listen; compromise would be useless and detrimental, because the moment the conservatives give into the mewling and whining and the 'that's not fairs' of your side, your side will once again push for more, More, MORE. The current state of affairs will never be sufficient; history has shown that. So, no, I will not 'compromise' some of my rights in the hope of appeasing your side, because your side will never be appeased.


"As for civil unions, separate but equal is not equal, even if it's close."

How much worse, then, if in terms of economic freedom, business owners can't even claim that?


"Homosexuality is indeed A-Okay and telling anyone that is not wrong."

Oh? And what of parents who don't want their kids to learn it? Should they be forced to pay for the indoctrination of their own children, against their will?

"However children shouldn't be taught sexuality at all at young ages, it's not necessary as sexuality is something most will come into on their own and with their peers."

Yet, your side has been making all kinds of children's books about the subject, and it clearly happens in other places.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ju.....taught-their-c

http://www.amazon.com/Mommy-Mama-Me...../dp/1582462631

Or, hell, this entire site: http://booksforkidsingayfamilies.blogspot.com/

So, no; you can't claim that they're not trying to indoctrinate children, nor that they won't use the school system to do it. They HAVE, and they WILL.



"The fact that people are being sued over it is ridiculous. And how anyone can sue a church for it is beyond me, it's not fair that people who have religious objections and reservations are being treated like that. It shows the state of our society; America is full of sue-happy fuckers who use it to get their way. But on the other hand, what a terrible business model it is to segregate potential customers based on something as inconsequential as sexuality."

In some cases it's a terrible business model, yes; in other cases, such as where they have to actively participate in the gay wedding (ie, florists, photographers, wedding cake makers, etc - they're all involved in the planning and must participate in it), it's understandable. But, the fact of the matter is, the latter group has a measure of legal protection by not having state recognized gay marriage. No matter how ridiculous you think it is, they WILL be sued for it, and you would give them even more tools to do it.

"And no I'm not paving the way for anything, in fact if I had my way I would abolish marriage as it exists. It's a bloated and outdated social institution that seems to deliver more stress, pain and problems than it deserves. A simple contract establishing spousal rights and obligations is all that's necessary in modern society. But alas this will never be because we're all too inclined to cling to convoluted traditions."

Since you seem to be speaking of the *traditional* aspect of marriage rather than the *governmental* aspect of marriage... yeah, this is exactly the kind of talk that makes conservatives nervous about extending marriage to people who have no respect for the traditional institution. You see no value in it; why do you push for it to be extended, save the benefits?


"Are you saying we should be wary of the laws we pass and decisions we make because they can have numerous unseen repercussions? If that's the case then I agree, isn't that what almost always happens when new legislation is passed? There are always people who are affected adversely. The real question is who is more wronged, and by what means are they wronged."

I am saying exactly that, and I've laid out several damages to their fundamental rights that would occur because of those marriage benefits being extended to gay couples. So, yes, let's compare how people are wronged;

On one paw, we can simply *not* grant a certain group special legal benefits.

On the other paw, we can actively hurt the basic rights of a much larger group of people.

Seems like a pretty simple answer to me, really.


"Btw, there was a time Homosexuality was illegal, and there are many places in the world today where it remains a criminal offense."

Yes, and there are places where it's illegal to be a Christian, and it's a death sentence. Your point?


"This is the most striking statement I've seen in a long time. I've provided instances that were once seen as right but now seen as wrong, yet you still think there's only one proper code of ethics? Who defines this code and why is it clearly superior? Are you aware that moral diversity is a fact and not opinion?"

Man may vary, but God is firm; He is the one who defines what is right and what is wrong. We may fail to live up to it, yes. We may fail to fully grasp it, yes. Some may say 'this is right' and others may say 'that is right', but what is right and what is wrong does not change for all our blithering and hot air.

"And finally I must dispel something: Marriage did not get it's start as a religious institution (in truth it was more akin to property exchange between two families, given the power fathers had over their children). it's been changed and re-defined numerous times throughout it's history and wasn't even strictly set in religious traditions until the middle ages. Religious people who have objections shouldn't be made to partake in gay marriages, but they also need to stop pretending it's solely theirs."

Citation please. More to the point, if it's such an outdated model, why do you so desperately want it expanded?

The problem with me providing citations is that I think you're too far gone on the "My side is right and your side is wrong" bias train for it to matter. Everything I say you see as suspicious and worthy of criticism where everything you believe is backed by perceived logical argument. I do not think I am without bias, I know for a fact I am wrong on many things including some of the issues we're discussing now, can you say the same of yourself? But here you go, one source for you to scrutinize:

http://www.livescience.com/37777-hi.....-marriage.html

But don't stop at reading one source or just sources that agree with yours; read many. Google History of Marriage and read how it's changed over time. Or don't challenge your perceptions, your call.

I ask you questions because I am legitimately interested in understanding your point of view, because I know for a fact there are people who suffer on the right unfairly. You seem to ignore those who suffer on the left however, calling their complaints "mewling and whining" while championing the complaints of those who suffer on the right. To be frank: we all mewl and whine, it is the human condition to feel bias and to complain and be offended about something and to rarely be satisfied with our lot in life. Yet the world is shades of gray, not black and white.

The compromise I call for is a compromise between adults and citizens of this nation who are wise enough to recognize that everyone has grievances; some are fair and some are not, and it's our responsibility to be willing to give up some things so that there may be relative harmony. This won't happen because both sides believe they are fundamentally being discriminated against and both sides view this as their own rights issue. Both sides have an argument and cases proving this to be true. Yet both sides would prefer to repress the other.

The fact is no matter what happens, no matter what laws are passed restricting rights on one side or giving rights to another, there are going to be allot of people who are bitter and feel they're being mistreated. Does this mean we should not try? You seem to think we shouldn't because your perception is that compromise is really just another way for the left to undermine the right. I'm sure there are many on the left who would view compromise as a way for THEIR rights to be undermined.

These are just some of the compromises I feel could be reached:

Churches should not be sued or in any way have their right to view that gay marriage is not legitimate pressed.

Gay couples should be extended the right to wed in the eyes of the law, nothing more or less.

People who do not support gay marriage should not be harassed for their views but they also need to recognize that homosexuality is no longer seen by most of society as the sin it was once thought to be.

On the issue of businesses not providing service to gay couples, I am torn. On one hand a private enterprise reserves the right to whom they provide service to. And on the other it is still discriminatory practice to single people out on the basis of race, creed, religion, gender or orientation (whether you think that's an over-used liberal buzzword or not, bias and prejudice are still bias and prejudice). This is an issue that both sides have valid arguments for and against and I don't see anyone going away happy.

If all sides could conduct themselves with some decorum there would be progress. Yet these are all compromises that will never come to pass because the many of the people who are most visible on both sides of this debate are the selfish individuals who think they are the only ones being oppressed; [i]my way or the highway[i]. There is no such thing a cure-all decision. If one side gets it's way they'll be happy and the other will be angry, this is how it's unfortunately going to end.

Man may vary, but God is firm; He is the one who defines what is right and what is wrong. We may fail to live up to it, yes. We may fail to fully grasp it, yes. Some may say 'this is right' and others may say 'that is right', but what is right and what is wrong does not change for all our blithering and hot air.
Ah that explains your stance, the universal laws of God. The problem with believing that is that everyone who believes in their god thinks the same way. Everyone rationalizes their society and it's laws and rules and customs as being right in the eyes of the divine. You believe that the God you worship has ordained the world to function the way it does because the authors of the bible said this. In truth they lacked a fuller understanding of the natural order of the world and instead interpreted our world as having influence from the supernatural. Just because one thinks the world and universe works a certain way does not mean it necessarily does. And relying on unfalsifiable hypothesis to back your logic and reasoning is in itself flawed.

If you believe we've already found the ultimate truth then why do we continue to discover new things, new technologies and push new frontiers that previously went undreamed of by those ancient people who first wrote their holy texts? When I ask why god does not reveal himself so that all cynics and non-believers may know him, all I receive is that "He works in mysterious ways". Which is more or less another way to say we don't know. If we do not know nor can we prove, why do we continue to assume only one way is the right one?

You speak of the indoctrination of children into thinking gays are good, what of the indoctrination that told them they were bad? Everyone undergoes indoctrination of some sort (you can also call it education), it goes both ways. The reason you believe what you do is that you derive your moral view of the world from ancient Levantine sources as interpreted by the many generations that have passed their traditions and beliefs down. I prefer to derive my view from more western sources, namely the ancient Greeks whose philosophical tradition spurred what was among the most learned and influential of all ancient civilizations. Am I wrong for preferring the ideas of one ancient people over another? Perhaps you think I am, but I don't think you are. It's all a matter of perspective; the beliefs and values of those who raise you and the influence of the friends and community you grow with impact our own growth. To think that any one of our communities should be set above another is in my opinion the gravest of arrogance. And there are many on both sides who ascribe to this arrogance.

Too many people see the differences, not enough of us see what makes us similar. Maybe my ideals are a pipe-dream, and that true equality and fairness is an unattainable goal. But I will not stop trying to help and understand people, I will not stop seeing all sides as equal, in wrongness and right. Because all sides, all groups and all institutions are made up of humans, and humans are imperfect.

*reads the article* Lack of adequate citations (referring to other articles on the site is NOT adequate citation), misleading interpretations of the Bible (it never said whether those polygamous marriages were good in the eyes of God, nor did it say that it was marriage as we understand it - I somehow doubt that the kings that had 'thousands of wives' actually had what we'd even consider marriage with any of them, nor do I see how the political actions of a few men in history defined marriage for the culture as a whole... And, besides, the Bible pretty clearly defines marriage, and how husbands and wives should treat one another;

Genesis 2:24, "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."

Matthew 19:4-5, "[Jesus] answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’?"

Ephesians 5: 22-33
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.


So, yes; some places in the world treated marriage differently. Some corrupted marriage, and they pay for it. But these verses are roughly 2000 years old. That's older than pretty much every other country in existence, and America was ostensibly founded with that concept of marriage. Yes, there were other considerations sometimes; that does not change the fact that marriages, if not founded on love, at least contained love as an important facet.



But, let's assume, for a moment, that you are correct about marriage - the history of it is not my study, not is it particularly relevant to my goals (ie, getting government out of marriage entirely in the long term, and preventing government from extending its tendrils further in the short term);

So what?

None of this changes any of the material damages to many people's fundamental rights if gay marriage is recognized by government.

As for the 'suffering on the left' - I'm sorry, but not getting special legal benefits is not 'suffering'. Losing your right to operate your business in a unconscionable matter is suffering; being forced to pay for the upkeep of something you find reprehensible is suffering; losing your church because it's too costly to reorganize, all because some gay couples decided to sue over discrimination is suffering.

Not getting 'the bennies', as many gay couples refer to them?

That ain't suffering.




Now, you keep on calling for 'compromise', saying that it's 'between adults' and 'reasonable', but I've kept on showing you how it has never been reasonable, and that it's foolish to expect it to suddenly become reasonable. I don't care what pretty face you try to put on it, I'm not going to take empty words of some lone person on the internet over the costly lessons of history. The fact, is, the Left have never really 'compromised' on anything; they just use compromise, as you are right now, to get more and more of what they want. They've used compromise after compromise to whittle away our right to bear arms; they've used compromise after compromise to get more and more welfare systems in place to get more power for themselves. And now they're trying to use compromise to justify gay marriage.

Nope. I've seen what 'compromise' does; I've seen it in my own lifetime. I'm heartily sick of it, as all that's ever compromised is my own rights and liberties for the sake of their desires. So, no; I'm done 'compromising', because no matter what you say here, the left will always see 'compromise' as "we'll let you keep some of it for now and come for the rest of it later".



"Ah that explains your stance, the universal laws of God. The problem with believing that is that everyone who believes in their god thinks the same way. Everyone rationalizes their society and it's laws and rules and customs as being right in the eyes of the divine. You believe that the God you worship has ordained the world to function the way it does because the authors of the bible said this. In truth they lacked a fuller understanding of the natural order of the world and instead interpreted our world as having influence from the supernatural. Just because one thinks the world and universe works a certain way does not mean it necessarily does. And relying on unfalsifiable hypothesis to back your logic and reasoning is in itself flawed."

I have seen enough evidence in my own life and the lives of others who have faith in Him to be confident in Him. It may not be sufficient evidence for you, but it is sufficient evidence for me. As for why He does not reveal Himself to you in a way you want; likely because you are proud and think you can command Him to do anything. Moreover I've seen the depths that people will go to to avoid believing in Christ. I see no reason why even meeting Him shouldn't be dismissed as a mass hysteria, or aliens, or a hoax - not out of reasoned thought, mind, but out of the desire to not believe in Him.


"You speak of the indoctrination of children into thinking gays are good, what of the indoctrination that told them they were bad?"

I'm absolutely fine with the schools not touching on the subject at all, and leaving the matter to the parents.

"The reason you believe what you do is that you derive your moral view of the world from ancient Levantine sources as interpreted by the many generations that have passed their traditions and beliefs down."

Actually, no; the reason I believe it isn't because I was taught it, otherwise I would be a good little socialist who wanted government in every aspect of our lives, with flexible morals and only a token 'faith' in God.

I believe as I do because I've found it the most reasonable thing to believe.







Now, back to the topic at paw; do you have anything new to say about all of this? Because, regarding gay rights, you seem to be saying the same thing as everyone.

*reads the article* Lack of adequate citations (referring to other articles on the site is NOT adequate citation),
Indeed, I think those citations are more or less "read more on the topic here" links, as opposed to actual citations. Rather, the article is posting snippets from a single source, i.e. a book written by a noted Historian and Anthropologist.

nor did it say that it was marriage as we understand it - I somehow doubt that the kings that had 'thousands of wives' actually had what we'd even consider marriage with any of them,
That's exactly the point, it wasn't marriage as we understand it. Marriage as a concept and institution has continuously evolved since it's inception in pre-history to the modern day. This is the reason I bring it up, the reason it's relevant: There's no such thing as traditional marriage, there are only the traditions you're aware of and have been exposed to. Many traditions have faded with time as the needs of our societies have changed.

nor do I see how the political actions of a few men in history defined marriage for the culture as a whole...
For a long time the actions of kings swayed the fates and fortunes of nations. Societies changed as did the notions of what constitutes marriage.

But, let's assume, for a moment, that you are correct about marriage - the history of it is not my study, not is it particularly relevant to my goals (ie, getting government out of marriage entirely in the long term, and preventing government from extending its tendrils further in the short term);

So what?

None of this changes any of the material damages to many people's fundamental rights if gay marriage is recognized by government.

As for the 'suffering on the left' - I'm sorry, but not getting special legal benefits is not 'suffering'. Losing your right to operate your business in a unconscionable matter is suffering; being forced to pay for the upkeep of something you find reprehensible is suffering; losing your church because it's too costly to reorganize, all because some gay couples decided to sue over discrimination is suffering.

Not getting 'the bennies', as many gay couples refer to them?

That ain't suffering.
I assure you there have been numerous incidents where people in the LGBT community have been harassed, attacked, lost property and even killed for their causes or just for who they are. But I'm not getting into a tail measuring contest over who's suffered more, it would be an exercise in futility.

What's more interesting to me is that you seem to be of the opinion that people have the right to marginalize other people as long as their religion says it's okay. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not your premise?

Because if it's not than it sounds it. You argue that to extend marriage rights to gays would go against the religious rights of people who do not accept homosexuality. There are two reasons why I think it doesn't:

Homosexuality (and other sexual or gender identities) is a predisposition. Meaning it's not a choice. So condemning it is as senseless as condemning someone for being another race, gender or nationality.

Two, the main argument levied against gay marriage is thus: "The Bible condemns homosexuality therefore it's my right to as well". Yet the Bible condones many things that Christians today no longer practice or agree with (the most notorious being slavery).

So I ask you, if Christians today can already practice their faith without practicing most things in the bible; why is homosexuality still such a hot topic for them? Because it's morally reprehensible in their view? In my opinion that's not an adequate defense for continuing marginalization of another section of society.

I have seen enough evidence in my own life and the lives of others who have faith in Him to be confident in Him. It may not be sufficient evidence for you, but it is sufficient evidence for me. As for why He does not reveal Himself to you in a way you want; likely because you are proud and think you can command Him to do anything. Moreover I've seen the depths that people will go to to avoid believing in Christ. I see no reason why even meeting Him shouldn't be dismissed as a mass hysteria, or aliens, or a hoax - not out of reasoned thought, mind, but out of the desire to not believe in Him.

I believe we live strictly in a natural universe, where all occurring phenomena are dictated by an unknown quantity of variables, something mathematics and the sciences tend to verify to be the case. If you wish to believe in the supernatural then that's your business. Just remember, the world as we see it is based on our perceptions of reality, which do not dictate that reality. For example, a long time ago man thought the sun revolved around the earth, but just because people thought this was true didn't make it true, did it?

The human mind evolved to recognize patterns. You see patterns that correlate to God's existence because ultimately you want him to exist. And because you've read, heard and just generally been exposed to so many things and people that reenforced the notion of his existence throughout your life. But again, for every spiritual happening there is a scientific explanation; we are complex creatures living in a vast and exceedingly complex world that we ourselves are just starting to truly understand.

I fear there are far too many fundamental differences in how we view the functioning world around us for this debate to truly carry on with any substance. I invite you to have the final say on this discussion, I will read it and answer any questions you may have.

But I must also thank you for being level-headed and calm in this debate of ours. I've encountered far too many people who resort to petty name-calling and angry insults before too long, but not you. My regards.

Peace~

I keep on noticing that you use the word "rights" improperly. Rights are things that no one can rightfully take away from you, not what's 'nice for society to act like' or 'what I think I deserve from government or others'. You say, "you think that religious people have the right to marginalize gay people". Well, yes; marginalize says nothing about hurting others, and as long as that marginalization doesn't hurt the rights of the gay people, they have the right to under free speech and self ownership. They have the right to treat gay people as second-class citizens, or even non-humans, so long as it is done in a peaceable, non-coercive manner. Gay people have this right, too; they can treat anyone like this, for whatever reason, so long as it is non-coercive and peaceable. Likewise, you keep on using the words 'marriage rights' - well, those they already have. You can hold a marriage ceremony, you can go to a church and have it recognized by a pastor or priest who will do it, you can enter into contracts together, you can live together, you can have sex together, etc etc etc. So, why do you keep insisting on having marriage rights when you already have them? What you want are the special legal benefits associated with marriage. Please use the correct terms, because what you're doing now is deceptive.

Now, back to the meat of your post; you're using the argument "people break the law and hurt this group all the time, therefore this group should have special legal benefits!" - sorry, but that doesn't work. When one law is broken, you don't enact new laws to try to 'make it better'; you enforce the old laws. Likewise, you're accusing people with religious beliefs of 'marginalizing' others. Sorry, no; no more than the gay rights movement would marginalize people with religious beliefs against them, and certainly a good deal less, since one side wants to deny special privileges while the other wants to deny basic rights. And even if they are marginalizing gay people, so what? You don't have the right to make others treat you with respect or treat you nicely. You don't even have the right to make them say you're not going to hell, or even acknowledge you have equal rights with them. They can just coldly glare at you as much as they want, meeting queries with insults and greetings with derision, and they have every right to do so. Marginalization hurts no one's rights.

More to the point, these are not rights that are being denied; these are benefits. As I've said over and over again, you do not have the right for government to grant you special legal benefits, especially ones that cost others their basic rights. Your arguments that they're 'born with it' doesn't change the fact that you're denying religious people's basic rights to grant gay people special benefits. Likewise, your argument that "the only reason religious people don't like gay marriage is because the Bible says so" is irrelevant. Even assuming that disliking gay marriage is completely irrational and senseless - an argument without any sort of foundation, and is itself an attempt to marginalize a belief system - guess what? People have the right to be irrational and senseless. People have the right to purchase what they want with their money, no matter how irrational or senseless it may be. People also have the right to work with and not work with who they want, hire and not hire who they want, no matter how irrational or senseless their reasons may be. It's not anyone else's right to tell anyone else how they ought to spend their money or live their life, so long as they live it peaceably.

"
So I ask you, if Christians today can already practice their faith without practicing most things in the bible; why is homosexuality still such a hot topic for them? Because it's morally reprehensible in their view? In my opinion that's not an adequate defense for continuing marginalization of another section of society."

I freely invite you to discuss this with other people who are more knowledgeable about this than I.
http://www.rhjunior.com/Forum/index.php

Many of the people there are pastors, and can give a better explanation than I can of why some of the OT verses are followed and why some are not, but it basically boils down to this; many of the laws were either specific to the Jews, but not the Gentile, and were designed to 'set them apart' from the people of the time, whereas sexual immorality was never specific to the Jews and applied to all. Again, I haven't studied this very in depth, but I've reviewed their arguments and found them sound. Talk to some of the people on the forum, if you wish, and they'll give you better answers - and evidence for them - than I can.

I said I would stop but I lied. This will be my last post however.

per wikipedia: Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory. Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology.

Rights are often considered fundamental to civilization, being regarded as established pillars of society and culture, and the history of social conflicts can be found in the history of each right and its development. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived."

Per dictionary.com:

Right, noun
18.
a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please.
19.
Sometimes, rights. that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.: women's rights; Freedom of speech is a right of all Americans.
20.
adherence or obedience to moral and legal principles and authority.
21.
that which is morally, legally, or ethically proper: to know right from wrong.
22.
a moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.

No, my use of the word rights is not wrong.

marginalize says nothing about hurting others

Incorrect. Marginalization (AKA Social Exclusion):

Social exclusion refers to processes in which individuals or entire communities of people are systematically blocked from rights, opportunities and resources (e.g. housing, employment, healthcare, civic engagement, democratic participation and due process) that are normally available to members of society and which are key to social integration

You honestly don't think any of that hurts people?

And even if they are marginalizing gay people, so what? You don't have the right to make others treat you with respect or treat you nicely. You don't even have the right to make them say you're not going to hell, or even acknowledge you have equal rights with them. They can just coldly glare at you as much as they want, meeting queries with insults and greetings with derision, and they have every right to do so. Marginalization hurts no one's rights.
This is incredibly unreasonable. If you honestly don't think people shouldn't tolerate one another and show common decency than all I have to say is you reap what you sow. The contempt you share for others will be given back to you.

You are absolutely right about one thing, no one can make anyone like another person or treat them with respect. It's why we tolerate those Westboro Baptist Church fools. Because freedom of speech is a liberty that should never be suppressed.

[/quote]Your arguments that they're 'born with it' doesn't change the fact that you're denying religious people's basic rights to grant gay people special benefits.[/quote]
Please clarify, this makes no sense. Do you mean Religious peoples rights to... Despise gay people? If so than your right to an opinion does not supersede peoples rights to certain civil liberties (or benefits as you erroneously refer to them).

Likewise, your argument that "the only reason religious people don't like gay marriage is because the Bible says so" is irrelevant.
Could you elaborate on why that's irrelevant? Using an ancient book as the sole motivating factor for intolerant behavior is absurd and not at all an irrelevant reason to criticize.

Even assuming that disliking gay marriage is completely irrational and senseless - an argument without any sort of foundation, and is itself an attempt to marginalize a belief system - guess what?
Guess what? You just got done saying marginalizing people isn't bad so long as it's 'done peaceably', whatever that means. So now all of a sudden it's only bad when religious people are marginalized? Ridiculous.
Oh and the foundation of my argument is pretty sturdy; it's called the Golden Rule: Do to others as you would have them do to you - I believe that's even in the bible, it's also a universal philosophic concept found in most other cultures throughout the world.

People have the right to be irrational and senseless.
Yes and those people often end up in dire straights, while the rational and thoughtful folk surpass them.

People also have the right to work with and not work with who they want, hire and not hire who they want, no matter how irrational or senseless their reasons may be. It's not anyone else's right to tell anyone else how they ought to spend their money or live their life, so long as they live it peaceably.
Actually their are laws that prohibit discrimination based on age, sex, race, orientation, disability, religion etc, in the workplace or in hiring employees, whether you agree with them or not. Otherwise you're correct, we are at liberty to live our lives as we see fit.

More to the point, these are not rights that are being denied; these are benefits. As I've said over and over again, you do not have the right for government to grant you special legal benefits, especially ones that cost others their basic rights.
What special legal benefits are being given out to gays that aren't being given to straight couples? Do you have any references to cite? Or do you just think it's more important that religious people are able to maintain their current views of gay people at their expense? If it's the latter (and it seems to be), than I must inform you that's not a basic right and I can't wrap my head around how you think it is. There's no such thing as a right not to be offended, and that's basically all it seems to me. Is there an actual religious liberty that's being repressed by gay civil marriage, and if so can you link me to it or actually explain what it is? And no, businesses being sued isn't proof of rights being stepped on, it's proof that many people are sue happy assholes who will file a lawsuit over any perceived slight. And they do, because the law lets them.

Also why do you use the word benefits as if it's a slur? You act as if gays are gonna be given preferential treatment just because they'll have the same civil marriage rights.

While we're on the subject of special benefits, how can we forget the most glaring form of all privileges: Every major religion in America is tax exempt. No other institution or individuals enjoy that sort of status. So you accuse gays of being given special benefits (so far with no proof) while religion has the biggest special benefit of all. Hypocrisy is a curious thing.

And because this bears repeating: Your right to despise another person or people does not supersede those peoples rights to be treated equally and not be marginalized, repressed or harassed.

[/i]Your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins[/i]

Regarding rights: I've read that all, and yes; you are still wrong. You'll notice that it says nothing about special legal privileges. Tell me, why are special legal benefits owed to gay people just for wanting to be married?

More to the point, I speak of natural rights - that is, true rights. Rights are those things that cannot be denied. If you take the idea of 'rights' as 'things that society owes you', well... What 'rights' you have are basically just whimsy, and however greedy and self-entitled you happen to be at any given moment. Just as well to say I have the right to not be bothered by your words and silence your speech.

Natural rights, the highest rights (if anything else can even be called 'rights'), are what you may never rightfully take away, and can be broadly categorized into three aspects; right to life, which is that no one may hurt or damage your body; right to liberty, in that you may do and believe and say as you wish with what is yours, provided it does not hurt anyone else's other rights; and right to property, to be secure in your possessions from wrongful theft or seizure.

As such, you are equating the 'right' to government recognition of gay marriage with the right of people to run their businesses as they see fit (as well other things, but that is the most egregious).

When I speak of rights, I speak of natural rights - things that cannot be rightfully taken away, things that we will have even if government were to collapse tomorrow (even if they are denied by force). These rights, the right to life, liberty, and property, should be the foundations of any good society and government. If these rights are sacrificed for the sake of lesser 'rights' - privileges, really, special arbitrary entitlements - then society is doing a great evil.




Regarding marginalization: Very well, a good number of people may 'marginalize' gay people to a small extent by not wanting to participate in gay marriage or recognize it, and a vanishing minority of people would marginalize gay people for simply being gay. Alright. What does this 'marginalization' involve, by and large? Not wanting to participate in their marriage ceremony, or recognize it at all? If that's what's got the gay movement's leather panties in a twist, then they need to grow a backbone; none of that actually hurts people, and while certain types of marginalization do hurt, that is not what is happening here. More to the point, gay people are likewise trying to marginalize religious people, and in far worse ways - ways that DO hurt the religious people's natural rights. Whereas the religious people would deny the gay people special legal benefits, the gay people would deny religious people their natural right to own and operate their business peaceably as they see fit.


"Actually their are laws that prohibit discrimination based on age, sex, race, orientation, disability, religion etc, in the workplace or in hiring employees, whether you agree with them or not. Otherwise you're correct, we are at liberty to live our lives as we see fit."

My dear, there is a large difference between not having a right and having that right infringed upon. When the government passed those laws, it infringed upon our rights to own and operate our businesses peaceably as we see fit. Our rights did not disappear; they were simply infringed. And there will, one day, be a reckoning for it.


"What special legal benefits are being given out to gays that aren't being given to straight couples?"

...Did you actually read what I wrote? I said "they are SEEKING special legal benefits", not "they HAVE special legal benefits". And I fully agree that straight people should not be getting these special legal benefits, either.

"Is there an actual religious liberty that's being repressed by gay civil marriage, and if so can you link me to it or actually explain what it is?"

Yes. I've linked it several times. Religious business owners refuse to recognize same sex marriages, and simply do not want to participate. They are sued, successfully, and therefore their rights are infringed upon.

"And no, businesses being sued isn't proof of rights being stepped on, it's proof that many people are sue happy assholes who will file a lawsuit over any perceived slight."

...Yes, yes it is proof that rights are being infringed upon. Government has taken away our right to operate our businesses, peaceably, the way we see fit. If government force to stop us from living our lives as we see fit is not an infringement on rights, then how can you say government force to, say, burst into gay people's homes and make sure they aren't boinking isn't an infringement on their rights?

"Also why do you use the word benefits as if it's a slur? You act as if gays are gonna be given preferential treatment just because they'll have the same civil marriage rights."

Because those benefits come at the expense of the fundamental rights of others. Government recognition of their marriage would deny them the right to operate their businesses as they see fit. Various welfare benefits associated with marriage are paid for out of the pockets of others. These are all benefits that come at the expense of other's basic rights.

The great irony of all this is that these issues were created by liberal policies in the past! The former would be no issue if government hadn't stuck its tendrils into the private sector and infringed on the rights of business owners; the latter wouldn't be an issue if government had stuck to its constitutional limits and not given out such benefits in the first place. The problems liberals face today, the grand inequalities and 'violations of rights' that they tout - they all came about because of their 'victories' of years past. Why should any 'victories' today not ultimately prove defeats and headaches later on, I should like to know!

"While we're on the subject of special benefits, how can we forget the most glaring form of all privileges: Every major religion in America is tax exempt. No other institution or individuals enjoy that sort of status. So you accuse gays of being given special benefits (so far with no proof) while religion has the biggest special benefit of all. Hypocrisy is a curious thing."

Ooooh, such a benefit! They DON'T take our money away, which was already earned and taxed!

Sorry, no; they have a right to their money. Taxes are an unfortunate necessity, and I will grudgingly accept them as necessary to better protect our rights, while constantly seeking to reduce them further and further. My ultimate goal would be to have taxes gotten rid of entirely, but that is not yet possible. In the meantime though, no; tax cuts != special legal benefits. Tax cuts do not cost anyone else anything; welfare programs do.

Moreover, it's a bit hypocritical to call for equality in tax cuts when the tax benefits gay couples would get can never be enjoyed by other groups.

"And because this bears repeating: Your right to despise another person or people does not supersede those peoples rights to be treated equally and not be marginalized, repressed or harassed."

You keep using those words; just as well to say "they have the right to not be treated badly". It's far too ambiguous for me to agree with. They don't have the right to not be marginalized, because they don't have the right to force others to accept them. If people don't want to accept homosexuality and shun it, well, they have that right to do so. That is 'marginalization', but I would never tell them that they don't have the liberty to simply deny service or goods to homosexuals; that would infringe upon THEIR rights. Likewise, 'repression' - far too vague. It can mean government force or societal pressure, so, no, you DON'T have the right to not be 'suppressed'. Shoot, even 'harassed' is an iffy word, as the gay movement have used it to describe lawful and unlawful speech they don't like!



"Your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins"

If you truly believed that, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Ahhh now this is the post I was looking for. I've read it and I feel I better understand your position. It is clear you completely despise most everything the state does in regards to regulating businesses and just generally in it's interactions with the people. There is not much I can contest in this but I will give my views nonetheless.

Gays are not owed any special status in their marriages other than the same rights. Also no I'm not wrong when I call legal rights what they are. You did a wonderful job explaining Natural rights but you completely ignore and even belittle Legal rights by calling them "privileges". You don't have to agree or like them but not acknowledging what they are is disingenuous and ultimately hurts your position. And the fact of the matter is there are numerous correct uses of the word rights and I don't have to conform to just your narrow definition of it.

Moreover, it's a bit hypocritical to call for equality in tax cuts when the tax benefits gay couples would get can never be enjoyed by other groups.
I made no such call, you inferred that. Also why do you keep calling them tax cuts? I said tax exemption, which is entirely different. Religious and charitable organizations are exempt from paying taxes. Fact.

My dear, there is a large difference between not having a right and having that right infringed upon. When the government passed those laws, it infringed upon our rights to own and operate our businesses peaceably as we see fit. Our rights did not disappear; they were simply infringed. And there will, one day, be a reckoning for it.

...Yes, yes it is proof that rights are being infringed upon. Government has taken away our right to operate our businesses, peaceably, the way we see fit. If government force to stop us from living our lives as we see fit is not an infringement on rights, then how can you say government force to, say, burst into gay people's homes and make sure they aren't boinking isn't an infringement on their rights?
This is true, you cannot operate your business in the exact manner you desire. But you seem to think that any form of regulation is bad, even if it ensures that customers (fellow people, citizens and members of society) are protected by unfair business or labor practices.

Technically, America is a secular country. If a religious person who owns a business that caters to the rest of society decides to bring their religion into their private business than they open themselves up to action by members of that secular society. Is it fair? No. Neither is it fair that they value bigoted ideology over the notion that all men are created equal: Life isn't fair, in any facet.

For all the blather we've had back and forth, for all our different stances on what would ensure the most prosperous society, two things still remain true: One, we all rationalize our views in our own way. And two, there will always be unforeseen circumstances that no set of laws and rights (be they natural, legal or any of the others) will address. No society will ever exist that ensures fairness for everyone, but I do believe we all want what's for the best (the problem is no one can agree what is best). Regardless we will all go through life with one or more of our various rights being infringed upon from various individuals or institutions. Despite this however I prefer to try and not to give into my biases (which are a result of my own individual perspective and life lived just as yours are your own) and do right by others. Live and let live is all one can ask to do.

"Your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins"

If you truly believed that, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I do really believe that and we did just have this conversation. :D Do you think it inconsistent with my stances for some reason? I assure you it isn't. And even if it were; I assume you are familiar with misconception or cognitive dissonance? We all are.

I belittle and ignore them because they are, truly, privileges - more often than not, meted out by the state for what the state approves, at the expense of that which the state does not approve of. Consider gay marriage and the special benefits - 'rights', as you call them - that it confers. Why shouldn't polygamous couples get those special legal privileges, too? Why not incestuous couples, if they've taken steps to insure they don't have kids? Why not a father and son, who just want to own property together and love each other as is natural for a father and son, and just want the benefits? Why can't single people get these benefits, too?

It's completely arbitrary; you cannot claim equality, as, by its nature, it will exclude others at their expense. More to the point, the state is taking money from one group to give it to another, just because the state views the latter as better. You say that gays aren't owed a special status? How is it NOT a special status, if all kinds of other people cannot get those same benefits?


"I made no such call, you inferred that. Also why do you keep calling them tax cuts? I said tax exemption, which is entirely different. Religious and charitable organizations are exempt from paying taxes. Fact."

Tax cuts, tax exemptions, same thing when you get right down to it; they reduce the taxes you pay. The fact is, you're calling for tax cuts to be made available to gay couples, when other groups cannot enjoy them. That is not 'equality'.

"This is true, you cannot operate your business in the exact manner you desire. But you seem to think that any form of regulation is bad, even if it ensures that customers (fellow people, citizens and members of society) are protected by unfair business or labor practices."

Yes. Because no harm comes from unfair business or labor practices. If a company refuses to hire someone because they're gay, the gay person is unharmed; they would be in the same situation if the building were instead an empty lot. The fundamental nature of contracts - the free exchange of rights between people, whether it's the ownership right of a portion of money in exchange for the labor of another or some other free exchange of rights, requires several aspects in order to be a valid contract. It requires legal consideration on both sides - that is, something of legal value. It requires legal capacity - that is, all parties entering into the contract must have the ability to make contracts. It requires a meeting of the minds - that is, the terms of the contract must be clear enough that the transfer of rights is unambiguous. And, most importantly, it requires that both parties accept the terms of the contract. The anti-discrimination laws violate that last principle, and, arguably, it is the most important one. To deny the peaceable self-will of another is to, in essence, enslave that person. You are saying that they do not have the right to peaceably do what they wish, but instead must do as YOU wish (or, in this case, what government wishes).

More to the point, as someone who so values equality, where's the equality in this? You can buy what you want from who you want for whatever reason you wish; you can refuse to shop at a place because the cashier is black, or Christian, or whatever. Yet, you insist that business owners must be constrained for the sake of 'equal treatment'? I call bullshit. There is no 'equality' in this, let alone respect for the fundamental rights of others.


"Technically, America is a secular country. If a religious person who owns a business that caters to the rest of society decides to bring their religion into their private business than they open themselves up to action by members of that secular society. Is it fair? No. Neither is it fair that they value bigoted ideology over the notion that all men are created equal: Life isn't fair, in any facet."

One is unfair but acceptable; the other is unfair AND VIOLATES THE PERSON'S BASIC RIGHTS. Just as well for me to shrug and say, "Gee, that's unfair that gays in Uganda are tortured and killed for being gay. But, hey, life isn't fair!"

"Do you think ['your right to swing your fist ends at my face] inconsistent with my stances for some reason? I assure you it isn't."

But it is. You will bring force where there is no coercion being brought. You swing your fist at business owners's 'faces' when you deny them the right to peaceably operate their business as they see fit. You seek to enable, whether you see it or not, other groups to swing their fists at Churches and Christian operated businesses for peaceably standing by their beliefs and doing the oh so HORRIBLE sin of not entering into a contract with someone.

So, no; you do not adhere to that principle.

Well, I have a 5,600-word response written up for you about logic, religion, homosexuality, businesses, government, consent, and this focus you have on hardcore Libertarianism bordering on anarchy. But I won't clog up your comments page with it unless you specifically ask for it; I wrote it more for myself than for your benefit anyway It's become clear to me that you have closed your mind to any new data that could alter your perceptions of the world because you believe it is already filled to the brim with all the knowledge that's fit to know. I legitimately find this very sad, because people who don't learn anything new are people who don't grow. People who stagnate. People who eventually just... shrivel up and disappear.

And yet, regardless of my own opinion that this will be a fool's errand, here I am, offering you the chance to open your mind and your heart, just a little, just to see what finds its way in there. I do this from faith, as well, in the hope that maybe you might exercise your own free will over your own mind, experience even a slight shift in perspective, and continue to grow as a human being.

So, if you'd like to open this can of worms, reply to this post. If not, continue with your life. Cheers.

"You have closed your mind to any new data"

Pot, meet kettle. Get off your high horse; you are not a savior of any sort.

I never claimed to be a savior, silly. I said that I was offering you a chance to open your mind and shift your perspective. There is a big difference between "saving" someone and "giving them new data with which to experiment and reach their own conclusions." I believe each sentient self-aware being has the tools necessary for their own personal salvation (logic and self-analysis) within them, regardless of external factors or experiences (geographical location, religious beliefs, life experiences, etc). So, no, I won't be saving you; that's your responsibility.

Now, here's a logic test. Let's see if we can find some common ground to work with here.

You claimed, in your original post, that the artist in question "Behaves in a manner that he condemns others for - ie, hypocrisy." You state this in an effort to paint the artist in a negative light, so that you may prove to others that he is "wrong" for exerting control over his own domain and his personal property (HIS art, on HIS page), and you are "right" because you are not a hypocrite, and he is. You use this as justification why "the left" is "wrong," and "the right" is "right."

FurAffinity gives each user the choice to block certain people as a function of the website. Users can block everyone, some people, or no one. By design, it is a matter of their personal consent. FurAffinity also allows users to run the pages under their control (profile, art postings, journals) as they see fit, with certain exceptions for illegal or harmful activities and other things that are against FurAffinity's Terms of Service.

With me so far? Let's continue. In a comment above, you say: You swing your fist at business owners's 'faces' when you deny them the right to peaceably operate their business as they see fit. But that artist IS a businessperson; they get money or some other benefit for drawing art, and then as a part of their business, they advertise their services by posting their work on FurAffinity. Therefore, the artist who runs a business, by your own definition, has the NATURAL RIGHT to run their business as they see fit.

That means, by your own statements, they have the natural right to tell people who do not share their opinion to leave their business and never return. It doesn't matter if they're liberal, conservative, gay, straight, white, black, or anything else. It doesn't matter if the person they're talking to is any of those things, either, nor what their opinions are.

Therefore, by your own logic, you have admitted that the artist was in the right to do as they please when responding to your presence on their page. This does not make you "wrong" about anything; your opinions are your own, as is your icon choice. However, it does mean that your original post was nothing more than you whining about something you could not control and blaming an entire half of the population for a problem that exists solely in your mind... that you literally consented to by posting on their page with an icon that you knew full well would cause an inflammatory response.

Compare this to a gay couple who goes to a wedding photographer and is denied by the photographer. It is the photographer's right, you claim, to turn these people away for any reason at all, and that gay people should simply accept this and move on.

One more quote from you from a comment above: [i]You seek to enable, whether you see it or not, other groups to swing their fists at... businesses for peaceably standing by their beliefs and doing the oh so HORRIBLE sin of not entering into a contract with someone.[/]

In that quote, you perfectly described what the artist did to you, my friend. They didn't want you around, so they told you to leave. Yet, instead of peaceably walking away and moving on with your life as you claim gay people should do, you are here, squabbling with anonymous furries over who is right and who is wrong.

Then, in your post above, you claim I am "the pot calling the kettle black," as the expression goes. This implies yet again, a negative perception about me because I am being a hypocrite when I call you out on something I believe to be true.

The difference between you and me, my friend, is that I freely admit that I am human and I am still growing, and therefore at times, I can be wrong, or a hypocrite, or self-centered. You have not ever admitted this in any post I've seen of yours, even though I just proved with your own logic that you have no reason to be upset at this artist, regardless of their opinion or how harshly they tell you to leave... because you tell gay people that they should not be upset at business owners for that very same reason.

So, Mr. Kettle, I am Mr. Pot, and we can be black together.

"I never claimed to be a savior, silly. I said that I was offering you a chance to open your mind and shift your perspective. There is a big difference between "saving" someone and "giving them new data with which to experiment and reach their own conclusions." I believe each sentient self-aware being has the tools necessary for their own personal salvation (logic and self-analysis) within them, regardless of external factors or experiences (geographical location, religious beliefs, life experiences, etc). So, no, I won't be saving you; that's your responsibility."

Yes, yes you did - not in those exact words, but you sought to save me from what you perceived as stagnation and a lack of growth, attributing it to a 'closed mind', which you sought to open. You did it in a condescending manner, and so I disregarded it. You seem to see anyone who does not agree with you as being somehow unenlightened, and in need of having a more open mind - so, I say, 'pull the log from your own eye first'.

"You claimed, in your original post, that the artist in question "Behaves in a manner that he condemns others for - ie, hypocrisy." You state this in an effort to paint the artist in a negative light, so that you may prove to others that he is "wrong" for exerting control over his own domain and his personal property (HIS art, on HIS page), and you are "right" because you are not a hypocrite, and he is. You use this as justification why "the left" is "wrong," and "the right" is "right." "

He called me a bigot, but he banned me for bigotry. I'm not condemning him for exerting lawful control over his page, I'm condemning him for his reasons for it. He has every right to ban whoever he wants, for whatever reason, from his page - I never contested that. I maintain, however, that he is a hypocrite for it. Moreover, I say that this is not an uncommon behavior on the left; those who clamor loudest for 'tolerance' and an end to 'hate' tend to be the most intolerant and hateful of anyone who disagrees.

"With me so far? Let's continue. In a comment above, you say: You swing your fist at business owners's 'faces' when you deny them the right to peaceably operate their business as they see fit. But that artist IS a businessperson; they get money or some other benefit for drawing art, and then as a part of their business, they advertise their services by posting their work on FurAffinity. Therefore, the artist who runs a business, by your own definition, has the NATURAL RIGHT to run their business as they see fit."

I never contested that, and I agree with you.

"That means, by your own statements, they have the natural right to tell people who do not share their opinion to leave their business and never return. It doesn't matter if they're liberal, conservative, gay, straight, white, black, or anything else. It doesn't matter if the person they're talking to is any of those things, either, nor what their opinions are."

I did not tell him to do anything of the sort. I called him a hypocrite. That's a far cry from saying "they should not work or operate here anymore because they are hypocrites", and it's not even in the same galaxy as "GOVERNMENT ought to force them not to operate here anymore because they are hypocrites".

"Therefore, by your own logic, you have admitted that the artist was in the right to do as they please when responding to your presence on their page."

Yes, they have the *right* to do as they please (contract with FA notwithstanding) in that no one may rightfully bring force to stop them from doing so. That does not make their character or their reasons or anything else *morally* right. To illustrate, you would have every right to, say, buy or make a crucifix and cover it in excrement, and exhibit it on your property or anyone else's property with their consent. The fact that no one can rightfully bring force against them to make them *not* do so does not make the activity itself morally right.

"This does not make you "wrong" about anything; your opinions are your own, as is your icon choice. However, it does mean that your original post was nothing more than you whining about something you could not control and blaming an entire half of the population for a problem that exists solely in your mind... that you literally consented to by posting on their page with an icon that you knew full well would cause an inflammatory response."

The problem does not exist in my mind, unless you think hypocrisy and double standards aren't a problem. I consented to them having the legal right to ban me from their page, yes; but having the right to do something doesn't make it right to do something, if you can understand the difference.

"Compare this to a gay couple who goes to a wedding photographer and is denied by the photographer. It is the photographer's right, you claim, to turn these people away for any reason at all, and that gay people should simply accept this and move on."

Yes, that is what I believe; they have every right to engage in any lawful transaction - or to NOT engage in it - as they see fit, for whatever reasons they wish or no reason at all. As it stands, the law brings force against them in the form of lawsuits and fines and penalties and such, infringing upon their rights. Notice that I did not actually comment and say, "It's okay for anyone to discriminate against gays for any reason" - some reasons are good, some reasons are bad, some reasons are stupid, and some reasons are outright evil and malevolent. But, again - while discriminating might not be right in some cases, I firmly believe they have the right to do it. And it is DEFINITELY wrong for government to bring force against them and harming that right. Now, you may say, "well, you're saying it's wrong for government to stifle them, but isn't it wrong for them to be doing it in the first place?". It's the difference between someone smearing feces on a crucifix and someone breaking into that person's house and vandalizing their property; the former violates no rights, the latter does. The former causes no harm (distasteful though it may be), the latter does. The former may not rightfully have force brought against them for it, the latter may rightfully have force brought against them for it. Is that clear?

"One more quote from you from a comment above: [i]You seek to enable, whether you see it or not, other groups to swing their fists at... businesses for peaceably standing by their beliefs and doing the oh so HORRIBLE sin of not entering into a contract with someone.[/]

In that quote, you perfectly described what the artist did to you, my friend. They didn't want you around, so they told you to leave. Yet, instead of peaceably walking away and moving on with your life as you claim gay people should do, you are here, squabbling with anonymous furries over who is right and who is wrong."

I condemned him for supporting the bringing of wrongful force against another (namely, gay rights groups using government to suppress our rights). I don't see how that's what the artist did to me; he did not, in our exchanges, support governmental force in this regard. Moreover, there is no contradiction between what I called for and how I'm behaving. I am acting PEACEABLY; I am not bringing force against him. Nowhere did I say that PEACEABLY is the same as PEACEFULLY; I use PEACEABLY in the same sense as it is used in the First Amendment, "the right to PEACEABLY assemble". Namely, by not bringing force against them. I said nothing about them not protesting them, or telling their friends not to shop there, or using any other power PEACEABLY against the business. Likewise, I am PEACEABLY protesting his behavior.

"Then, in your post above, you claim I am "the pot calling the kettle black," as the expression goes. This implies yet again, a negative perception about me because I am being a hypocrite when I call you out on something I believe to be true.""

Yes; your own mind is not open to new ideas. It is evident from your post that you disagree with me, so by your own standard you are closed off to the idea that I may be right.

"The difference between you and me, my friend, is that I freely admit that I am human and I am still growing, and therefore at times, I can be wrong, or a hypocrite, or self-centered. You have not ever admitted this in any post I've seen of yours, even though I just proved with your own logic that you have no reason to be upset at this artist, regardless of their opinion or how harshly they tell you to leave... because you tell gay people that they should not be upset at business owners for that very same reason."

Have you really accepted the idea that I may be right? If not, how can you condemn me for being 'close minded' to thinking you may be right if you are yourself close-minded to the idea that I may be right? We'll see, I suppose. Besides, you're making a snap-judgement about me based on a single journal entry; how can you possibly know the full content of my character, or whatever changes I've gone through and may still be going through, from a single data point?

More to the point, you really haven't 'proven with my own logic that I have no reason to be upset at the artist'. I never said that people couldn't get upset; I condemned them for using government force to settle their differences.

Well, apparently I lost interest in this, but I'll just drop this here for hilarity's sake. Looks like you might get your litmus test! But if Arizona explodes, don't come crying to me

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/.....ys-Away-Passes

Why on earth would Arizona explode, just because ~2% of the population are sometimes discriminated against? =/

Well, it didn't pass, but because nearly every major business that was headquartered in Arizona was considering pulling out if that law passed because they didn't want to be associated with lunacy like that, thus leading to the inevitable collapse of their economy. Or, in other words, "explode."

Citation needed. It was veto'd, yes - but I'll need more than just your word on the reason. The only thing I can reasonably conclude at this point is that it was veto'd because Arizona's governor vetoed it - to ascribe it to other reasons, without adequate support, is hardly a valid argument.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-.....gislation.html

Ah - so you think that the views of large corporations should be the basis of public policy, then? Or is that only when you agree with their positions?

You simply asked for a source and I provided one, nothing more.

Ah. Still, that doesn't really support his premise - not that his premise really supports his argument in the first place. There are plenty major corporations headquartered in Arizona, and that's hardly a majority. Moreover, none of those companies seem to be headquartered in Arizona. And, even if they did object to the law, it doesn't seem that they were threatening to pull out of Arizona, according to the article - only that they were saying that companies (other companies, from the context) MAY leave Arizona with the passage of the bill.

So, first off;

His argument is very weak. Saying 'most of the big companies based in Arizona oppose the law, and they're threatening to leave Arizona if the law is passed, therefore the law is bad' is an appeal to authority, and last I checked big businesses weren't experts in what should be the law of the land. Second, even if we were to ignore the weakness of his inductive argument, his premise is un-cogent - that is, the premises are false, or dubious at best. Most of the big companies don't appear to oppose the law, nor are they threatening to leave.

Also, just wanna say, cute avatar X3

I dont agree with you but you are allowed your opinions. Do I think its smart to be so open about it in a very pro-gay community? Not really, but once again you are entitled to your opinions and i wont bash you for them, otherwise I'd be no better then anyone who bullies anyone else.

On this note I do think it is up to the artist to sensor what he doesn't want on his page, whether it be a particular person affiliated with something he's against or simply not drawing certain kinks. It would be like... hmm...
If someone with the icon "rape is just surprise sex" was boping around on my gallery. I would be so offended i wouldn't want anything to do with them. I wouldn't go so far as to confront them but I would probably end up blocking them. I guess it just comes down to how strongly morals and beliefs are, etc.

Is rape and anti-gay the same? Not at all. Just trying to explain from an artists point of view. c:

I hope you have a nice day~

lol, your icon seems to beg for a can of worms to be opened. XD

But on this, I just see the pattern history poses. There's always one group. One group everyone wants to attack and hate on. Black people and woman had their turn, now it's gays. At least, that's what I've seen. But hey, what do I know?

*nods* And for each of those groups, the desires were, at first, reasonable - equal protection under the law, voting rights, not to be punished by the law simply for who they are... But they swung the pendulum too far, and infringed upon the rights of others. That's what, I think, the gay rights lobby did. They already decriminalized gay sex pretty much everywhere in the US; now they are pushing for benefits at the cost of others.

It's a case of getting an inch, but taking a mile. I don't know what the reasoning is, I just assume it's either their idea of payback or taking advantage of the situation. But, I'm on the side of being for their rights (not necessarily ALL the ones they're going for, but the general stuff that all the others have fought for)

I really just have a set of questions, and I'll be perfectly honest, to be able to understand how a homosexual man can be against the Civil Rights movement of our generation, ie Gay movement.

1. Where did you grow up?

2. What is your religious affiliation?

3. Are you aware that churches already receive tax breaks and grants for being "charitable organizations"?

4. Are you aware that without recognition of a same-sex marriage that if one is in the hospital, the other cannot see them (In the event the one being treated is incapacitated) and because of this, if you have a partner that had an accident, you will not be able to see him?

5. Are your parents accepting or tolerant of your sexuality or have you not told them out of fear of repercussion?

6. Are you aware that the heterosexual couple will not give up the benefits already provided by the government for their marriage and that the government is run by mainly heterosexuals that are married?

7. How old are you?

8. Have you ever thought about marrying someone or is that form of commitment too below you (sorry but I'm cranky and feeling cynical and a tad bit condescending)?

9. Do you realize that in most states due to the lack of extension of the ENDA, Employment Non-Discrimination Act, you can removed from your job and denied a job because you are gay or rather because you have non-hetero-norm qualities?

10. Do you see sexuality as a choice or not?

11. Do you realize that you appear to be a "bigot" not because your view necessarily, but rather your lack of understanding of what your icon means? That division over the equal sign does not mean that you don't support gay marriage, rather it means that you are entirely against the movement. If that is the case (which I really hope not), then move to Russia or Uganda or one of the other nations that allows open discrimination based on sexual orientation.

12. Do you realize this movement is trying to grant you the same rights that other minorities in the past have fought for such as housing protection and opportunity, meaning laws to protect you from being evicted based on sexual orientation?

13. Do you think that a business or any establishment should have the right to ask you your sexual orientation?

14. Do you think that a business or any establishment should be able to deny service or employment opportunity based on skin color?

15. Do you think that there is a problem with being gay?

16. Do you think that it is wrong to have pride in one's sexuality?

17. Do you think that it is wrong to display such pride as mentioned in the previous question?

18. Do you think that it is wrong to have pride in one's racial background?

19. Do you think that it is wrong to display such pride as mentioned in the previous question?

20. Other than the marriage portion of the "gay movement," what else are you against?

1. Irrelevant.
2. Irrelevant.
3. First off, much of the money that churches make has already been taxed. The donations they receive shouldn't be taxed. Second, there are plenty of untaxed organizations; to use this comparison as a justification is disingenuous, at best. Third, if this were all the gay rights movement wanted, I could TENUOUSLY get behind it. But, it's not.
4. Untrue. Right of attorney is a simple fix for this. Moreover, why do you or anyone else have the right to tell a hospital, which is already forced to accept emergency cases, to further accept others into the hospital that they do not wish to accept?
5. Irrelevant.
6. The first part, they would simply stop receiving benefits. As for the second, irrelevant - what are you, heterophobic? Why do you care?
7. Irrelevant.
8. Irrelevant.
9. What right do you have to tell an employer to enter into or continue* a contract that they do not wish to continue?
10. Sexual desire is not a choice; sexual action is.
11. It is already illegal in the US to perform any illegal activity against a gay person (murder, steal from, rape, attack, etc); the Supreme Court likewise ruled in Lawrence vs Texas that sodomy laws are Unconstitutional. Gay people can vote, they can own property, they can pretty much do anything that a single person can do. So, what exactly is the "=" movement fighting for, besides special legal privileges that deny the rights of others, such as employment protections in some states and 'marriage' rights in others? Moreover, bigotry is an intolerance of other people's views; I am therefore not a bigot, as I'm letting you post this stuff here on my journal.
12. Again; no one has the right to force another to continue* or enter into a contract.
13. They have every right to ask. I have every right to not answer. They have every right to not hire me, for whatever reason they wish, whether they tell me or not. Moreover, contract to the contrary, they may fire me for whatever reason they wish. Anything else would violate their right to freely enter or leave* contracts.
14. Yes. They have every right to hire or fire or provide services or not provide services however they wish; that is their right, to freely enter or not enter contracts as they so choose. Now, you're probably going to call me a bigot for that (again, using the incorrect term, even!), but that seems to be the fundamental problem with liberalism; you cannot conceive of disapproving of something without wanting to ban it, nor approving of something without wanting to get government involved.
15. Problem as in sinful? If you mean 'gay' as in 'attracted to the same sex', no, that alone is not sinful. Sleeping with the same sex, however, is. I'm not advocating the banning of gay sex or the prosecution of homosexuals for liking the same sex, mind.
16. Having pride in who you're attracted to, or how many guys you've boned? I think it's foolish to the extreme. Just as well to feel proud about having 10 toes, or enjoying ice cream.
17. It's foolish to the extreme.
18. Again, yes; you don't choose your race, any more than you choose your sexual preferences. Having pride in your culture is another story; you choose to participate in that and be a part of that, and if it's a good culture that protects human rights and produces beneficial cultural byproducts (art, music, scientific advancement, etc), and you contribute to it? Sure.
19. Part one, foolish to the extreme; part 2, depends on how it's displayed, but the display itself is not wrong.
20. You've probably figured this out already by now, but the restrictions on individuals and businesses to freely enter or not enter into contracts, by their own will, is a gross violation of individual freedoms and liberties. Beyond that, what the gay movement has already achieved is acceptable; they've decriminalized gay sex, and they've got equal protection under the law. The problem is, they won't fucking stop. They started with wanting to be left alone to peaceably live their lives as they wished, and if they had stopped there I would have had no problem with them. Instead, they went on to demand that society give them all these benefits and such that come at the expense of the rights of others.


*Re: Continuing or entering into a contract; While many contracts are final once they are made - such as the sale or trade of property - the employment contract is usually stipulated to be 'at will' - that is, either party may cancel the employment contract whenever they wish. For employment contracts that are NOT At-Will, the terms of the contract will be obeyed until such a time as the contract is completed.

[deletes comment] I will not tolerate libel on my page. If you want to call me a hateful bigot, then do it elsewhere; but you will not defame me on my own page.

Sir where was you at the time of this man's death?
"irrelevant"
What was you doing?
"irrelevant"
Did you know this man?
"irrelevant"

None of what he was asking had anything to do with the truth or falsehood of what I was saying; they were, to put it bluntly, subtle ad-hominem attacks. He was attempting to attack the person saying it rather than the thing said. So, yes; they were very much irrelevant questions.

I just cannot comprehend how other people think. I really wish I could look through the other side of the looking glass at times. So I can understand how a person filled with idiocy can think. You claim to say that gay marriage is a special right. Why should you care what other people do with their lives? Why is it any of your business to decide how someone is to live. Why can't people have the mindset of live and let be. I mean I see no harm coming from it. Why must we have the need to have a right to marry the one we love. The only reason I see you disagreeing with this, is that it's against your religious principles. If so, I hardly take you for anyone with a high level of intellect. As pretty much all religion is bullshit. I'm not against people who are religious, and I have no reason to make them stop believing. As it is not my life to live, I cannot control people I disagree with. The same with you, just because you don't like gay marriage, that doesn't mean other people should follow the rules based on your principles. I don't like playing golf, but do I sit there and complain how other people that play golf need to stop because I don't like it. Do I go around denying people the right to play golf, and enforce people who do to play football because that's what I like. No...

The tldr of this, is that it's not your decision to decide what people do, based on your own religious standards.

Now it's 'idiocy' to disagree? My, how tolerant of you.

I'll get right to the chase; rights, REAL rights, things which you cannot rightfully deny another and aren't just the whinings and mewlings of those who desire what another has? Those came before society and will exist long after every society alive today dies. Fundamental rights are not granted by government; they are either protected or infringed upon, but government has no more power to decide what fundamental rights are than it can change what is right and wrong. Because, at their core, fundamental rights are based on what is right and wrong - namely, what is right and wrong to force. They are as follows; life, liberty, and property. Life - because no one may rightfully harm your person. Liberty - because no one may rightfully tell you how to peaceably live your life. Property - because no one may deny you the fruits of your peaceable labor. These things are rights, TRUE rights, rights that came before all society's alive today and will exist as long as there are people alive. Rights are not things that society owes you; rights are what others may not rightly take away from you.

Now, you seem to be conflating two different things here; namely, the liberty of gay people to live peaceably as they please (which I fully support), and what the gay rights movement is trying to push. These things are by no means the same; if the gay rights movement simply wanted the law to allow gay people to live in the same house, jointly own property, do things in the privacy in their bedroom, without the fear of the law coming barging in? If they just wanted equal protection under the law from others denying them their rights to life, liberty, and property? The gay rights movement would be done; it has achieved all of those goals.

But, again, that's not what they want.

They want the special benefits associated with marriage - benefits which, again, I do not think government should be giving out in the first place - and the ability to bring legal force against anyone who doesn't agree with them. THAT is what they want; they want special legal PRIVILEGES, which are granted by the largess of society and NOT what rightfully owed to them in any sense of the word (what have they done to deserve welfare or social security benefits?). They want to punish those who don't agree with them, or indeed simply remain neutral.



If they simply wanted the right to hold a marriage ceremony on their own property, live together, enter into contracts together, and be protected by the law if someone else tries to infringe upon their rights? That'd be fine - indeed, they've succeeded in that, and that's good and right. But what they're pushing for right now is not the right to do what they want with what is rightfully theirs; they would deny the basic rights of others, directly and indirectly, and I cannot accept that.


If you assume my reasons are just 'religious', you clearly didn't read a single word of what I wrote. As it is, I see a critical lack of proper punctuation and sentence structure in your post, as well as repetition of the old, tired arguments I've seen endlessly from the left, regurgitated without any critical thought, flung as a monkey flings its own excrement. More to the point, you have slandered me, and that is something I will not tolerate; you have called me stupid multiple times, in several colorful ways, and for that reason I ban you from my page. Hopefully you will learn better ways in time.

I don't understand your argument against "indoctrinating kids" by telling them that homosexuality is A-okay? Couldn't that argument be extended to include being against telling kids that blacks are equal to whites, that women are equal to men, etc?

As far as churches having to re-organize their whole structure if gay marriage is allowed - I don't see what they would have to do beyond eliminating all unnecessary gender-specific terms and making them gender-neutral.

And you're right that marriage is perhaps a "special right," not fundamentally guaranteed. But what is fundamentally guaranteed is equal protection under the law, unless you disagree with the 14th amendment. You're absolutely right that the government has no obligation to provide marriages. However, they DO provide marriages, and until that changes, they have an obligation under the 14th amendment to provide them equally to people without regard to race, national origin, sex, etc. As it stands in many states, one's gender can affect whom one can marry - I don't see how this is not a clear violation.

Basically, I don't see how the argument here is any different from a possible argument against racial equality, other than the fact that religion nutjobs are involved when it comes to marriage equality. Care to clarify?

Equivocation. How quaint. How about we take it the other direction, then, and tell them that homosexual behavior is evil? Would you approve of your tax dollars being spent for this purpose? Ideally, schooling would be privatized and public schooling would be done away with as a failed institution. Until that time, however, you can at least respect the opinions of others and NOT try to use government funds to indoctrinate their kids in ways they find abhorrent.

Re: Having to 're-organize' - what, exactly, are you suggesting?

Re: 14th Amendment - then they must provide 'marriage' rights for polygamous groups, incestuous couples, people who want to marry their car, etc. Moreover, they will NEVER have Equal Protection by your standard, as single people will never enjoy many of those benefits. That's all to say nothing of the fact that government shouldn't be giving out these privileges to begin with...

I have already 'clarified', thank you very much. And if you think that those who object to homosexuality and simply don't want it celebrated in their churches or in their own businesses are just being 'religious nuts', then perhaps you should learn to be more tolerant =3

But they're simply not the same. Our schools teach children all the time that people of all races are equal. The "other direction" - teaching kids that whites are better than blacks - is not just the other side of the same coin. Why does this argument change when it comes to sexual orientation?

And yes - they must provide marriage rights for poly groups, incestuous couples, etc, too. We're getting there. As far as cars go, I don't understand what purpose a contract with a car would have.

You need to understand that there's a difference between YOU teaching YOUR kids something, and taking money from parents to teach their kids something they don't approve of.

You also seem to be missing the point; it will NEVER be Equal Protection, as it will always be taking from one group to give to another. Single people will NEVER be able to enjoy those rights; Equal Protection will NEVER apply so long as government is giving out those special legal benefits.

Taxes could be lowered for single people, if that's the concern. But other benefits - such as visitation rights, etc, seem necessary and unharmful to singles. Either way, it doesn't appear that marriage as an institution is going anywhere anytime soon, and as long as it exists, we certainly do have an equality issue with it.

And what's with you talking about "their kids" as if the kids are the parent's property? Those kids are human beings, and have the right to learn the truth about homosexuality rather than being brought up to think homosexuality is evil. These aren't "two equal and opposing views," just like racism and non-racism aren't. One is okay. The other isn't. And it's not "bigotry" to say so.

"Taxes can be lowered for single people" - so you'll do away with the graduated income tax? And survivorship social security, and welfare? What about the greater benefits you can get if you're married? I'm sorry, no; marriage YOU want could never be equal, and if government were trimmed down to proper levels then you'd have all you wanted already.

Visitation Rights can be granted by Right of Attorney; you don't need to get married before the eyes of the law to confer Right of Attorney to another.

Now, you say 'marriage isn't going anywhere anytime soon' - well, sorry, but you've just lost the 'equality' argument there. You can't argue 'equality for all' and not have it actually extend to ALL.

Anyway, you're right about one thing; they're not 'equal and opposing views'. One says that perverse relations between men and men or women and women are good, the other says that they are bad. If I were a liberal like you, and believed that the raising of your child was any of my business, I suppose I'd have no problem taking your money, taking your child, and indoctrinating him or her as I see fit.

But, see, I value freedom.

No, parents don't own their children in the sense that they own their car or their pets. They do, however, have the responsibility to raise them and care for them, and they have the right to decide what the kids may learn. The kids may seek out things that they want to learn, yes - I'm not denying that. But there's a big difference between "they have a right to seek out knowledge" and "I have the right to, without the parents' or child's consent, force the child to be indoctrinated in this manner because *I'M* obviously right, and anyone who disagrees with me is just being bigoted".

So then, is teaching children that people of all races are equal "indoctrination" too? What about teaching them that 2+2=4? The fact that some adults believe that whites are better than blacks does not change the fact that this is untrue. Same goes for sexual orientation equality.

"perverse relations" between a man and men or a woman and women? Somehow I don't quite believe your claim that you're gay yourself. You think that's an unbiased assessment?

Yes, it is 'indoctrinating' - and while I believe this is GOOD indoctrination, it still isn't government's place. Moreover, the statement "homosexual orientation is equal to heterosexual orientation" or even "blacks are equal to whites" as being equal in character and support to "2+2=-4", you are grossly mistaken. The first statement is incorrect; the second, while incorrect, I will humor debate upon as social issues can and should be debated (if only to re-examine what one believes and why they believe it). The third is a simple mathematical fact, and can be proven, concretely, in any number of ways.

Now, I *AM* gay; I am solely and completely attracted to the same sex. I have no attraction to the opposite sex, so I cannot even claim bisexuality. But there is a difference between what my loins desire and what my mind knows to be true, and I know that homosexual desire is a perversion, a result of my sinful nature. It is, however, a choice as to whether or not I will act on those desires - and, God willing, I hope to never succumb to them.


Now, back to the crux of the matter; you seem to be falling into the common liberal logical fallacy. Namely, "You do not think government should do this, therefore it ought not be done". I don't think government ought to indoctrinate children into believing blacks are equal to whites; that does not mean it ought not be done, only that it's not government's proper role to act as a holder and promoter of morals. I apply this to Christianity too, mind; it isn't government's role to teach kids abstinence of sex before marriage, or that homosexuality is wrong. Simply put, I want government OUT of it. Ideally, this would involve dismantling the public education system in its entirety, but for now I'll settle for an officially neutral stance while letting the students peaceably talk about it, and teachers join in an unofficial capacity if they wish (ie, helping the students to organize the groups they support, in their spare time). Would that be an acceptable compromise to you?

Oh! Now I see. At first I thought you were just a libertarian extremist who wanted the government out of this and that so much, you were willing to sacrifice equality, righteousness, end everything in pursuit of that, with a "the end justifies the means" mentality. Now I see that you're one of those conflicted homosexuals who feels guilty about your own desires (for reasons that escape me) and are uncomfortable with other homosexuals being more comfortable with who they really are than you've managed to be. I'm sure you'll disagree with that, but that is my assessment.

Let's break from the path of discussing the role of government and discuss morality, since this is now what I believe is holding you back. If you are solely attracted to other men, why do you feel that you cannot (or should not) act upon that? You say that you know it is a "perversion" - but if something is not causing harm, it cannot, by definition, be wrong. Is true love not the greatest thing we humans can pursue and desire? Sexual orientation isn't just about what your "loins desires" - it is about loving another person. Something tells me that religion is what is holding you back, even though you cannot find a rational explanation for why a loving God would not want you to share your love with someone else. As a Christian myself, I find this to be a great shame, and I hope you can overcome your apprehension and truly be yourself someday.

I've always been baffled by this sort of mentality. If you're truly gay, and understand that there's so much more to it than "what your loins desire," how on earth could you call that potential for love a "perversion?"

(I might also point out that it's more than a little ironic that you think that genuinely loving someone who happens to be the same gender as you is "perverse," yet you happen to have your filters turned off on this site. Not really the point, but I thought it was worth pointing out :). )

Am I conflicted? Yes. Because what my loins desire and what my mind knows to be right are two different things. This is true for nearly everyone; they must restrain themselves from what they desire because it would be wrong for them to partake in it. It's why a man does not, say, pounce on a woman and ravish her on the sidewalk, but instead tries to woo the woman and get her willing to have sex with him. It's why a person, though wanting to simply take what they want, will instead pay for the item. It is, in short, why we have morality in the first place. Why should this be anything special? Ah, yes; because you believe homosexual behavior is okay.

Now, if you want to talk fundamental right and wrong - not just harm and not-harm, which is what the law of man is concerned of, but right and wrong - I ask you, from whence do these assumptions come? 'If it does not cause harm, how can it be wrong' - how do you come to that conclusion? How can claim that something is right and something is wrong, without it being arbitrary? My standard of right and wrong is based on the Bible - which, for all your claims to the contrary, is actually remarkably self-consistent and supported by historical evidence. You claim to be a Christian; what does the Bible say about marriage? "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh." Given the context of marriage in the Old Testament, where the 'becoming one flesh' part involved sex, I am loathe to join that which God has not seen fit to join in that manner. If I were to become one flesh with another man, besides being evil in God's eyes, it would have negative ramifications for me. God is not senseless; He does not make laws and rules for no reason. I have heard several sound biological reasons for it being unwise for a man to sleep with another man, not the least of which involves hormones and pair bonding as well as male aggression towards other males during this period.

I fully recognize that there can be love between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. One can spend one's life with another, without sin, caring for them and seeking after their well-being. If you cannot separate this from sex, however, then you are most likely not actually loving the person; you *desire* them, as one desires a sandwich when hungry or sleep when tired, and that does them a disservice; they are not an object to be desired, but a person to be loved. As such, I am not depriving myself of love - I have several cubs, and I cherish them and seek for their well-being, and that fulfills me.

As for having the filter off; many good diaper pictures are labeled "adult" for no other reason than they have a diaper, and the only way I can see them is if I have the filter off =/


Btw, how can you justify laws that regulate people from discriminating, when discrimination does not cause harm (NOT being offered to trade is NOT the same thing as being harmed, btw - if it were, any business that was closed would be 'harming' others)? That seems internally inconsistent...

So basically, you think that it's more appropriate to examine 2000-year-old-texts written by ancient Romans to determine morality, instead of examining the consequences of actions?

I get the "what is not harmful cannot be wrong" principle from common sense. I don't understand why anyone would think that something that does not harm another person would be wrong. Only literally-interpreted religion could produce such nonsense.

See, Christianity is a wonderful thing when people take its basic principles and apply them to their lives. Faith, hope, and love. Do unto others and you would have them do unto you. Forgiveness. These are the basic tenants of Christianity. When people like you corrupt these principles by turning Christianity into a rule-book and interpret the Bible as a literal guide to modern morality, you end up with...well, this. Your "biological reasons" for rejecting homosexuality seem to be nothing more than a grasping attempt to justify your religion - without confirmation bias, you'd be much more likely to notice the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting homosexuality as natural and unharmful ("male aggression towards other males during this period?" What "period?" And what if one can have sex, but not have this mysterious aggression? "Hormones?" That's not even an explanation. Etc.)

Why should homosexuals have to separate sex and love any more or less than a heterosexual couple?

Really, you need to start living your life with respect to the person you are inside. There's clearly some resentment in your heart towards other homosexuals who have found who they are and chosen to make peace with it rather than reject it. You base your identity on a "not-equals sign," after all.

If you think you will suddenly "become aggressive" or encounter mysterious "hormone problems" if you do - well, all you have to do is look at the overwhelming majority of homosexuals who do not encounter these problems. If you think it's "wrong" "just because a book told me God said so" in spite of all evidence showing that homosexuality does not cause anyone any harm...well, I fear you may be beyond help, but you seem like a logical person - I'm sure you can see the problem with that mentality.

Also, I'll include a brief chart to show the logic that I believe counters your strict-Biblical-Christian view.

FACT/ASSUMPTION 1: God does not make senseless rules. (you stated this, and I would tend to agree, if we assume an infallible God)
FACT/ASSUMPTION 2: Some rules supposedly made by God in the Bible (seriously, read Leviticus) are senseless.

THEREFORE:

EITHER

1. God did not make these rules. These may have been translation mistakes, or embellished or written entirely by men without divine inspiration, and added to the Bible through a Catholic conclave. This seems to be a very, very reasonable and likely explanation.

OR

2. These rules are so far beyond human understanding as to render them meaningless. What I do believe is that God has given me a rational mind, and if something is to be declared "wrong," an intelligent human ought to demand an explanation for it.

Prove assumption #2, please. I've heard it several times, and every time someone asserts that a rule in the Bible was senseless, a little bit of digging shows otherwise. Moreover, your second conclusion is fallacious; just because it is beyond our understanding doesn't make it meaningless. A dog cannot understand why it should not run out into the street, but the owner's command not to do so is not without meaning, nor is it senseless.

You're right about the dog. But this is only because running out into the street has a definitive consequence. If it did not have a definitive consequence, then it would be meaningless and senseless. Therefore, rather than focusing on it being wrong to run out into the street because "the owner said so," we say it is wrong because of its consequence. In this sense, it is completely irrelevant what the owner tells the dog to do - running out into the street is equally harmful whether the owner says so or not.

In the same way, when we examine Biblical rules, we can conclude that they are sensible if and only if we can show that not following them leads to a discernible, logical, undesirable consequence.

_____

Please consider this, now. I think it is critical to your argument.

If one argues that a given activity x is harmful because of the possibility of an undesirable consequence or side effect y, this cannot be generalized as an argument against all instance of activity x, if one can possibly engage in x without incurring y. For instance, if one makes the argument "violent video games are bad because they can lead to violence," (which is likely true), this is argument is completely irrelevant to an individual who knows he can play violent video games without becoming violent. It doesn't matter if the correlation occurs in 99% of cases. If the 1% knows that they can play these games without becoming violent, then throwing the "99% of violent video game players become violent" statistic at them becomes utterly meaningless.

Basically:

You say that "homosexuality is wrong because it can lead to an increase in male-male aggression and abusive relationships." Ok, fine. Maybe it can. But what if one single individual exists who can have homosexual relationships and be able to restrain himself from the negative effects of this aggression? What is the meaning of this argument to him? You say you exercise restraint in not giving into your homosexual desires. Why is that better than someone who has homosexual acts, and exercises the restraint before they incur any negative side-efffects? If the "restraint" is done before the negative side-effects occur, why is your way better?

By the abuse argument, I could argue that heterosexual relationships are "bad" because they can lead to abuse towards women. This is a true statement, but it's completely senseless to base an argument that something is ALWAYS bad because of a negative consequence that SOMETIMES occurs. Unless every homosexual ever was beating up his partner in a rage of hormonal aggression, your facts don't say anything about the "wrongness" of homosexuality.

____________________________

Also, by your "descrimination != harm and therefore should be legal" argument, do you oppose the Civil Rights movements of the 1960s? Just wondering how you factor that into your views.

Also, some odds and ends:

-Ritualistic sacrifice to God in the Old Testament? Having to go get cleaned by Priests after masturbating or having "nocturnal emissions? Just read Leviticus, and then tell me that all those rules make perfect sense with our modern understanding of science, morality, and the world. Spoiler alert: They don't.

-For any given activity x, x is morally acceptable until shown otherwise. I don't have to prove to you that homosexuality is "good." Showing that it is "not bad" is enough to render it moral. I could pose all sorts of questions such as "how can you be *sure* that touching the walls in your bedroom aren't harming you? How can you be *sure* that getting out of bed with your left foot first is not detrimental to your health?" You would not need to answer these questions - the lack of proof that these activities are "bad" is enough to render them perfectly ok. Same for homosexuality - simply refuting your arguments is enough. I have no burden to "prove" that it's "good." The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.

Come on...do you really believe that if you found someone you loved and married them and had sex like any normal married couple, you'd transform into a hormone-crazed aggressive evil demon? It's just silly. You could exercise the same control then that you do now.

Ritualistic Sacrifice: It is reasonable to believe that this was a 'placeholder' for Christ, prior to Christ's death and resurrection on the cross. Contemplating Christ's sacrifice is a humbling endeavor, and it helps put one in the right state of mind to ask for God's forgiveness and for His guidance; likewise, the Jews sacrificed the best for God, as it puts them in the right frame of mind to serve God. This is ignoring the possible spiritual aspects, such as the possibility that it was a literal placeholder for the time when Christ would sacrifice Himself and validate the sacrifices.

Cleaned by Priests after Masturbation or Nocturnal Emissions: given that they had no 'germ theory' at the time, they had to be stringent about issues of cleanliness. Considering that pretty much all bodily fluids are considered 'unclean' to a greater or lesser extent, it's no surprise that this one is regulated.

You claim to be a Christian; God said that it is immoral. You now have to prove to me that it is moral.

"Come on...do you really believe that if you found someone you loved and married them and had sex like any normal married couple, you'd transform into a hormone-crazed aggressive evil demon? It's just silly. You could exercise the same control then that you do now."\

Those were biological issues I brought up to show you that homosexual sex is not equal to heterosexual sex. As it is, there are almost certainly spiritual ramifications for gay sex, just as there are spiritual ramifications for straight sex. Good spiritual ramifications for straight sex, if it is practiced according to God's will. Anything that goes against His will, however, tends to have negative spiritual ramifications.

First you have to prove that "God said it is immoral." There is no evidence for the infallibility of the Bible.

You claim to be Christian, yet you do not believe that the Bible is a true accounting? If that is the case, how do you pick and choose - based on what 'feels right'? That's an even worse standard. As it is, what I have reviewed of the Bible stands up to historical scrutiny - even the miracles - and that indicates that there is a God and that He guided the Israelites, that He came down as Christ, that He died and rose again, etc etc etc. Given that information, the most reasonable course of action is to believe that the Bible is reasonably true, and that I ought to follow the rules it contains - not for fear of punishment, but for love of God.

So you have more evidence of these past events than our leading historians? The authenticity of the Bible has not been verified. Even if it was, many things could have been lost in translation or left out. The Bible was written by human beings. And you do understand that the Bible was formed by a bunch of Catholics sitting around and deciding what books should be in it and which should be left out, right?

God has given me a brain, and I find it to be more reliable than ancient books written by some Mesopotamians and Romans.

Now your argument has degenerated into "But there might be harmful affects we don't even know" (which could be claimed about absolutely ANY activity) and "Some old books say so." Come on.

If you do not believe that the Bible is an accurate account, how can you possibly believe anything meaningful about Jesus - how, in short, can you call yourself a Christian? Moreover, 'some old book' has been proven true time and again, and those things which can be historically proven, by and large, ARE.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/art.....port-the-bible

If you don't want to believe the Bible, fine; but I have reviewed the evidence, and I find the Bible to be trustworthy as a historical account and a guide for my morality. If you don't like it, why on earth should I accept your word for it over my own critical thought and review of the evidence? God has given me a brain, too, and your argument of 'it's old therefore it's wrong' to be ridiculous, and more a product of social dogma than any real thought on your part.

You keep on missing the point; I've already told you the consequences, and why it is reasonable to believe there are consequences we might not know about or understand - just as a dog doesn't know about rabies or ticks. And while not all homosexual relationships are prone to violence, that doesn't change the fact that these chemicals are at work in our bodies when we have sex, whether we will it or not. Moreover, gay sex is itself not very healthy - simply put, the anus was not meant to take a dick. There's a reason that "gay bowel syndrome" was a thing, and while it was not a specific diagnosis, the fact that it applied primarily to gay men should give you a clue as to what causes it. Biologically speaking, gay sex simply is not equal to straight sex; spiritually speaking, God knows far more about the spiritual ramifications than you or I, and it is His word that I will heed.


"If one argues that a given activity x is harmful because of the possibility of an undesirable consequence or side effect y, this cannot be generalized as an argument against all instance of activity x,"

You're assuming complete information; it is reasonable to believe we do NOT have complete information. Moreover, there are risks associated with it that cannot be fully mitigated. Yes, you may never become violent with your boyfriend (or vice versa) - that doesn't mean the hormones aren't still at work in you and your partner, increasing the risk. Yes, you may never experience any problems with your bowels; that doesn't mean the risk has been eliminated. Ceterus paribus, straight sex is safer than gay sex. From a biological standpoint, they are not equal; from a spiritual standpoint, it's your word against God's, so I'll take God's. A person can fire a machine gun into a crowd of people and not hit a single one, but that doesn't make the risk any less; it would be better to not fire the machine gun into the crowd of people.

"Also, by your "descrimination != harm and therefore should be legal" argument, do you oppose the Civil Rights movements of the 1960s? Just wondering how you factor that into your views."

If the civil rights movement had left private entities alone - private businesses, for instance - and simply regulated government? I'd be fine with the Civil Rights Act. As it stands, those regulations are an infringement on the rights of individuals (no matter how deplorable those individuals are), and so I wish those parts of the Civil Rights Act to be struck down (or modified, if those parts are commingled with good or neutral stuff).

And not playing violent video games is probably safer than playing violent video games. Never eating fast food is safer than eating fast food twice a week. What's the point? Who cares? These say nothing of morality. And for one who has such a high standard of proof, you're making an enormous assumption with the "the bible = infallible word of God" talk you keep bringing up. Also, gay sex != anal sex. Another straw man.

I have reviewed the evidence, and I find it likely that the Bible is the inspired word of God. He says that doing it is evil; so I will try not to do it. I have given you several reasons for why gay sex tends to be harmful, or at least risks harm, and He knows what is appropriate to risk and what is not. Prior to more advanced methods of cooking and sanitation, shellfish and pork, for instance, was forbidden; that prohibition has been lifted, most likely in part because of more advanced cooking and sanitation methods. The Israelites were, prior to Christ's death and resurrection on the Cross, kept set apart in manner of dress and other social rules; these were lifted, as the Good News was (and is) to be spread throughout the world.

But the prohibition against homosexual intercourse was never lifted. That tells me that there's more going on than you or I can see in regards to sex - something hinted at in heterosexual intercourse and the binding they undergo, but seems to result in a less harmonious and God-loving relationship when they are not followed. To go back to the dog analogy, my Master is telling me not to go in that field. You are standing in that field, telling me that it's fine, and neither of us can see that it's infested with ticks - nor can we understand the concept of parasites or lyme disease. I do know, however, that my Master is good and does good to me in more ways than I can ever repay, so I will follow His commands. It's possible I am wrong, of course - but, so what? I miss out on sex. What's the big deal about that?

"So basically, you think that it's more appropriate to examine 2000-year-old-texts written by ancient Romans to determine morality, instead of examining the consequences of actions?"

Better than taking the word of a nobody on the internet. Moreover, do you have any evidence to convince me that it is not, contrary to the evidence I've already seen, a trustworthy record of events?

"I get the "what is not harmful cannot be wrong" principle from common sense. I don't understand why anyone would think that something that does not harm another person would be wrong. Only literally-interpreted religion could produce such nonsense."

And I get my views from 'common sense' too; namely, that our biological workings make homosexual relationships less prone to be healthy, and that God knows our inner workings and probably knows a bit more about what's good for us than you or I do. If you think that faulty pair-bonding is 'grasping at straws', you haven't given any reason for me to believe your claim. All you've done is bleat louder and more obnoxiously that they are equal without any supporting evidence.

I'm going to copy and paste from another person, who has studied these things far more thoroughly than I have;

"Let us take a close look at chemical interactions involved in the process of human genetic replication, shall we? Chemical interactions which inherently do not, and cannot, exist in sexual behaviour between individuals of like phenotype. Considering that the specific biochemical interactions of the mated pair is as much a foundation to the psychology and instinct of humans as it is in the numerous species of wolves (and is indeed, for all practical purposes identical), it is no wonder why the behaviour coincides with greater negative health outcomes. There is no balance in the equation.

Suppose, for example, you have two male humans in a committed emotionally and physically monogamous relationship. One of the hormones processed by the male physiology in the course of sexual activity is a compound which heightens the sense of aggression towards other males and increases the effectiveness of bonding towards one's mate and offspring. Now, in this case, one's sexual partner is also male. This is a blind neurochemical interaction, and as such has no way to tell the brain that *this* particular male is a an exception. It has been noted that within male like-phenotype relations that are abusive, they are statistically far more likely to be physical. Which is an obvious result of this particular chemical process.

...

While it is true that extreme and risky behaviors can put you at a greater risk of injury and illness, there are certain physiological constraints on such a thing -constraints which do not, and in many ways, cannot exist in sexual arrangements involving individuals of a like phenotype. I do not believe that the significantly higher rate of suicide among individuals who report themselves as being LGBT can be *entirely* eliminated when you control for the violent response of others, and indeed the evidence does seem to strongly support the horrific levels of under-reporting of mental illness among the LGBT "community."

Simply put? When your very instincts are altered, it is going to have a very significant influence on your overarching behaviour and interactions with others of your kind. There is a reason why the behaviour of unrelated wolves in captivity is indistinguishable from the behaviour of unrelated humans in urban environments when both are forced to deal with a lack of resources, mobility, and guidance from the preceding generations."

There. That's a pretty darn good reason for why they are not equal from a scientifically sound standpoint, to say nothing of their inability to mate and thus their inability for (both partners, at least) to form the biological bonds with their children. Yes, one member of a lesbian couple can form a biological bond with their child, but the other cannot; it takes one man and one woman to form those bonds with the children.

And all of that is just what we know *today*. That's to say nothing of the potential spiritual ramifications of homosexuality, which we will probably never see directly in this life as the spirit is not something we can directly observe. So, I'm going to take God's word AND the biological evidence, and say that homosexuality is not a good thing to practice.

Now, you say I should "live my life as the person I am inside" - that is a fallacy. The person I am makes choices; you are urging me to simply give in to my desires. You are confusing the animal part of a human - that is, the part that hungers, that desires, that gives us all the urges that help or hinder us - with the moral agent aspect of a human, the *person*. I am being my own person; denying some of my urges does not change this. Indeed, to give in to the animal urges when your mind says that it is wrong to do so diminishes your capacity to actually make choices.

You have done a very poor job at convincing me that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, and that I should embrace my homosexual desires; all you've done is shown me exactly how muddled and confused you are about human nature and, indeed, the very concept of debate. You have provided no evidence except a nonsensical scoffing at my own (do you honestly believe there are hormonal communication between bodies during sex, or that they'd work in the same manner for homosexuals as they do heterosexuals?). Please, take a little while to do some research on the matter and provide some actual evidence for your position.

all in all I think you could be classed as a hipster.
You're gay but detest everything other gays do, in this case legally (mainstream gays) and make a statement out of it.

yeah definitively a hipster.

Oh my goodness, I'm so terribly offended! Wait, no, I don't actually care. It's amusing; you cannot argue against what I say, so you try to disparage what I am. Fortunately, anyone with any sense will know that this does not make a valid argument.

it was supposed to be amusing XD

Apologies; I take 'hipster' as an insult, usually.

Full disclosure: I believe that gay people should be able to get married.
Don't want a debate (at the moment), just had some questions to better understand your point of view.

Do you, as a gay person, have any desire to get married or have a significant other who is the same gender as you?

You say that you are gay here, but are you 'out' in day-to-day life or have someone who knows your orientation?

If so, have you ever been hurt or denied something because of it?

Above you mentioned that you are Christian. Do you believe the bible should determine law in a country of multiple religions?

Are there any causes of the Gay Rights Movement that you agree with or support?


You can ask me whatever you want as well.

Whether I wish to do something or not has no relevance at all to whether something should be promoted or permitted by law, or whether or not it is moral.

Whether I am 'out' or not is also irrelevant to the question of gay marriage.

Now, as for me being a Christian and the writings of the Bible determining the laws of a country; in a democracy (or in this case, a constitutional democratic republic) the laws of the country are influenced by what the people believe, and hashed out by the representatives, and upheld or struck down by what is in the Constitution. Is this right? Well, that depends on whether there is a universal morality. If there is no universal morality, all of your condemnation for those who oppose you is nothing more than hot air, deceptions made to sway people to your side. If there is, then you must accept that the Bible may well be right - in which case, you should not dismiss it out of hand.

In any case, I believe that the law of man - that is, what man forces upon his fellow man - is restricted by what is RIGHT for man to force upon his fellow man. That should be the foundation of law. Now, does the Bible condemn homosexuality? Yes. But, if you'll notice, I'm not calling for it to be banned. That is because there is a distinction between what Man may force upon his fellow Man, and what God may force upon Man. So, just because it's condemned in the Bible, that doesn't mean I want it illegal.

Of course, now we get to an important distinction. I'm not calling for gay marriage to be made illegal, in the same way that drugs are made illegal. I'm calling for marriage to be made 'illegal' in the sense that gay marriages aren't afforded special legal benefits for their union. Unfortunately, the liberals have frequently used this tactic to great effect; they control the vocabulary used in the debate, and so they can sway others to their side with clever wording alone. This, I believe, is utterly dishonest and abhorrent; what they want is not to 'legalize gay marriage', as some groups want to 'legalize pot' or 'legalize assault rifles', they truly want government to grant them special benefits, while at the same time being able to claim to have their rights hurt just because they're not getting those special benefits (ie, 'gay marriage is illegal! Our rights are being denied!').


As far as there being causes of the gay rights movement that I support... Removing sodomy laws from the books is one, as is making homosexuality legal (ie, not punishable by law) in other countries. Those I can get behind. Unfortunately, it seems that the lion's share of their wealth and power is spent, not on correcting bad laws or ending human rights abuses, but in making others give them special bennies. This is... Incredibly stupid and hypocritical.

For those first three questions being irrelevant:

I'd like to press for them because I don't want to only hear what is relevant to the marriage debate. I want to know more about you as a person, not as just some kind of debate machine.

Very well; to each of those, I answer 'declined to state'.

Due to further curiosity:

Are there any particular groups/individuals who you believe make a good argument against gay marriage?

What is your opinion on the National Organization For Marriage or NOM?

Quote from above:
Btw, how can you justify laws that regulate people from discriminating, when discrimination does not cause harm (NOT being offered to trade is NOT the same thing as being harmed, btw - if it were, any business that was closed would be 'harming' others)?

Would you say that you argue against laws banning businesses denying service because customers are free to go to another business that won't turn them down? Correct me if I've got things mixed up.

I don't know enough about any groups or individuals to make such a statement - nor is it particularly relevant. Either my argument is good, or it is not; whether it coincides with another group's arguments, or whether other groups make the same arguments that I do, is moot.

I don't know enough about NOM to have an opinion.

I am against laws that prohibit businesses from denying services, period. Whether there are other businesses that offer the exact same product or service is irrelevant to the fact that the business owner has the fundamental right to do what he wants with his property and his labor (the former being the fruits of the latter). To NOT allow them to do this is to demand control of their labor as one sees fit - that is, to enslave them to an extent.

You are against laws that prohibit discrimination: including non-private, non-religious affiliated, for-profit, and government funded businesses? No exceptions? What if this meant someone couldn't get access to a necessity just because every business they went to denied them service?

Do you know the muffin man?

First: Why the fuck is government funding that business? Unless there's a contract to the contrary, it's not the business that is taking money from other people and giving it to said business. If you want to complain about anyone in that scenario, complain about the government.

Now, let's flip this on it's head; do you think it's acceptable to enslave another to provide a service that you personally think would be immoral to not provide? I don't. I don't think it's right to force another person who owes you *nothing* to provide you with goods or services, no matter the severity of your need nor the evil of their reasons.

That's ignoring the simple reality of the situation, too; people *need* food, water, health care, and shelter. All of these things have so many people offering them, and so many alternatives, that the chances of any person ever ending up in this situation is minuscule. Your hypothetical fails, as it is simply not feasible to ever happen.

Enslave is a harsh word, as is fuck, would prefer to the tone a little less so.

I don't think you can truly 'force' someone in the context of business, it's not like the owner will stop calling the shots the moment new laws get passed that disagree with how they run things. But all choices have consequences no matter how free you are to choose. I'll choose the friendly handshake over the dismissive wave any time, and will encourage in any way I can a society where you don't need to fear getting denied not because of your behavior, but of who you are/thought to be.

It would be minuscule in most circumstances, yes. But when you are put in a situation where options are limited and the only way to reach a viable alternative is cut off by the person who owns the gasoline, then things get a little unhealthy.

"I don't think you can truly 'force' someone in the context of business, it's not like the owner will stop calling the shots the moment new laws get passed that disagree with how they run things."

When they are forced to engage in economic activities that they do not wish to, what else are you doing BUT enslaving them? You are taking control of their labor and the fruits thereof, against their will. Are they enslaved as completely as blacks were prior to the civil war? No. But they are still enslaved to the will of others.

Now, you haven't actually proposed any feasible situation where someone can be truly without any options whatsoever. So; you propose a hopeless scenario, and I'll counter it.

Maybe I should just save myself the frustration. I only wanted to ask questions and understand your point of view at first but I guess the urge to try and debate is really strong despite how poor I am at it.

But just for the record so I understand you completely:
Do you believe that all businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone they choose for any reason?

Just yes or no, no elaboration as I believe you've done that enough.

If no elaboration is needed, then you do not need a simple yes or no.

So yes?

Do you want an explanation, or not?

I just want you to answer either yes or no.

Since you include "All" in there, the answer has to be 'no'. But, since you don't want elaboration, you'll just have to be content with that.

"I am against laws that prohibit businesses from denying services, period."

I am confused now, but I guess I'll never get that elaboration.

You want elaboration? Good!

I'm fine with government owned and operated businesses being run however society sees fit - it is, after all, owned by society. But privately owned businesses? Those ones should have the right to decide who they will and will not work with, who they will and will not serve, at their own discretion - no matter their reasoning or how abhorrent anyone else finds it.

Um. Aside from gay people making your boner shrivel up or a woman's pussy dry up...what possible terrible impact on society would there be if gay people were allowed to marry freely?

Mythology aside, why are gay people getting married and enjoying the same benefits(and cons) that traditional marriages have a bad thing? For everyone not living in Texas, that is.

Wow. "Apart from gay people making your boner shrivel up" - ad-hominem, and blatantly false. Or did you miss the part where I said I was gay?
"-or a woman's pussy dry up" - I... think that's an ad-hominem attack? I dunno - I think that 'making sense' is a requirement for that particular logical fallacy, though I could be wrong.

"What terrible impact on society would there be if gay people were allowed to marry freely?" - or, to put it another way, "There would be no terrible impact on society if gay people were allowed to marry freely." This is not an argument; this is an assertion. And I have already countered it, if you bothered to read my post; I have shown several instances where the individual rights of a good number of people would be harmed if gay relationships were granted the same legal benefits that straight relationships enjoy, and you have done nothing to rebut my arguments.

"Mythology aside, why are gay people getting married and enjoying the same benefits(and cons) that traditional marriages have a bad thing?"
You're simply restating the same thing without offering any evidence; you are proposing a conclusion without premises. This is not debate, this is dogma.

"For everyone not living in Texas, that is." So, you admit that people in Texas would be hurt by gay marriage? Naw, just kidding - I know you were being facetious, but again, that's just another poorly thought-out ad-hominem attack. That's 3 failed for 3. Aaaand that's enough for me. *BANHAMMER*

You're gay!??? Holy shit your self loathing is through the damn roof, get some help mate!

Wow. Your self deception is through the roof. You need to get some help.

See, when I found out my son was gay, I blew him up... again

"does the Bible condemn homosexuality? Yes"

Depends on what translation you use.

Leviticus 18:22
"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin."

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Yeah, it's pretty clear on the idea that having gay sex is wrong. If you want to twist it so that the Bible says it's okay, however, you could probably also twist it to say pretty much anything you want - but in doing so, you're no longer submitting to God's word, but demanding that God submit to yours.

IE, you are putting yourself above God.

Yeah, not very smart.

Oh, let's not forget Romans 1: 18-32:

"But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness.... Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.

So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies. They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.

That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. They know God's justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too."

1 Corinthians 6: 9-11:
"Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people-none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

Lmfao I ask for what translation of the Bible you're using and you throw selected chapters at me?

Do you even know what version of the Bible you're even quoting from?

"Yeah, it's pretty clear on the idea that having gay sex is wrong. If you want to twist it so that the Bible says it's okay, however, you could probably also twist it to say pretty much anything you want - but in doing so, you're no longer submitting to God's word, but demanding that God submit to yours.

IE, you are putting yourself above God.

Yeah, not very smart."

ie: what Christians have been doing for years.

Need I remind you that the Bible was written by man? The Bible has been mistranslated so many times it's not even funny, thus, I ask again:

What translation of the Bible are you putting all of your faith into?

Romans 1 reads the same way, no matter the translation (inasmuch as I have randomly selected other translations); as does Leviticus 18:22, as does Leviticus 20:13, and so does probably 1 Corinthians 6. So, you tell me; what bastardized and twisted version are you citing, to say that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality as a sin? Cite it; show me reasonable translations where each and every one of those verses are shown to be dead wrong in their translation, and how each of those versions of the Bible are somehow wrong even though they are all in agreement.

Because I've seen multiple permutations of Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13... And all of them are in agreement that homosexuality is a sin. So, prove me wrong; show me that these are all mistranslations.

"So, prove me wrong"
Cool strawman argument bro.

Leviticus 18:22

NASB:
You shall not lie with a male as [a]one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

NLT:
Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.

KJV:
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

NIV:
‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

ESV:
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.


They're all pretty clear. And that's just that one verse; all the others, inasmuch as I have the patience to show you the patently obvious, read in the same manner. They say essentially the same thing; Romans 1 reads the same way, 1 Corinthians 6 reads the same way, Leviticus 20:13 reads the same way... Only by being deliberately obtuse, insisting that you know better than God does, could you possibly say that the Bible is OK with homosexuality. According to the Bible, it is a sin. Yes, I'm sure you could find Liberal Hippy Soft Scripture Funtime 'Bible', one that has been twisted for no other reason than political correctness to say something other than what the Lord has inspired in those faithful to Him, but that won't make it good, it won't make it true, and it won't validate your argument in the least; bastardizing the original to make it say what you want does not a good argument make.

Now, I have posted evidence; I have looked at the evidence; I have taken a reasonably random sampling of those verses from different versions of the Bible, and they all say the same thing. You, however, continue to make assertions about the Bible without any evidence whatsoever, and it seems that, even if I were to prove to you conclusively that the Bible condemns homosexuality, you would just get huffy and claim, again, without any actual evidence, that the Bible is in error, or that it's not the inspired Word of God, or any number of excuses to face the truth that God has laid before you. I will no longer cast pearls before swine; take it, or leave it. But I am done with you, and you are no longer welcome on my page.

I could put my faith into the NLT, the NIV, the KJV, the ESV, and several others, and all say the same thing; that homosexuality is a sin.

"all say the same thing; that homosexuality is a sin."
No they do not. You would know this if you actually read them.

Also I would not put any faith into the NIV as it was translated with a deliberate bias. What was that wording you used again? Oh yeah, "you're no longer submitting to God's word, but demanding that God submit to yours."

Oh and just in case you forgot: the Bible was written by man. Just something that you might want to keep in mind. :)

See above post.

Oh, then you also believe in stuff like...

Leviticus 11:4 “Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.”

Leviticus 11:10 “And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.”

Leviticus 11:27 “And whatsoever goeth upon his paws, among all manner of beasts that go on all four, those are unclean unto you: whoso toucheth their carcase shall be unclean until the even.”

Leviticus 19:19 “Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.”

Leviticus 12:4–5 “And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.”

Fascinating.

Okay. Do it.

You really don't understand a thing about Christianity, do you? If you don't know of what you speak, it would be better for you to keep your mouth shut.

Actually, I'm Catholic. And I'm simply calling you out to follow that law. Carry out the punishment. But that would go against the Ten Commandments and various teachings of Christ. Also, it would do you good not to assume things about people. Go on then, cast the stone.

If you would use that saying - 'cast the stone' - they you ought to remember the rest of what Christ said in that passage;

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

It is a message of grace, not an acceptance of sin as something good. Likewise, we live under God's grace and Christ's love - but that does not change the evil of the sins we commit.

So, yes; the Bible does condemn homosexuality. It is a sin, one we ought not commit but often do anyway - I admit, I am one of those people. It is a hard sin to resist, and I understand. Christ did not change the evil of the sin - the sin is still condemned. He has, however, taken it upon Himself, and removed *our* condemnation for that sin.

From my studies of the Bible, I don't recall Christ ever mentioning homosexuality. I tend to read the King James version or the New American version. The Epistles do mention it, but I think that was referring to the practice of buying slave boys for sexual acts outside of marriage, not a committed relationship.

Regarding Christ's teachings; Is your defense that Christ never explicitly mentioned the word "homosexuality", "gay", etc, or is your defense that He apparently had no opinion on it altogether?

My defense is that I believe that the biblical writers wrote about homosexuality as it was back then, most commonly in the form of buying slave boys. I apologise if I seemed disrespectful beforehand, but I have hadbad experiences with anti-gay people/grouos/etc. Might I ask your denomination?

Protestant is good enough for now. As it is, there are several problems with your argument;

1. Christ did not come to abolish the law or the prophets, but to fulfill it where we could not.
2. The law plainly states that having sex with a man as one would a woman (and the inverse of that - ie, a woman sleeping with a woman as she would a man) is a sin.
3. A man sleeping with a man as one would with a woman (and the inverse) is the very definition of homosexuality.
Therefore, Christ did not come to abolish the law that condemned homosexuality as a sin.

My definition of homosexuality is the attraction, not the actual act of sleeping with someone of the same sex. So, going by the law, gay marriage without sex would be acceptable. And some laws were abolished. For example, when Peter would not enter the house of the gentile and when Christ told Peter he could eat tye pork. I'll admit that I am biased on the issue, due to my own orientation.

The temptation to commit sin is not sin; Christ was tempted by Satan when he was alone in the wilderness, but He refused to give in. Moreover, you cannot have marriage without sex, any more than you can have eating without swallowing; married people may abstain for a time to better serve the Lord, but sex is supposed to be a part of marriage. Moreover, marriage is clearly defined in the Old and New Testaments, and I'm afraid that homosexual unions just do not qualify for that.

Moreover, the laws were not abolished; they were fulfilled. The difference between the prohibition against pork and the prohibition against infidelity, however, is who they applied to; the prohibition against pork, the specifications for how they are to dress, etc, were all specific to the Jew - likely for the purpose of keeping them pure and set apart from the world. Such laws were never intended for the Gentile, and do not address them

https://www.biblegateway.com/passag.....h=Leviticus+11


The Law regarding sexual morality, however, clearly *was* intended for *everyone*; Leviticus 18 clearly defines sexual morality as something that applies to all, not just the Jew.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passag.....Leviticus%2018




But, let me ask you something; if God came before you today and told you that homosexual acts were wrong - that sleeping with a man as one would a woman was wrong - what would your response be? If He were to tell you to stop, would you stop? How willing would you be to listen to Him, or seek out His will in this matter?

If God were to come down to me and tell me that, I would ask Him what He wants me to do to carry out His Will. But He hasn't come down and told me that. Let me ask you this, did God appear to you and reveal that to you?

Yes; through the Gospels. Do you think I haven't prayed for some way to have a homosexual relationship that wouldn't be a sin in His eyes? Do you think I would have remained convinced of the sinfulness of homosexual intercourse if I had the slightest doubt that He finds it detestable? Believe me, I wish there were a way for me to have a monogamous relationship with another guy, for that union to be good and holy in God's eyes, but there isn't. I cannot honestly read the Word of God as revealed through the Bible and come to any other conclusion.

When I stand before the Almighty, I won't be able to say I never sinned, no. But let's assume you're right; let's assume that He truly doesn't mind homosexual unions as you describe them, monogamous and committed and loving and all that. In that case, I may have been wrong, but in the end I submitted to the Lord and gave it up for Him. Why should I regret that? I gave up something I thought was wrong for the greatest thing in all creation, and I gave it up out of trust in Him; that, surely, will be counted as good, even if it was (strictly speaking) unnecessary. But, let's assume that I am correct, and He truly does find it detestable; what then for you and I? I may say I tried, and though I did it very imperfectly I still sought to do His will. You, however, will stand before Him, and... What will you say? That you ignored His Word, that you turned away from it, to pursue what you wanted? That you thought you knew better? Will you even be able to give up that habit of putting your will above God's, or will you find yourself rebelling against the Almighty?

The truth will be revealed to us in due time; we won't be able to avoid it when it is. If it turns out you are wrong, how will you respond? If I am wrong, I will react with joy - for, though I was wrong my whole life, I would know that others were not so rebellious as I thought. If you are wrong, however, how will you react? Will you submit, and ask God to perfect you - however that may be? I hope so. Because if you find yourself hating the truth and rebelling against it, putting your own will above God's, well... What then for you?

I will admit my faults and my failures and trust in the mercy of God.

And if he says that your homosexual behavior was a fault - a sin - what then? Would you accept this?

Well, I haven't committed any homosexual acts, only attractions. I mean, I've massaged my friend's back a few times, but that's only because he hurt the muscles while moving to his new apartment. I would only be at fault for my way of thought.

*the pork

Leviticus 11:4, 10, and 27 were specifically rescinded in Acts 10:
9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

Leviticus 19:19 and Leviticus 12:4-5 seem to be specific commands for the Jews of the time period - notice that such commands do not appear elsewhere in the Bible, nor are the punishments nearly so heinous. Indeed, Sexual immorality of many kinds, however, are condemned in both the old and new testament, including homosexual behavior. There clearly is a distinction between laws that were meant specifically for the Jews and those that applied to everyone;

Romans 2: 25-29
25 Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26 So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27 The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the[c] written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.
28 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God."

Even if a Gentile is not circumcised outwardly, if they follow the Law of God, they are considered of God; and if a Jew, though circumcised outwardly, breaks the law of God, he is condemned for it.



Homosexuality, however, is condemned in the old and the new testament. It is clearly not just a command for the Hebrew and not the Gentile; it is a command for all. And all who break it have committed a sin.

And have you repented and turned away from your own homosexuality, lest you be cast into the lake of fire, and all that?

XD I guess I'm having difficulty understanding why you think this book has any authority whatsoever. There are plenty of holy texts you likely see no problem being atheistic of.

Actually, yes, I have. I try to follow the Lord, and whenever I feel the desire to sin... I try to think of Him, and the desire to sin goes away. Now, you say that the Bible has no authority? Yet, you provide no evidence for this - at least, no valid evidence. Plenty of crazy people claim to be the President, or to be Napoleon, or even Jesus Christ, yet their claims do not invalidate the claims of the real President, the real Napoleon, or the real Jesus Christ. Likewise, the false claims of other religions are not adequate proof that any singular religion is false. As it is, I have seen Christ's work in my life, and I have personally seen radical improvement in the life of a loved one after they've accepted Christ. This is no 'self help' philosophy; I tried that, and it did little good. Instead, I trusted in God and asked my cub to do the same, and he has radically improved. True, anecdotal evidence is not a sure proof of anything - it is an inductive argument, after all - but the sheer number of times I've seen Christianity make a major positive impact in people's lives is more than I can dismiss as mere coincidence. Yes, some people turn away, even when they're supposedly 'Christian', but all it takes is a little digging to find the root cause; they either didn't personally approve of the God of the Bible, or they saw God as something He was not. Some saw him as a genie rather than a Father, and only went to Him when they needed help and ignored Him otherwise. They, in essence, put their will above His. But wherever they genuinely submitted to God's will and humbly asked His forgiveness and asked His help... Every single time I've seen that, He has been there for them. He may not have helped as they expected - my cub certainly wasn't helped in a way I expected - but it was God's doing, and I am eternally grateful to Him for His intervention.

Ah, nevermind that last comment. I see that you have, indeed, repented and turned away from your own homosexuality and will thus spare yourself being cast into the lake of fire, and all that.

And nevermind the second point in that comment, either.

I see that you subscribe to Answers in Genesis. If you can believe that the world was created less than 10,000 years ago, in less than a week, and suffered a world-wide flood, then you'll believe just about anything. X3

You are not actually making arguments here, not even invalid ones - you are just making unfounded assertions without support, conclusions without premises. For my alleged gullibility, you can't even provide support for your case.

That you value Answers in Genesis as a legitimate authority on the age of the Earth or the accuracy of the Theory of Evolution is evidence enough that you are able to believe things that are not true.

So, rather than actually rebut anything I said, you're simply going to disregard it because you don't like the source? Sorry, no; that is not a valid form of debate. Begone with you, you who claim debate but give only unfounded assertions, claim reason but parrot the words of others, claim science but give baseless faith. You are not welcome here; by your own actions here, you have proven reasonable discussion and critical thought are beyond you.

I like apples... and I like adamsapples. And I like Adams Apple's apples. And I like Adams Apple's adamsapple. And I like the apples Adams Apple sells at his apple stand with his adamsapple. And I like Adams cock, and his sweet succulant musky man orbs. And if I could I would put a ring on that cock and walk down the isle cock in hand. Then in front of the alter I would leave a big fat hickey on Adams Apple's adamsapple. I love Adam and all his apple no matter how rotten and flawed they are.

-Steve <3

For those of you who are sitting on the fence about this, who are uncertain, perhaps this will show you the nature of what I oppose.

The promiscuity.
The wanton disregard for the sensibilities of others.
The desire to force their sex life into the faces of people who do not want to know about it.
The desire to pervert a sacred ceremony that they truly have no respect for.

This is the norm - or, at least, it's the part that gets its way the most often, the part that screams 'BIGOT' the loudest when anyone dares to question them.

So, again, for those of you who are as yet undecided on this matter, hopefully that post will help you to discern which side is worthy of your support.

Yes, and anyone with a brain will see that there IS a difference, even in the law of the US. For instance, it's totally legal to make separate restrooms for different genders. Moreover, one can discriminate against gay people in certain situations reasonably - for the same reason one doesn't let female group leaders camp with males in the boyscouts, they could reasonably disallow gay group leaders from camping with boys. Basically, wherever sex or gender is an issue, homosexuality and transgender is a reasonable consideration when it comes to discriminating.

That said? Even if it's UNREASONABLE discrimination - even if it's entirely, unreasonable hatefulness - there should not be a law mandating individuals to engage in contracts with them. Regulations on the government? Sure - I can see that being reasonable. But not on private individuals, not on joint partnerships, not on LLC's, not even on corporations.

*reads* Yeah, most of that is fluff without any sort of premise or conclusion - the only part where you actually make an argument is here:

"If a business are given free reign to discriminate as much as they want, then they are given the ability to discriminate against women (or men), african americans, middle easterns, jews, gypsys, russians, LGBT, etc. This has some very serious consequences."

Yet, you contradict it earlier -
"Using inter-racial marriage to draw a parallel, if a local business would snub a couple over this issue, Ontarians would be incensed to read such a headline in the newspaper."

What serious consequences could there be, save for those who practice discrimination? You've said it yourself - Ontarians would be incensed by such discrimination. Even if the discriminator doesn't go out of business for their practices, the person(s) discriminated against would have no lack of service elsewhere. So, what are the 'serious consequences' you speak of, that you justify such laws?

Yes, you keep saying all of that - none of it is convincing me that the LAW should punish people who discriminate. Again; fluff.

False premise: your country protecting human rights, and that human rights includes the right to force others to sell to you, to provide you with housing, to force them to enter into contracts, etc. It is, in fact, contrary to human rights to force others to cow to you in such a way.

Bad analogy: Murder != not selling something to someone, not entering into contract with someone, etc. Inductive argument fails.

Outright hypocrisy: society doesn't like something, therefore society has enacted laws to punish it, and this is good. American society didn't like homosexuality; therefore, according to that reasoning, it was good that they had laws that prohibited it.

"If a middle eastern person wishes to rent a house, has a proper credit score and passes all the checklist, who is to deny them housing? They are not harming anyone by renting the flat (apartment)."

Nor is anyone being harmed by someone refusing to enter into a contract with said middle-eastern. Moreover, you claim that there is 'no undue hardship' - for you, maybe. But if someone does not wish to sell a property, or rent a property, for whatever reason whatsoever, and government forces them to, then that person is having their right to their own property taken away from them. Yes, the person is being discriminated against - so is the person who cannot afford it, so is the convicted felon, so is the child molester that cannot live within 500 feet of an elementary school. These are all forms of discrimination, yet you don't seem to mind them - and you don't call it 'harm' when they're denied.

The thing you need to realize about freedom is that it's NOT the right to get stuff that others have, it's not a coercion you can use to bend others to your will; it's the right to live as you wish according to what is yours, while respecting the rights of others to live and do what they wish with what is theirs.

"I wasn't talking about economics when I mentioned the analogy to murder. Discrimination, hate speech, and murder are related when it comes to the criminal code. They have (rightfully) different consequences attached to each."

Murder: One person has their right to life taken away against their will.
Hate speech: Someone has... bad things said about them? Whoopity doo. No harm, no law should be against that.
Discrimination: Someone is not offered an economic opportunity that is offered to others. Again; this is not harm. They would be in the exact same state if the particular business did not exist, if there was an empty lot in its place. How can you claim harm if it is equivalent to doing *nothing* to them?


"The law is often based upon the regional belief systems of the inhabitants. In some parts of the world, Sharia law still oppress women. This is normal for these inhabitants. The lines become blurry when we come to the conclusion that law, ethics, and morals are different concepts."

So, why are you treating it a law as good just because the majority of your society agrees with it? Surely you condemn Sharia law, just as I do, yet many of the people in those places agree with it.

"Again, I'm afraid I'm at the end of the line when it comes to this discussion. Trying to argue against discrimination would be like trying to argue why "2+2" is equal to "4" for me. I don't remember all the steps and logical deductions I've made to get to this point where I believe that discrimination is morally and ethically wrong to the point where it should be made into law."

In other words, you cannot actually make an argument against it, yet you insist that you're right and I'm wrong. This is not an argument; this is *dogma*. Congratulations, you have no sound foundation for your beliefs.

"I believe that all men are created equal. I remember this as being the starting point. I remember that much."

I do, too. Which is why I believe that all men's rights to life, liberty, and property must be respected - even if I don't agree with what they do with them. I don't, for instance, believe that a bigot's right to property should be curtailed just because they don't want to engage in commerce with someone they irrationally dislike.

Couldn't really find a good place to jump in so I'm just going to make a new comment. If you've already stated some of these things before, than I apologize in advance.

I don't fully understand your argument against the rights a married gay couple would receive. Since all of the laws are giving the same rights as straight married couples shouldn't the argument be about marriage rights in general, and therefor not be part of the gay marriage debate at all?

As for discrimination against people who disagree with gay marriage I do slightly agree with you. I do believe that there is a large public back-lash to prominent people being against gay marriage or homosexuality in general, however since many Americans are pro-gay marriage I think many should understand the risk of publicly announcing their beliefs on the subject. It would be the same as someone receiving criticism against the Westborough Baptist Church. Now, in no way am I saying they shouldn't say what they believe. Anyone has the freedom to say whatever they want, but I have the freedom to say why I think their opinion is wrong.

As for businesses refusing service to people based on their sexuality I disagree with you. I don't think they should be sued for it; suing is a tad overkill for this situation. However, I do believe in anti-discrimation laws. Considering all scientific research points to the fact that homosexuality isn't a choice, discriminating based on it isn't considered by many to be ok. This is especially true in government funded businesses. I believe there should be a cut-off point, maybe determined by the size of the business or how many employees, etc. Anyone below the cut-off point can discriminate against anyone they want: atheists can refuse to serve christians, gays can refuse to serve straights, etc. anyone above that point should have to follow anti-discrimation laws unless they can provide justifiable evidence for grounds to discriminate. Considering this is a civil rights issue it is difficult to say clearly how one thing should be.

Lastly, I wanted to discuss the Mozilla incident. I don't think it was that bad of a thing that he was fired. Would I be mad if he wasn't? No. Did I want him to be fired? No. Here's my view: if you are a part of a company that says it holds a belief and you publicly say something contradicting that belief it serves as grounds for termination. Someone has high up as he was holds a certain amount of representation for the company, so it's damaging to the company's image. It would be the same if a christian anti-gay group fired someone who publicly came out as gay. I surprisingly wouldn't be mad. Same goes for that duck dynasty guy.

As for what discrimination is ok, here's why I disagree with you. A child molester should be kept away from children because he did something illegal with a child. I despise our current prison system, but I believe that a violent felon can be discriminated against because he is a violent felon. I don't believe in discriminating against someone based on their sexuality because there's no justification for it other than someone else's held beliefs, in which case one just has to choose the more justifiable one. As for religion I disagree with discriminating against someone simply for holding their religion, however once their religion begins to effect others I have no problem with treating them based on the value of their argument. A Christian shouldn't be able to turn down a Muslim simply because they're a Muslim, instead they must be able to provide evidence as to why they are discriminating against a Muslim.

A few other things I wanted to give my opinion on:
-I don't believe there is a 'gay agenda' or 'gay movement,' simply similar views held by a large group of people based around the subject. If it was a movement there'd be collective agreement, but there isn't. I mean, lots of people are completely ok at stopping at civil unions and leaving marriage alone, while others want full marriage.
-While there are flaws with the movement I don't think they serve as grounds for dismissal. Yes, many people are very militant in their beliefs, and if I'm part of that group I make it clear I disagree with their methods.
-I believe that the arguments for discrimination and marriage are two different things. They are both civil rights issues, just on completely different topics.
-Since I'm an atheist I don't hold religion in that high of a regard and believe they should already be paying full taxes, but I believe they shouldn't have to marry gay couples. It's their choice as a religion.
-I also believe that things that could or might happen cannot be held as evidence against something. If you have evidence it's going to happen it would be ignorant of me to ignore it, but if you don't than I can just as easily say it wouldn't.
-I don't really get the whole sanctity of marriage argument. First you have to define based on non-religious view points what marriage is, and society seems to either say A. Between two consenting adults or B. Between a consenting man and woman. If your in the B category then I guess it is against your view of marriage, but then that raises the question, so? Why does your view of what marriage is effect my view? In this case I say we leave it up to the majority for whether its against the sanctity of marriage, however, I don't think this should hold much weight either for or against gay marriage.
-I don't agree with punishment for hate speech.

"I don't fully understand your argument against the rights a married gay couple would receive. Since all of the laws are giving the same rights as straight married couples shouldn't the argument be about marriage rights in general, and therefor not be part of the gay marriage debate at all?"

I agree that government should get out of marriage entirely, yes - but that won't happen so long as there's a major push to *expand* it. Moreover, you don't really see straight couples using marriage to try to coerce others into giving them benefits or special treatment - one DOES see that with gay couples. Basically, "push for gay marriage" + "a society that thinks every discrimination should be illegal, even though they have a fuzzy concept on what that actually means and how that would be a baaaad idea*" = people who would politely and with good reason refuse to serve in gay weddings being forced to do so against their will.


"As for discrimination against people who disagree with gay marriage I do slightly agree with you. I do believe that there is a large public back-lash to prominent people being against gay marriage or homosexuality in general, however since many Americans are pro-gay marriage I think many should understand the risk of publicly announcing their beliefs on the subject. It would be the same as someone receiving criticism against the Westborough Baptist Church. Now, in no way am I saying they shouldn't say what they believe. Anyone has the freedom to say whatever they want, but I have the freedom to say why I think their opinion is wrong."

Agreed - freedom of speech != freedom to not be criticized for your speech.

Unfortunately, that's not all that's happening - in other countries, Canada for instance, it's outright illegal to criticize them in some ways, and in America it's becoming illegal to not personally serve at their wedding (and is illegal to not serve them in normal capacities otherwise). Liberals may give lipservice to the idea that churches won't have to perform gay marriages, but what about religious business owners? Moreover, I've seen where compromise with liberals leads - it's led to ever-stricter gun control, despite their claims that they only want 'reasonable' gun control 'for the children', and that the law was certain to save lives... Social security? It was meant as a temporary measure, and it was never ever supposed to be used as a national identification system... Shoot, I don't even need to go to other issues; in other countries they've claimed that they just wanted to have sex and not be discriminated against... Okay, now they're demanding that they have equal rights as married couples - but they promise, for super serious, that they won't take away the rights of churches, even though they're taking away the rights of religious individuals just trying to run a business as they see fit.

Basically, they're being discriminated against by the law; their rights to peaceful exercise their religion have been subverted for the sake of political correctness.

"As for businesses refusing service to people based on their sexuality I disagree with you. I don't think they should be sued for it; suing is a tad overkill for this situation. However, I do believe in anti-discrimation laws. Considering all scientific research points to the fact that homosexuality isn't a choice, discriminating based on it isn't considered by many to be ok. This is especially true in government funded businesses. I believe there should be a cut-off point, maybe determined by the size of the business or how many employees, etc. Anyone below the cut-off point can discriminate against anyone they want: atheists can refuse to serve christians, gays can refuse to serve straights, etc. anyone above that point should have to follow anti-discrimation laws unless they can provide justifiable evidence for grounds to discriminate. Considering this is a civil rights issue it is difficult to say clearly how one thing should be."


So, let me break your argument down into premises and conclusions;

1. Homosexuality is not a choice, therefore to discriminate against it is unreasonable.
2. People do not consider this form of discrimination to be okay.
3. Society can rightfully make laws against the things they don't think are okay.
Conclusion: Laws against such discrimination are acceptable.


First, the argument is invalid; even if all premises are true, the conclusion can be false - namely, people may discriminate on *behavior* that has nothing to do with things they can't help. Getting married is definitely a choice, a behavior; acting in an effeminate manner is likewise a behavior. They can, in short, discriminate against gay people without discriminating against them because they are gay - and the law doesn't make a distinction between being attracted to the same sex and the cultural choice that is 'being gay'.

Second, even if the argument was valid, the argument is unsound - that is, not all of the necessary premises are true. Even if homosexuality is not a choice (debatable, but by-and-large irrelevant) and even if people consider discriminating against things that the person can't help to be inherently bad (also questionable - people often can't help being unable to afford something, yet one can't go into a store and cry discrimination because you can't buy the $10,000 gold ring), the third premise is demonstratively false - or has very negative implications for your argument if true, at the very least. You and I both disagree with the laws in other countries that prohibit gay sex, some with the death penalty, and those societies make laws against it because they don't think homosexuality is okay. So, either that premise is false, or societies that think gay sex is evil can rightfully ban it because they think it's evil. Since the gay movement has consistently decried the laws of yesteryear, as well as the laws currently in place in other countries, it doesn't necessarily follow that "society thinks something is bad -> society can rightfully make a law against that thing".



"As for what discrimination is ok, here's why I disagree with you. A child molester should be kept away from children because he did something illegal with a child. I despise our current prison system, but I believe that a violent felon can be discriminated against because he is a violent felon."

So, you believe people may rightfully discriminate against others, provided that it's over something that's an actual choice? In that case, they chose to get married or chose to act gay.

No? Want to rein that in to behaviors that are illegal? Alright - you can't discriminate against someone who is in your store and hasn't washed in days, or doesn't have enough money to purchase what they wish to purchase. No? That's should be okay too?

Where, exactly, do you draw the line? Is it basically just whatever is socially acceptable to discriminate against is permitted, but what isn't is not? You have given me no other reason to think otherwise - and if that is the case, surely you must see just how arbitrary that is, and how it isn't based on what is right so much as what is popular.

Moreover, your line of reasoning seems to be thus:

"Discrimination on who a person is, is bad, and should be illegal."
"Discrimination based on sexual preference is discrimination based on who a person is."
"Therefore, discrimination based on sexual preference should be illegal."

You haven't really show me WHY discrimination should be illegal in the first place. It's not nice; alright. Nor is submerging a crucifix in piss, nor is calling Christians stupid and saying that they believe in an invisible man that lives in the sky, nor are most other things that are, in fact, perfectly legal albeit socially condemned. On what basis do you insist that discrimination should be illegal?



"I don't believe in discriminating against someone based on their sexuality because there's no justification for it other than someone else's held beliefs, in which case one just has to choose the more justifiable one. As for religion I disagree with discriminating against someone simply for holding their religion, however once their religion begins to effect others I have no problem with treating them based on the value of their argument. A Christian shouldn't be able to turn down a Muslim simply because they're a Muslim, instead they must be able to provide evidence as to why they are discriminating against a Muslim."

First: Religion is protected in the Constitution, namely in the clause, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof". The establishment of religion (subset of a subset of group Christianity) often prohibits gay sex, and condemns homosexual relationships as sinful. It would reasonably be a violation of their religion to enter into a business relationship with homosexuals, especially for the purpose of facilitating a gay wedding. It is therefore perfectly reasonable** for them to not be forced to enter into said contracts, citing the First Amendment as their protection.

Second, it is your own personally held beliefs that discrimination is bad; why should your beliefs be supreme in this? Moreover, you assume there is no 'reason' behind it, and that is quite a foolish thing to assume about your opposition. You may not agree with their reasons; you may think their reasons are flawed, or false; but you cannot simply assume that they are without reason just because you disagree with them.



"-I don't believe there is a 'gay agenda' or 'gay movement,' simply similar views held by a large group of people based around the subject. If it was a movement there'd be collective agreement, but there isn't. I mean, lots of people are completely ok at stopping at civil unions and leaving marriage alone, while others want full marriage."

Then there are no movements; just collections of people with similar views on a subject. Please, do not pick nits - a rockslide is a rockslide, because even if all of the stones don't have the exact same speed and direction they are still heading in the same general direction. Likewise, a movement is a movement, as they're all pushing for roughly the same thing.

"-I believe that the arguments for discrimination and marriage are two different things. They are both civil rights issues, just on completely different topics."

I wish they were, but the gay rights movement frequently uses one as a legal foot in the door for the other, using legal shenanigans to get their way. As it is, Christian businesses often have a fig-leaf of protection by claiming that, since their marriage is not recognized by the state, they can discriminate - they aren't discriminating based on sexual preferences, after all, just on the fact that they're not actually married. That will be taken away if the state recognizes gay marriage.

"-Since I'm an atheist I don't hold religion in that high of a regard and believe they should already be paying full taxes, but I believe they shouldn't have to marry gay couples. It's their choice as a religion."

Yet you don't believe it's their religious choice to NOT serve gays in other aspects of their life? Basically, you think that their religion can and should only be practiced in Church on Sundays, while they're firmly agnostic the rest of the week?

Sorry. That's not in line with the Constitution, and it's CERTAINLY not in line with the concept of individual, natural rights and freedoms.

"-I also believe that things that could or might happen cannot be held as evidence against something. If you have evidence it's going to happen it would be ignorant of me to ignore it, but if you don't than I can just as easily say it wouldn't."

Alright. Tell ya what; you go ahead and smoke and drink and do all those unhealthy things. No? Why not? Oh, because others smoked and drank excessively, and they died young from major health issues?

Of course it's valid; it's an induction argument based on "If we see A, B frequently follows. We see A; it is probable that B will follow". No, it's not a certainty - induction arguments never technically are - but considering that all of science is based on inductive arguments, you should at least recognize that inductive arguments have the probability to be right.

"-I don't really get the whole sanctity of marriage argument."

Then why are you so casual to dismiss their fears, if you do not understand them? They are, by and large, reasonable people; you talk to them every day, and they are clearly of sound mind and conscience. Why do you seek to undermine something they hold dear if you cannot understand it?


"First you have to define based on non-religious view points what marriage is,"

Oh? Why must it be defined based on non-religious view points?


"and society seems to either say A. Between two consenting adults or B. Between a consenting man and woman."

Or C, between a man and several woman, D. Between a variable number of people, D. Between a man and his goat (sex is not required for marriage, so you can't claim it's inherently illegal!), E. Between a man and his daughter/son (again, sex isn't required!), F. Between a man and his car...

Really, what's your justification for stopping there? What you've set up is a false dichotomy, when there really are many, many options - and most of them, you'd heartily disapprove of.

"If your in the B category then I guess it is against your view of marriage, but then that raises the question, so? Why does your view of what marriage is effect my view? In this case I say we leave it up to the majority for whether its against the sanctity of marriage, however, I don't think this should hold much weight either for or against gay marriage."

So, what is right is based on what the majority think? That's news to me - also, contradictory to your position, considering you doubtless condemn other countries for their laws against homosexuality. Moreover, it's simply not true - even in California, people voted for marriage to be defined as one man and one woman.


"-I don't agree with punishment for hate speech. "

Ah! Good, we can agree on that ^.^
Now, defamation of character ("YOU FUCK CHILDREN YOU HOMO BASTARD!"), clear hostile intent ("I'M GONNA KICK YOUR QUEER ASS!"), on the other paw, can and should be illegal - the latter justifying the use of force, and LETHAL force if they try to act on their words.





*If you don't sell something to someone who doesn't have the money to buy it? That's technically discrimination. If you don't want to hire a convicted felon to babysit your kids? Discrimination. Don't want to allow a drunkard or a shoplifter into your store? Discrimination. All of these things are discrimination - but society sees them as reasonable, so they're permitted. Society doesn't think other types of discrimination are reasonable, however, and if someone doesn't want to be a photographer at a gay wedding, or make a cake for them, or, whatever, they get in a huff and insist it should be illegal.

**perfectly reasonable under the assumption that the Constitution was the highest and best law of the land, as opposed to other standards.

“I agree that government should get out of marriage entirely, yes - but that won't happen so long as there's a major push to *expand* it. Moreover, you don't really see straight couples using marriage to try to coerce others into giving them benefits or special treatment - one DOES see that with gay couples. Basically, "push for gay marriage" + "a society that thinks every discrimination should be illegal, even though they have a fuzzy concept on what that actually means and how that would be a baaaad idea*" = people who would politely and with good reason refuse to serve in gay weddings being forced to do so against their will.”

I see your point, but I don’t think it’s right to suspend the right for two people to get married because of what benefits they get. Instead, I think it would better off be spent against all marriage, a two steps forward one step back sort of approach. This may just have to be something we agree to disagree on. However, the reason you don’t see straight people trying to “coerce others into giving them benefits” is because they already have them. This goes into the argument for ‘equality’ (I know you don’t like that word in this context but I don’t know of an easily interchangeable alternative), if there was no marriage than no one would be arguing for same-sex marriage. Lastly, I can’t think of a non-religious (I’ll get to why I’m creating a distinction later), “good” reason for one to deny service to anyone simply because of who they are.

“Agreed - freedom of speech != freedom to not be criticized for your speech.

Unfortunately, that's not all that's happening - in other countries, Canada for instance, it's outright illegal to criticize them in some ways, and in America it's becoming illegal to not personally serve at their wedding (and is illegal to not serve them in normal capacities otherwise). Liberals may give lipservice to the idea that churches won't have to perform gay marriages, but what about religious business owners? Moreover, I've seen where compromise with liberals leads - it's led to ever-stricter gun control, despite their claims that they only want 'reasonable' gun control 'for the children', and that the law was certain to save lives... Social security? It was meant as a temporary measure, and it was never ever supposed to be used as a national identification system... Shoot, I don't even need to go to other issues; in other countries they've claimed that they just wanted to have sex and not be discriminated against... Okay, now they're demanding that they have equal rights as married couples - but they promise, for super serious, that they won't take away the rights of churches, even though they're taking away the rights of religious individuals just trying to run a business as they see fit.

Basically, they're being discriminated against by the law; their rights to peaceful exercise their religion have been subverted for the sake of political correctness.”

This might be another issue we have to agree to disagree on. For one, I’m not getting into a gun debate or social security, considering they have, inherently, nothing to do with gay marriage. The reason I don’t think religion should have any say in business or government for a few reasons. 1. Not everybody is a single religion, so why should laws based on the bible effect a jewish person or a muslim? 2. I think business should be inherently secular because if people were allowed to discriminate based on religion it could lead to problems far worse than the ones that already exist. What if Walmart came out today and said that only asians could shop and work at their store? Millions would be fired and thousands in small towns would be left without a place to get necessary goods. If you allow one group to be discriminated against than why not allow anyone to discriminate against anyone? The exceptions to this would be criminals and other ‘undesirables.’ By this I mean if someone has a history of hurting children, discrimination against them being children should be ok. Same with violent criminals. However, it should be based on someone’s actions, not who they are. Later on you use the example of someone being flamboyant, and if they are becoming a nuisance, than they should be asked to leave. Same if there is a christian yelling bible verses or a vagrant who is dirty. However, say there are two people, dressed in plain clothes, acting like every other customer, but they’re holding hands and are of the same sex, than I don’t see why they should be kicked out. 3. Since there is no one religion there is no one set of rules. So either you follow them all, pick one or a few (which is against the constitution since it’s favoring one religion over another), or you pick none. There really isn’t a clear way to distinguish when discrimination is ok, but that doesn’t mean it should entirely be done away with one way or another. On one extreme we could have child molesters working at daycares while on the other we have people refusing service to anyone for any reason. I hold to the idea that someone’s religion is their personal relationship with their believed higher power. When it comes to religion I tend to follow the same idea as the adage “you’re right to move your fist end where my face begins.”

“So, let me break your argument down into premises and conclusions;

1. Homosexuality is not a choice, therefore to discriminate against it is unreasonable.
2. People do not consider this form of discrimination to be okay.
3. Society can rightfully make laws against the things they don't think are okay.
Conclusion: Laws against such discrimination are acceptable.


First, the argument is invalid; even if all premises are true, the conclusion can be false - namely, people may discriminate on *behavior* that has nothing to do with things they can't help. Getting married is definitely a choice, a behavior; acting in an effeminate manner is likewise a behavior. They can, in short, discriminate against gay people without discriminating against them because they are gay - and the law doesn't make a distinction between being attracted to the same sex and the cultural choice that is 'being gay'.

Second, even if the argument was valid, the argument is unsound - that is, not all of the necessary premises are true. Even if homosexuality is not a choice (debatable, but by-and-large irrelevant) and even if people consider discriminating against things that the person can't help to be inherently bad (also questionable - people often can't help being unable to afford something, yet one can't go into a store and cry discrimination because you can't buy the $10,000 gold ring), the third premise is demonstratively false - or has very negative implications for your argument if true, at the very least. You and I both disagree with the laws in other countries that prohibit gay sex, some with the death penalty, and those societies make laws against it because they don't think homosexuality is okay. So, either that premise is false, or societies that think gay sex is evil can rightfully ban it because they think it's evil. Since the gay movement has consistently decried the laws of yesteryear, as well as the laws currently in place in other countries, it doesn't necessarily follow that "society thinks something is bad -> society can rightfully make a law against that thing". “

I talked a lot about this already but I want to clarify a few things. 1. Nearly every single peer reviewed study done points to the fact that being gay isn’t a choice, and the American Psychological Association also says this along with many other groups. 2. True, many can’t help being poor, and technically it is discrimination to refuse to allow them to take something, but if the person is refusing to engage in commerce (paying what the seller is asking) then it’s ok to not give them what they’re demanding. It’s equality of opportunity. 3. There is no easy answer to this. Same could be said with drinking laws. Some societies think the age for drinking should be higher or lower, and there isn’t a “right” answer, but there are answers that most people can agree on.

“So, you believe people may rightfully discriminate against others, provided that it's over something that's an actual choice? In that case, they chose to get married or chose to act gay.

No? Want to rein that in to behaviors that are illegal? Alright - you can't discriminate against someone who is in your store and hasn't washed in days, or doesn't have enough money to purchase what they wish to purchase. No? That's should be okay too?

Where, exactly, do you draw the line? Is it basically just whatever is socially acceptable to discriminate against is permitted, but what isn't is not? You have given me no other reason to think otherwise - and if that is the case, surely you must see just how arbitrary that is, and how it isn't based on what is right so much as what is popular.

Moreover, your line of reasoning seems to be thus:

"Discrimination on who a person is, is bad, and should be illegal."
"Discrimination based on sexual preference is discrimination based on who a person is."
"Therefore, discrimination based on sexual preference should be illegal."

You haven't really show me WHY discrimination should be illegal in the first place. It's not nice; alright. Nor is submerging a crucifix in piss, nor is calling Christians stupid and saying that they believe in an invisible man that lives in the sky, nor are most other things that are, in fact, perfectly legal albeit socially condemned. On what basis do you insist that discrimination should be illegal?”

I already talked a lot about this, but I’ll try to answer why discrimination against gay people is bad. It’s bad for the same reason discriminating based on race is bad. I can say the same thing over and over, but since what’s ok is completely subjective than there isn’t a correct answer. Now, what separates it from what you said is insulting people or submerging a holy symbol in bodily fluids isn’t nice, but it doesn’t keep them from practicing their religion. If I call a religious person stupid it doesn’t keep them from practicing their religion. They can just as easily practice their religion as they had before my statement. Same with discriminating against gay people; burning a rainbow flag doesn’t stop me from being gay. Now, keeping somebody from legally doing something they would be able to do if they were of a different sexuality or race is close to where the line of justifiable discrimination lies. It’s not about equality, it’s about equal opportunity. That’s another reason I don’t agree with discrimination based on religion. Somebody catering a gay wedding doesn’t keep them from being a christian. They may not like it, but it doesn’t keep them from practicing their religion. Same with allowing gay marriage. Gays getting married isn’t going to keep people from preaching.

“First: Religion is protected in the Constitution, namely in the clause, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof". The establishment of religion (subset of a subset of group Christianity) often prohibits gay sex, and condemns homosexual relationships as sinful. It would reasonably be a violation of their religion to enter into a business relationship with homosexuals, especially for the purpose of facilitating a gay wedding. It is therefore perfectly reasonable** for them to not be forced to enter into said contracts, citing the First Amendment as their protection.

Second, it is your own personally held beliefs that discrimination is bad; why should your beliefs be supreme in this? Moreover, you assume there is no 'reason' behind it, and that is quite a foolish thing to assume about your opposition. You may not agree with their reasons; you may think their reasons are flawed, or false; but you cannot simply assume that they are without reason just because you disagree with them.”
Again, I think that smaller companies should be able to deny service based on any reason. Larger companies are a bit of a different animal since restricting service to people can negatively effect their lives to a larger extent. If one small restaurant refuses to serve a group than that group can just go to a new restaurant. If a larger company like CVS Pharmacy for example refuses service than that can be detrimental to people’s quality of life, because that might be the only pharmacy in town.

“Then there are no movements; just collections of people with similar views on a subject. Please, do not pick nits - a rockslide is a rockslide, because even if all of the stones don't have the exact same speed and direction they are still heading in the same general direction. Likewise, a movement is a movement, as they're all pushing for roughly the same thing.”

I’m just going to concede on this. It’s semantics.

“I wish they were, but the gay rights movement frequently uses one as a legal foot in the door for the other, using legal shenanigans to get their way. As it is, Christian businesses often have a fig-leaf of protection by claiming that, since their marriage is not recognized by the state, they can discriminate - they aren't discriminating based on sexual preferences, after all, just on the fact that they're not actually married. That will be taken away if the state recognizes gay marriage.”

Not really sure if you’re saying that people discriminate because the people are married or not. If you are saying that people discriminate based on marital status I have to say that I strongly doubt it. I don’t have evidence, so call it unfounded, but I think people discriminate based on who you are more than what you do in cases of race, sexuality, and religion. If there’s a racist who doesn’t believe in interracial marriage, chances are if he sees a white and black person holding hands he’s not going to reserve his judgement until he checks for a ring. Also, I can’t really tell if you are arguing for or against discrimination. You seemed critical about people discriminating against criminals, pedophiles, etc., but now seem supportive of it by saying that it would remove one’s right to discriminate. Not really sure what you’re going for. From where I’m standing it sounds comparable to saying that allowing interracial marriage encroaches on the rights for people to be racist.

“Yet you don't believe it's their religious choice to NOT serve gays in other aspects of their life? Basically, you think that their religion can and should only be practiced in Church on Sundays, while they're firmly agnostic the rest of the week?

Sorry. That's not in line with the Constitution, and it's CERTAINLY not in line with the concept of individual, natural rights and freedoms.”

Already said I think churches shouldn’t have to marry gay people. I don’t have any intent in telling a religion what to believe. I think people should be able to practice religion freely, but like I said before, and the line for where someone’s freedom of religion ends and my freedoms begin has been up for debate for years. I personally believe that it ends when it begins to have any sort of negative impact on my life or the lives of any others. Many think that’s too extreme a view. There’s religious freedom and persecution by the religious; somewhere between the two is the ever-shifting line. Also, to act as if one’s religious rights, especially those that allow them to discriminate, should be put above anyone else’s rights seems dogmatic. Another thing I’d like to ask is what if two religious views come into conflict? What if one person’s beliefs allow them to question God where another’s calls for the murder/condemnation of that person. Who’s right in that scenario? Either way somebody is having their rights infringed upon; it’s another example of a situation with no correct answer, much like the same sex marriage debate.
“Alright. Tell ya what; you go ahead and smoke and drink and do all those unhealthy things. No? Why not? Oh, because others smoked and drank excessively, and they died young from major health issues?

Of course it's valid; it's an induction argument based on "If we see A, B frequently follows. We see A; it is probable that B will follow". No, it's not a certainty - induction arguments never technically are - but considering that all of science is based on inductive arguments, you should at least recognize that inductive arguments have the probability to be right.”

This is why I said “evidence.” If there is a tested correlation between two things that serves as evidence, just as smoking and cancer. What I’m saying is that saying that churches and businesses widespread will be sued, and basing it off of only a few isolated incidents, does not evidence make. In the states and countries that have legalized same-sex marriage there have not been infringement on religious rights or lawsuits in mass. If there is a strong correlation (http://faculty.quinnipiac.edu/libar.....tatistics.html) between the two than steps must be taken to prevent those things. This is sounding a lot like the violent video game debate. A few isolated incidents do not call for mass action, especially when there are extenuating circumstances to the cases.

“Then why are you so casual to dismiss their fears, if you do not understand them? They are, by and large, reasonable people; you talk to them every day, and they are clearly of sound mind and conscience. Why do you seek to undermine something they hold dear if you cannot understand it?”
“Oh? Why must it be defined based on non-religious view points?”
“Or C, between a man and several woman, D. Between a variable number of people, D. Between a man and his goat (sex is not required for marriage, so you can't claim it's inherently illegal!), E. Between a man and his daughter/son (again, sex isn't required!), F. Between a man and his car...

Really, what's your justification for stopping there? What you've set up is a false dichotomy, when there really are many, many options - and most of them, you'd heartily disapprove of.”

I didn’t phrase this well enough. I understand both sides, I just feel like the argument is asinine. Let me try to clarify what I meant the first time. For one, the term can’t be based on religious grounds because, like I said before, you’d have to choose one or a few religions for something the government currently regulates, meaning it’s in part establishing religious views which I’m very sure infringes the religious rights of many people. Also, the sanctity of marriage is so subjective, even on the ideals of one religion, that it shouldn’t dictate the populous. The bible clearly says divorce is wrong, yet it’s perfectly legal and many don’t think it has an effect on the sanctity of marriage. I personally hold marriage to the standard of two consenting adults, so to not allow same sex marriages goes against my sanctity of marriage. The term is so subjective it becomes useless as defense against anything and is simply repeating one’s religious beliefs. Next, I was talking about the majority of people. I understand that there aren’t two views, but many. I was simply addressing the two I see the most. Of course there are fringe beliefs out there, but going into every one isn't worth the effort. Now, my reasoning behind my original argument was that marriage between a same-sex couples is ok because it’s between two consenting adults. Polygamy and group marriages are a different subject and I don’t see how saying whether they’re ok or not matters considering we’re talking about same-sex marriage. As for marrying an animal, animals cannot legally give consent. As for marrying a sibling or blood relative, I say no due to the negative genetic effects. Lastly, even if you think all of these things are ok, it shouldn’t hold much weight on the argument because it’s trivial.


“So, what is right is based on what the majority think? That's news to me - also, contradictory to your position, considering you doubtless condemn other countries for their laws against homosexuality. Moreover, it's simply not true - even in California, people voted for marriage to be defined as one man and one woman.”

No. What is right is based on numerous things, not just the majority view. If it was this nation would have an established religion. What’s right is a subjective term, and I think it should be based on many things including logistics, scientific evidence, morals held by society, and even an individuals religious beliefs, or lack thereof.

At least we agree on hate speech. Silver lining.

Now I would like to ask you a few questions and also make a request or two.

For one, a lot of this debate seems to be about things that are only vaguely related to gay marriage or not specifically related to gay marriage, so considering this seems to be a same-sex marriage debate I’d like to debate things directly related to it.

-Considering the zeitgeist has come to the majority decision that being gay isn’t a choice, why should their relationships be treated differently than anyone else’s?
-Why should religion have any say in the same-sex marriage debate? I don’t mean religious people, but instead arguments based on religious principles.
-Many countries including England, Canada, and many other European countries have same-sex marriage legalized with little to no negative effects on the majority of the population, along with some American states. Doesn’t this provide strong evidence that same-sex marriage shouldn’t be illegal?
-Where do you draw the line in regards to discrimination against homosexuals, or any race, religion, etc.?
-In a hypothetical scenario, if people would not be sued for refusing service and no married couple, sex regardless, received any rights, would you be in favor, neutral, or against gay marriage?

Oh, one more question I forgot.
-At what point is it ok to call someone a biggot, intolerant, homophobic, etc.?

Please excuse the gigantic fucking wall of text =p



"I see your point, but I don’t think it’s right to suspend the right for two people to get married because of what benefits they get."

That's the thing; they have every right to get married. They can hold a ceremony at a church that will have them, they can tell all their family to attend, they can live together, share joint ownership of property, have sex together, get insurance together with a provider that will sell joint policies to them, etc etc etc. I'm not stopping that, nor would I. I'm just opposed to government giving them special legal benefits at it, especially since those benefits come at the cost to others - and, also, the government recognition since that, too, leads to the stripping away of religious people's rights to peaceably run their business as they believe is moral to do.



"Instead, I think it would better off be spent against all marriage, a two steps forward one step back sort of approach."

Okay, you've shown me the 'one step back' part of your plan - namely, that we expand government definition of marriage and the benefits thereof and the harm to the rights of business owners. So, where are those 'two steps forward' you promised? Because, if the hypothetical 'two steps forward' are something to be sought after in the distant future... Nope. I've seen how these things go. It's happened before with other rights, that the two steps forward never comes despite all the well wishes and promises of the Left, and I'm not going to accept the one step back until we have two steps forward.


"However, the reason you don’t see straight people trying to “coerce others into giving them benefits” is because they already have them. This goes into the argument for ‘equality’ (I know you don’t like that word in this context but I don’t know of an easily interchangeable alternative), if there was no marriage than no one would be arguing for same-sex marriage."

You know that for a fact, eh? How? Are you arguing that they WOULD try to enact anti-discrimination laws if they were discriminated against? You have no real evidence to back up that assertion. Indeed, I've heard several straight couples being willing to give up those special legal benefits as a reasonable solution to the whole fiasco.



"Lastly, I can’t think of a non-religious (I’ll get to why I’m creating a distinction later), “good” reason for one to deny service to anyone simply because of who they are."

Why does it matter if there is a non-religious reason or not? A business owns what it owns; the only way for another person to get what they own is to enter into a contract and trade goods with them. If the business owner does not agree to the contract - for whatever reason, or no reason at all - then the goods are not exchanged, the services are not provided, do not pass go, do not collect $200. That is part and parcel of property rights - that a person owns what they own, and others cannot take that away without their consent. Those laws violate the concept of consent, so I cannot accept them as good and proper.



"This might be another issue we have to agree to disagree on. For one, I’m not getting into a gun debate or social security, considering they have, inherently, nothing to do with gay marriage. The reason I don’t think religion should have any say in business or government for a few reasons. 1. Not everybody is a single religion, so why should laws based on the bible effect a jewish person or a muslim?

First: Any statement about what is right or wrong, good or bad - any statement except about the fundamentally material, in other words - is inherently a religious argument. That is, it's based on personal beliefs about abstract concepts of right and wrong that are not universally held. You say discrimination is bad, wrong? That's a religious belief. You say that government should be secular, that religion should not have a say in it? That is a religious belief - and a self-defeating one, really.





"2. I think business should be inherently secular because if people were allowed to discriminate based on religion it could lead to problems far worse than the ones that already exist. What if Walmart came out today and said that only asians could shop and work at their store? Millions would be fired and thousands in small towns would be left without a place to get necessary goods."

And then other shops, small businesses and other large businesses, would suddenly have drastically increased demand and labor supply, allowing them to hire at lower prices and sell at higher prices, while the backlash against Walmart would likely be catastrophic for their profits. The other businesses expand to fill the void that Walmart left, Walmart shrinks, and equilibrium is reached - likely resulting in Walmart losing much of its market share and profits, and quite possibly going out of business.

Now, this catastrophic scenario you proposed, besides being self-solving, is so unlikely that it's preposterous that you'd even suggest it. Walmart is a business; they, of their own will, want to make the most money that they can. They will not do that by discriminating against a large sector of the market - that would be stupid. The likelihood of a major corporation discriminating against any particular racial group in any significant way will face severe backlash from the public, and their competitors will eat up a good chunk of their market share.

Also... The same damage would occure if the owners of Walmart decided they had enough money and shut the doors. Think about that; if they were to just shut their doors tomorrow, the results would be much the same! Yet, that's not illegal. Stupid, but not illegal. Why?

Because, simply put, no one has the right to demand that Walmart enter into contract with them. To do so violates the very concept of a contract, as well as their rights to their own property and labor.



"If you allow one group to be discriminated against than why not allow anyone to discriminate against anyone?"

That's exactly what I'm proposing; that it be legal for any private entity to discriminate against any other private entity - peaceably. That is, in a manner that does not harm their life, liberty, and/or property. To, in short, allow people to enter into contracts - or NOT enter into contracts - as they so desire, for any reason or no reason at all. Society will not suddenly crumble, and there is no actual harm from doing so. For a store to not offer goods and services to certain members of the community is a good deal less economically harmful to society at large and equally harmful to the individuals it discriminates against as if it simply closed shop. Since closing shop is totally legal - namely, because it does not harm anyone else's right to life, liberty, or property - so should discrimination, which is equal in damage at worst, and less damaging in other aspects.



"The exceptions to this would be criminals and other ‘undesirables.’ By this I mean if someone has a history of hurting children, discrimination against them being children should be ok. Same with violent criminals. However, it should be based on someone’s actions, not who they are. Later on you use the example of someone being flamboyant, and if they are becoming a nuisance, than they should be asked to leave. Same if there is a christian yelling bible verses or a vagrant who is dirty. However, say there are two people, dressed in plain clothes, acting like every other customer, but they’re holding hands and are of the same sex, than I don’t see why they should be kicked out."

You insist that there should be a discerning factor between choices and inherent, unchangeable attributes, yet almost every single thing a gay person does is a choice. If they have sex with another gay person? That's a choice. If they don't have sex with a woman? That, too, is a choice. A vagrant being dirty, however, may not be a choice, nor is a poor person who cannot afford the item - yet you, doubtless, believe it's okay to discriminate against these people by not letting the stinky homeless person into the store and not giving the expensive item to the poor person at a lower price.



"3. Since there is no one religion there is no one set of rules. So either you follow them all, pick one or a few (which is against the constitution since it’s favoring one religion over another)"

My argument does not hinge on it, but you must show me where it prohibits religion from defining governmental laws and regulations in the Constitution. First Amendment, you say?

"Government shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof"

...Nope. Nothing in there preventing religion from influencing and encouraging laws. Just prohibitions against government from preventing people from peaceably exercising their religion - as in, not allowing gay people into their store, if they believe that this is the right thing to do.

Moreover, such a proposition would be impossible; you cannot have law without belief about what is right and wrong, and that is an inherently religious prospect - whether you admit to it or not. You could not condemn murder if you can't say it's wrong to kill another human being, and you can't do that without appealing to what's right and wrong - which is, again, the territory of inherently religious belief.



"or you pick none. There really isn’t a clear way to distinguish when discrimination is ok, but that doesn’t mean it should entirely be done away with one way or another."

It's utterly arbitrary and it's used by one group to force another group into submission. That alone is reason enough to suspect its goodness; the fact that it is used to coerce people who are doing no harm is just more dirt upon the coffin.


"On one extreme we could have child molesters working at daycares while on the other we have people refusing service to anyone for any reason. I hold to the idea that someone’s religion is their personal relationship with their believed higher power."

A religious belief is anything regarding morality or a higher power. If you believe there is no god or gods, that is a religious belief. If you also believe that some things are right and some things are wrong, that too is a religious belief.

And, again - you're comparing putting children around people who may very well molest them... to people not entering into contracts with other people. The only 'extreme' in that example is the disparity of evil. One side makes me reach for my gun and watch very, very carefully while I get the innocent people to safety; the other makes me roll my eyes and shop elsewhere.


"When it comes to religion I tend to follow the same idea as the adage “you’re right to move your fist end where my face begins.”"

Then why, oh why, do you insist on swinging your fist at people you don't personally approve of? They are causing no harm by NOT entering into contract with others, no matter their reasoning. Yet, you would 'swing your fist' and take away their right to their own property simply because you don't agree with how they are exercising their right to what is theirs!



"I talked a lot about this already but I want to clarify a few things. 1. Nearly every single peer reviewed study done points to the fact that being gay isn’t a choice, and the American Psychological Association also says this along with many other groups."

But the gay lifestyle is a choice. Holding hands and kissing in public is a choice. Acting in an effeminately gay or butch manner is a choice. Having sex with the same gender is a choice. All of these things that the religious person objects to...

It's a choice.

Yes, the temptation is not a choice - but, by and large, these business owners are NOT discriminating against them because they suffer from a temptation. They're discriminating based on choices.


"2. True, many can’t help being poor, and technically it is discrimination to refuse to allow them to take something, but if the person is refusing to engage in commerce (paying what the seller is asking) then it’s ok to not give them what they’re demanding. It’s equality of opportunity."

It is still discrimination based on factors that the individual cannot help - this seems to be the crux of your argument, so you can't just wave it away by calling it 'equality of opportunity' since they didn't have the opportunity anyway. Just as well to tell the gay person to stop being attracted to men, or the black person to lighten his skin color a few shades.



"3. There is no easy answer to this. Same could be said with drinking laws. Some societies think the age for drinking should be higher or lower, and there isn’t a “right” answer, but there are answers that most people can agree on."

So, most people agreeing on something is your standard for law? In which case, those laws banning homosexuality (even by pain of death) are okay with you, so long as the majority accept it? Because it sounds pretty freaking arbitrary what you say is an 'inherent human right' and what 'should be left up to the people'. I'd hazard a guess that it doesn't actually have so much to do with the issue itself so much as whether or not you personally favor the result...





"I already talked a lot about this, but I’ll try to answer why discrimination against gay people is bad. It’s bad for the same reason discriminating based on race is bad. I can say the same thing over and over, but since what’s ok is completely subjective than there isn’t a correct answer."

Then how can you possibly condemn murder, or indeed take a stance on anything? Moreover, you have said that it is BAD, not that it should be ILLEGAL. You should be very mindful of that distinction; it is for that very reason that you are not in chains right now. If Christians saw no distinction, for instance, you wouldn't be fighting for the 'right' to be married', you'd be fighting to not go to jail. For Christians DO believe that homosexual behavior is 'bad' - that is, it's evil, it's sinful, it should not be done - but they do not wish to make it illegal, by and large.

So; you tell me, what is YOUR distinction between what is bad and what is evil? What is your self-admittedly subjective standard by which you hold something bad but legal, and when you hold something bad and illegal? Ah, yes, that's right; 'your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins' - that is, HARM. Well, being unreasonable isn't harmful. Not liking gay people isn't harmful. Not allowing them into your shop isn't harmful. Not offering to trade with them is not harmful. If not allowing someone into your shop WAS harmful, then any store that closed for the night would be causing harm, and thus closing would be illegal. Not offering to trade doesn't cause harm either, for the same reason (it would also be illegal to only make offers to your friends, or to hold an item for a customer). In short... your application of your own standard for law is fundamentally flawed.



"Now, what separates it from what you said is insulting people or submerging a holy symbol in bodily fluids isn’t nice, but it doesn’t keep them from practicing their religion. If I call a religious person stupid it doesn’t keep them from practicing their religion."

Nor does not entering into a contract with another person harm their life, liberty, or property.


"They can just as easily practice their religion as they had before my statement. Same with discriminating against gay people; burning a rainbow flag doesn’t stop me from being gay. Now, keeping somebody from legally doing something they would be able to do if they were of a different sexuality or race is close to where the line of justifiable discrimination lies."

It is only legal to enter into someone's shop if they allow you to; it is only legal to trade with someone if they are likewise willing to trade. To enter someone's property without their permission is trespass, and to take their property without their permission (even with compensation) is theft. If a beggar had the money, he'd be able to afford the expensive item; by your own standard, that person is being unfairly discriminated against. Likewise, the homeless hobo that reeks of all manner of filth, if he had not been such a person, would be able to enter the store and buy the products - yet, you personally approve of this discrimination, so you think it should be permitted.

This is a double standard. Yes, if the person were not gay, he'd be able to enter into the establishment and purchase goods. And if the poor man were not poor, he'd be able to buy the goods; and if the hobo were not smelly, he'd be able to enter the store and buy the goods. You cannot use one line of reasoning to justify your position and then dismiss it when the same line of reasoning is applied in an equivalent situation. Either it SHOULD be legally permitted to discriminate based on things that a person cannot help, or it SHOULD NOT be legally permitted to discriminate based on things that a person cannot help. You cannot say it's okay in one case and not okay in another without some other standard differentiating them, and you have provided no such standard.



"It’s not about equality, it’s about equal opportunity."

See above; the poor man and the hobo do not have equal opportunity. Nor, to be frank, is it in the Constitution that all people must have equal opportunity, nor is it harming someone if equal opportunity is not offered.



"That’s another reason I don’t agree with discrimination based on religion. Somebody catering a gay wedding doesn’t keep them from being a christian."

According to your beliefs about what it is to be a Christian, yes. But not to them.


"They may not like it, but it doesn’t keep them from practicing their religion."

Exactly what do you think 'practicing their religion' involves? Is it just singing hymnes on Sunday, giving the occasional "Praise JAYSUS" from the pews? No. It means peaceably taking a stand regarding what they believe is moral or immoral. And you would force them to participate in what they believe is immoral.


"Same with allowing gay marriage. Gays getting married isn’t going to keep people from preaching."

It does, however, prevent them from behaving in a manner that they believe is holy and righteous.


"Again, I think that smaller companies should be able to deny service based on any reason. Larger companies are a bit of a different animal since restricting service to people can negatively effect their lives to a larger extent."

Negative effect != ceasing a positive effect. They are not hurting anyone by refusing service; they simply are not helping.


"If one small restaurant refuses to serve a group than that group can just go to a new restaurant. If a larger company like CVS Pharmacy for example refuses service than that can be detrimental to people’s quality of life, because that might be the only pharmacy in town."

The people being refused do not own the stuff in the pharmacy; they are not being hurt if they are unable to get the stuff that the pharmacy owned, they simply are not being helped.


"Not really sure if you’re saying that people discriminate because the people are married or not."

I'm saying that, as things stand right now, businesses can avoid participating in a gay wedding because they're not discriminating based on the fact that it's gay, but because it's not a state recognized wedding - which is not illegal to discriminate against. That is, it's a legal protection to not participate in something they find immoral, one that would be taken away if the state started to recognize gay marriage. Yes, they are in fact discriminating based on the fact that it's GAY, but this allows them the protection of being able to claim that they're discriminating based on it not actually being a marriage - which is true or them to say, as they don't believe it really IS marriage.

"Also, I can’t really tell if you are arguing for or against discrimination."

I am for discrimination against immoral behavior, such as not hiring convicted felons and not participating in gay weddings; I am in favor of discrimination against things that hurt businesses, such as discriminating against those who cannot afford the item and not allowing people who reek into the shop; I am against discriminating based on things that the individual cannot help but do not hurt the business, such as being black or having homosexual desires. However, these are only things I am personally for and against; just because the last is something that's not okay to do, that doesn't mean it IS okay to bring force against to prevent it!



"You seemed critical about people discriminating against criminals, pedophiles, etc.,"

I am critical of your argument; the standards you used to support your argument would, if applied in other ways, do a LOT of things you don't like. For instance, you justified laws prohibiting discrimination against gays by saying that gay people can't help being gay, and so they should not be discriminated against. I countered with the fact that stinky homeless people can't help being stinky and homeless, and so by your reasoning it should be illegal to kick them out of the store. Moreover, a poor person cannot help being poor, so if they cannot afford the expensive item it would be discrimination not to give it to them - they cannot help it, so discriminating against them would, according to your standard, be wrong.

"From where I’m standing it sounds comparable to saying that allowing interracial marriage encroaches on the rights for people to be racist."

It encroaches on a racist's right to not serve as a photographer at an interracial marriage, yes. Would you enslave them simply because you don't think their reason for refusing is good?


"Already said I think churches shouldn’t have to marry gay people. I don’t have any intent in telling a religion what to believe."

Yet you're okay forcing religious people to participate in something they find morally abhorrent.


"I think people should be able to practice religion freely, but like I said before, and the line for where someone’s freedom of religion ends and my freedoms begin has been up for debate for years."

No, it's not. You already stated a good standard, and used it (badly) - that is, "your right to swing your fist ends at my face". Namely, you may do whatever you want so long as you do not cause harm. Not providing a service is not harm; they are not made worse for it if the service is not provided. They simply are not helped.

"I personally believe that it ends when it begins to have any sort of negative impact on my life or the lives of any others."

Good, then by that standard you should accept discrimination as legal, for the reasons stated above.

"There’s religious freedom and persecution by the religious; somewhere between the two is the ever-shifting line."

The line is as plain as the nose on your face, if I may stretch the analogy further. Harm. That is the line.

"Also, to act as if one’s religious rights, especially those that allow them to discriminate, should be put above anyone else’s rights seems dogmatic."

You do not have the right to someone else's stuff, nor do you have the right to be on their property. You may ask to enter; they have the right to deny you entry, as it is their property. You may ask to trade; they may deny the trade. You keep confusing 'the protection from harm' with 'the right to something someone else has', and it's getting rather dull.

"This is why I said “evidence.” If there is a tested correlation between two things that serves as evidence, just as smoking and cancer. What I’m saying is that saying that churches and businesses widespread will be sued, and basing it off of only a few isolated incidents, does not evidence make."

Not being sued != not having your rights taken away. If we were to measure the infringement on rights based on how many lawsuits occurred, then we could just as easily claim that banning homosexuality didn't violate rights because not many people were sued for it. Whether or not people are willing to break a law and risk suit doesn't change whether or not a right has been infringed by said law.



"In the states and countries that have legalized same-sex marriage there have not been infringement on religious rights or lawsuits in mass."

Yes, yes there have. In Canada, it's illegal to speak against homosexuality, and to teach your kids that homosexuality is wrong. In America, bakers have been forced to bake cakes for gay couples, and photographers have been sued for not providing photography services - that is, they're being sued for trying to not participate in gay weddings. The very fact that these people are being sued for it is proof that their rights HAVE been denied - they simply aren't breaking the right-denying law so they don't get sued.

This is how liberals tend to operate; they push for more and more and more, even though they say they'll be satisfied with whatever law they currently want passed.

"For one, the term can’t be based on religious grounds because, like I said before, you’d have to choose one or a few religions for something the government currently regulates,"

And, again, all beliefs about what's right and wrong are inherently religious; what makes your particular view so special that we should adopt it rather than the plethora of other beliefs out there? You don't even claim your beliefs to be absolutely true - your beliefs are subjective, according to your own words. How then can you justify mandating your subjective belief upon the whole of society?

"meaning it’s in part establishing religious views which I’m very sure infringes the religious rights of many people."

Good. Get government out of it altogether, and stop giving special legal benefits. Problem solved.

"Also, the sanctity of marriage is so subjective, even on the ideals of one religion, that it shouldn’t dictate the populous."

Your own beliefs, by your own admission, are subjective, and therefore should not be used to dictate the populous. It also logically follows that your beliefs about the beliefs of others is likewise subjective - so they could very well be objective ^.^

"The bible clearly says divorce is wrong, yet it’s perfectly legal and many don’t think it has an effect on the sanctity of marriage."

Actually, no; many DO have a problem with divorce, especially no-fault divorce, and would gladly do away with that AND gay marriage in one fell swoop if they could =3

"I personally hold marriage to the standard of two consenting adults, so to not allow same sex marriages goes against my sanctity of marriage."

That's nice - but what makes your sanctity of marriage so special? Why should it not be expanded further?

"Next, I was talking about the majority of people. I understand that there aren’t two views, but many. I was simply addressing the two I see the most. Of course there are fringe beliefs out there, but going into every one isn't worth the effort"

The belief that homosexual couples should be considered married was a preposterous fringe belief fifty years ago. Why are those 'not worh the effort' of addressing? The goalposts will move once this goal is achieved - there are already stirrings in several states to change the number from two to... well, as many as one would like. How can you justify not allowing that, and whatever follows, without some solid foundation?

"Now, my reasoning behind my original argument was that marriage between a same-sex couples is ok because it’s between two consenting adults. Polygamy and group marriages are a different subject and I don’t see how saying whether they’re ok or not matters considering we’re talking about same-sex marriage."

Because it would show how much your beliefs are truly worth to you. So, again; how can you possibly argue against expanding the traditional definition of marriage further if you already want to expand it?

"No. What is right is based on numerous things, not just the majority view. If it was this nation would have an established religion. What’s right is a subjective term, and I think it should be based on many things including logistics, scientific evidence, morals held by society, and even an individuals religious beliefs, or lack thereof."

Basically, whatever is most convenient for you at the time. Gotcha.

"-Considering the zeitgeist has come to the majority decision that being gay isn’t a choice, why should their relationships be treated differently than anyone else’s?"

Because what is right and what is wrong is not determined by majority opinion.

"-Why should religion have any say in the same-sex marriage debate? I don’t mean religious people, but instead arguments based on religious principles."

Because, again, religious beliefs are the only things that can say something is right or wrong. Science and economics can say cause and effect, certainly; science can say that there is a biological cause for homosexual desire, one that cannot be altered by the person who has it. Economics can say that if a company discriminates against a certain group, it will have certain effects. But only beliefs can say whether or not these things are good or evil, right or wrong, or whether they are justified or not justified.


"-Many countries including England, Canada, and many other European countries have same-sex marriage legalized with little to no negative effects on the majority of the population, along with some American states. Doesn’t this provide strong evidence that same-sex marriage shouldn’t be illegal?"

That is not the case; the additiona benefits that gay couples recieve are paid for by the taxes of others. The rights that they lost by homosexuality becoming a protected class cannot simply be disregarded.

"-Where do you draw the line in regards to discrimination against homosexuals, or any race, religion, etc.?"

Legally? I draw the line at whether it's government doing the discrimination or private entities. On a personal level, I've described above what discriminations are good, acceptable, and bad.

"-In a hypothetical scenario, if people would not be sued for refusing service and no married couple, sex regardless, received any rights, would you be in favor, neutral, or against gay marriage?"

If they did not recieve any special legal benefits and if it did not allow for people to be sued for discriminating? *shrugs* Neutral - at that point government would only be recognizing a contract, and that's fine.

"-At what point is it ok to call someone a biggot, intolerant, homophobic, etc.?"

Bigot: When they will not tolerate other people, ideas, or opinions. Not just dislikes or disagrees with - does not tolerate.

Intolerant: When a person does not treat the person as a person.

Homophobic: When someone hates another for being attracted to the opposite sex. Note: Disapproval for actions arising from this attraction is not the same thing.

I’m just going to start a new thread of debates since the other seems to be getting increasingly long. If I forget to address one of the points raised feel free to tell me and I’ll respond.

First off, I wanted to get some definitions and evidence out of the way for the sake of clarification.

Religion: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/u.....glish/religion)
-Religion and morality are two different things.

Atheism- Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. (http://www.atheists.org/activism/re.....hat-is-atheism and http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/u.....eism?q=atheism)
-Atheism is not a religion, but instead the lack thereof. Calling it a religion would be like calling off a TV channel, cold a temperature, and black a color (the last two based on scientific definitions).

Harm: Physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/u.....n_english/harm)

Segregation and Discrimination have a scientifically measured negative effect on individuals (http://www.datacenterresearch.org/p.....tegration.html).

You said one’s actions (public displays of affection, getting married, etc.) are a choice, but so is starting a business, making a business religious, and even choosing to follow your beliefs. I may believe there is no god or gods, but I can choose to follow Christian doctrines. This would mean that people refusing to participate in someone’s same-sex marriage is a choice just like engaging in “homosexual behavior,” it’s just which side of the argument your on. I could even say that from the line of logic you put forth that I could discriminate against anyone simple for making the decision not to die. “I am for discrimination against immoral behavior, such as not hiring convicted felons and not participating in gay weddings.” The fact that someone has chosen to live up until this point I think of as bad, which makes it immoral, which means by your line of reasoning I can discriminate against them. The argument on a whole is unreasoned.

Now, even though I did supply evidence to support the fact that segregation is a bad thing and can have a negative impact on the person, or cause them suffering as one might say, I’d also like to explain a trend that is prevalent in history. Discrimination leads to segregation, which leads to crimes towards a group, even ethnic cleansing. There are numerous examples of this such as the plight of the Native Americans and the Trail of Tears in the 1830’s, the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII, the systematic murder of over 20 million people, including Jews, Romas (gypsies), the disabled, the “racially inferior,” and even homosexuals, in the Holocaust, violence towards African Americans during the African-American Civil Rights Movement during the 50’s and 60’s, Protestant Christians during the Spanish Inquisition from 1478-1834, among others. What happens in history when you allow discrimination of entire groups is they are considered inferior to others, very often resulting in others attempting to remove those they deem inferior.

As for the example of the homeless person and the person refusing to pay: we’ve already agreed they’re examples of discrimination, but most of these are protected by law. If the person is refusing to pay the price you sell the item to for everyone, then they are attempting to steal the object, because they do not have the legal right to take the object, in which case you can call the police and have them removed from your place of business. As for the homeless guy, you can’t really do anything if he smells, and I don’t think you should be able to. Lots of people stink. Now, if he’s walking around your place of business and not shopping, he’s loitering, so you have the legal right to have him removed. If he wants to buy something and has the money, let him, but keep in mind you have the right to hold your nose at the register. =P

As for Canada’s dreadful law against speaking out against homosexuals, we do not have to worry as we have freedom of speech. If this did become an issue I guarantee many would be opposed to it. As for the other countries and they laws I do so abhor, I can only say that. However, we do not have to worry about them either as our court system was founded on the idea of innocent until proven guilty and most states don’t have the death penalty.

As for why same-sex marriage should be allowed in all 50 states of the USA:
-Marriage’s current legal definition is: “The legal union of a couple as spouses.  The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.”
-Not allowing same-sex partners to marry causes feelings of inferiority and discrimination in society.
-Gay marriage is protected by the Constitution's commitments to liberty and equality (http://gaymarriage.procon.org/sourc.....r-decision.pdf)
-Same sex marriage will help the economy (http://gaymarriage.procon.org/sourc.....k-benefits.pdf)
-Marriage would make it easier for gay couples to adopt, providing children with homes.
-Marriage provides both physical and psychological health benefits, and making it illegal can cause negative health effects such as psychological disorders. (Shankar Vedantam, "Bans of Same-Sex Marriage Can Take a Psychological Toll," NPR.org, May 20, 2013 and http://gaymarriage.procon.org/sourc.....ebrief2008.pdf)
-Legalizing gay marriage will not harm heterosexual marriages or "family values," and society will continue to function successfully (American Anthropological Association, "Statement on Marriage and the Family," www.aaanet.org, Feb. 26, 2004 and Laura Langbein and Mark A. Yost, Jr., "Same-Sex Marriage and Negative Externalities," Social Science Quarterly, June 2009)
-Gay marriage legalization is correlated with lower divorce rates, while gay marriage bans are correlated with higher divorce rates (Nate Silver, "Divorce Rates Higher in States with Gay Marriage Bans," www.fivethirtyeight.com, Jan. 12, 2010)
-Same-sex marriage is a civil right (US Supreme Court, Loving v. Virginia, law.cornell.edu, June 12, 1967)

On to the elephant in the room, religion. Now, as it relates to discrimination, anyone of any faith will have the opportunity not to be discriminated against, and to not discriminate illegally against others. Now, as to why laws shouldn’t be founded on religious doctrine, because many Americans believe in separation of church and state, and while it does not have any strict legal foundation, many Americans would be opposed to a law such as that. Of course, that would only be if the law was only founded in religion, say forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). Either way, there would be a substantial burden of proof for the prosecution.

Speaking of which, that’s what I wanted to ask you. Which one of us holds the burden of proof? I would say you, since you are against the laws currently established, which seems more like the prosecution.

First: it is a religious belief. That is, it's a belief based on your religion. Second, it IS a belief system, and a religion - it is a belief about god or gods, namely that there are none, and that naturalistic processes are the only things that have ever or will ever exist. Now, you say it's not a religion? If that's the case, then your beliefs have no legal protection - after all, the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof". So, if your beliefs are not religious, well... You don't have First Amendment protection for them.

Moreover, for the purposes of this discussion, arguments based on religion are perfectly admissible, if your own personal beliefs are admissible. You say that there are a lot of different religions, with different beliefs, and since not everyone shares those beliefs, you insist that they cannot be used in debate. Not everyone believes what you believe, however, so by your own rules you cannot use them in your debate.

Moreover, while my belief that homosexuality is wrong is a religious belief, the belief that people have the right to freely enter or refrain from entering contracts, for whatever reason or no reason at all, is their fundamental right. You cannot dismiss their right simply because they exercise their religion in a way you don't personally approve.


"You said one’s actions (public displays of affection, getting married, etc.) are a choice, but so is starting a business, making a business religious, and even choosing to follow your beliefs. I may believe there is no god or gods, but I can choose to follow Christian doctrines. This would mean that people refusing to participate in someone’s same-sex marriage is a choice just like engaging in “homosexual behavior,” it’s just which side of the argument your on. I could even say that from the line of logic you put forth that I could discriminate against anyone simple for making the decision not to die. “I am for discrimination against immoral behavior, such as not hiring convicted felons and not participating in gay weddings.” The fact that someone has chosen to live up until this point I think of as bad, which makes it immoral, which means by your line of reasoning I can discriminate against them. The argument on a whole is unreasoned."

Ummm... But I DO believe you should have the right to discriminate against people for whatever reason you want. I believe you, the hypothetical business owner, should not be punished by law if you refused to hire or sell to Christians, or for people who hold to their beliefs, or... Again, any reason, or no reason. You think it's wrong to discriminate based on certain things; alright. I do too, but I disagree on what those things are. But 'ban what is wrong' is not a proper foundation for law. If it were an acceptable basis for law, then Christians could rightfully try to ban homosexuality altogether.

"Now, even though I did supply evidence to support the fact that segregation is a bad thing and can have a negative impact on the person, or cause them suffering as one might say, I’d also like to explain a trend that is prevalent in history. Discrimination leads to segregation, which leads to crimes towards a group, even ethnic cleansing. There are numerous examples of this such as the plight of the Native Americans and the Trail of Tears in the 1830’s, the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII, the systematic murder of over 20 million people, including Jews, Romas (gypsies), the disabled, the “racially inferior,” and even homosexuals, in the Holocaust, violence towards African Americans during the African-American Civil Rights Movement during the 50’s and 60’s, Protestant Christians during the Spanish Inquisition from 1478-1834, among others. What happens in history when you allow discrimination of entire groups is they are considered inferior to others, very often resulting in others attempting to remove those they deem inferior."

*chuckles* Now who's making assertions about what may or may not happen? Sorry, no; it's not likely that not allowing gay marriage will lead to segregation, crimes towards gays, etc. As it stands, they have... Well, the rights of every other citizen. That's a far cry from the Trail of Tears, or what the Nazis did to the Jews. If your greatest complaint is that people aren't giving you special bennies, you can't claim those comparisons.

Moreover, you cannot argue that some people doing damage later because they were influenced by policies of today is not the same thing as the policies today causing damage. If people, some day later, choose to be violent against gay people, then that is their choice - it is not the fault of the law not offering gay marriage, nor is it the fault of the people opposed to gay marriage. If merely influencing someone indirectly to do evil is itself considered a form of harm, then... Well, pretty much everything is harmful. For example, your speaking against Christians putting their beliefs today, if tomorrow Christians are prosecuted, would then be considered harm, and by that standard we could regulate against it. But, again, that's preposterous; you aren't calling for harm against Christians, and those who are harming them are doing it of their free will; you are not responsible for their actions. Likewise, laws against gay marriage are not responsible for any future harm against gay people; those who harm gay people are the ones responsible for harming gay people.


"As for the example of the homeless person and the person refusing to pay: we've already agreed they’re examples of discrimination, but most of these are protected by law. If the person is refusing to pay the price you sell the item to for everyone, then they are attempting to steal the object, because they do not have the legal right to take the object, in which case you can call the police and have them removed from your place of business. As for the homeless guy, you can’t really do anything if he smells, and I don’t think you should be able to. Lots of people stink. Now, if he’s walking around your place of business and not shopping, he’s loitering, so you have the legal right to have him removed. If he wants to buy something and has the money, let him, but keep in mind you have the right to hold your nose at the register. =P"

So, your argument is as follows: "Discriminating by not-being-able-to-afford-it is protected by law, therefore it's good". You do realize that discriminating against gays was protected by law for the longest time, yes? Yet you don't think it's good. Your argument is unsound; the premises are false.


"As for Canada’s dreadful law against speaking out against homosexuals, we do not have to worry as we have freedom of speech."

...You have freedom of speech, but you don't allow people to disagree with homosexuality? I don't think that word means what you think it means.


"If this did become an issue I guarantee many would be opposed to it."

It IS an issue, yet I don't see anyone standing up for those who want to raise their children to believe homosexuality is a sin, nor do I see anyone standing up for those who argue such.


"As for the other countries and they laws I do so abhor, I can only say that."

...You can only say what? That you abhor them? For what reason do you decry them?


"However, we do not have to worry about them either as our court system was founded on the idea of innocent until proven guilty and most states don’t have the death penalty."

Irrelevant; those countries DO have the death penalty, and they think it's A-Okay, and the death penalty for homosexuality is there by popular demand. Either propose a standard by which you can decry them and accept where that standard leads, or revoke your condemnation of their laws and the laws of the United States.


"-Marriage’s current legal definition is: “The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.”

First - they don't have the legal ability to marry each other in 37 of 50 states; 37 states have laws on the books defining marriage as 1 man and 1 woman. Only Connecticut and Iowa recognize same sex marriage, and that is through court rulings - not legislative action, not the will of the people, but court rulings. New Hampshire and Maine have statutes that explicitly allow it. So, no; in the US, Marriage is defined by the majority of states as 1 man and 1 woman.


"-Not allowing same-sex partners to marry causes feelings of inferiority and discrimination in society."

Feeling inferior and discriminated against are not valid causes of harm, otherwise just about ANYTHING could be passed as a law - including disallowing gay marriage, because Christians feel that it erodes their own marriage and makes them feel discriminated against. Likewise, those who don't want to serve gay couples could, because they're being discriminated against, insist on laws that allow them to discriminate.


"-Gay marriage is protected by the Constitution's commitments to liberty and equality (http://gaymarriage.procon.org/sourc.....r-decision.pdf)

Prop 8 did not, in fact, violate the Equal Protection; it simply does not allow for equal benefits, which is a far cry from violating equal protection. Moreover, this is the same district that consistently rules gun bans as Constitutional, whereas the Second Amendment is pretty darn clear on the issue. Basically, the 9th Circuit is fucking nuts, and is more influenced by what is popular than by what is Constitutional.


"-Same sex marriage will help the economy"

On the contrary, it would not. Point by point rebuttal:

Wedding Sales would still happen, if they wanted to get married; nothing is stopping them from holding a ceremony and entering into "contracts for that very purpose.
Second, the sale of marriage licenses will not actually generate wealth; it will just transfer wealth from one person to another, without anything being created in the process.
Third - whether or not that is an acceptable argument depends on whether it is right in the first place. If it is right, then the economic impact is just icing on the cake. If it is not right - if, as I argue, that allowing same sex marriage would in fact harm the rights of business owners - then using economic benefit for gay marriage is akin to using economic benefit to argue for slavery.


"-Legalizing gay marriage will not harm heterosexual marriages or "family values," and society will continue to function successfully"

Irrelevant; the benefits cost money, and that money comes from taxpayers. Other people are being made to pay for their marriage. That is harm. That is assuming that your assumption is true, of course - and since marriage rates have been going down in the Netherlands... And the rate of divorce in Belgium is incredibly high.


"-Gay marriage legalization is correlated with lower divorce rates, while gay marriage bans are correlated with higher divorce rates"

Statistically misleading; it stands to reason that places with more marriages per 1000 people will likewise have more divorces per 1000 people; comparing population-to-divorce without accounting for that is... well, statistically irrelevant.


"-Same-sex marriage is a civil right (US Supreme Court, Loving v. Virginia, law.cornell.edu, June 12, 1967)"

*facehoofs* You do realize that that court case only legalized interracial marriage, yes? By that reasoning, one could say that the Supreme Court legalized any conceivable form of marriage whatsoever.


"On to the elephant in the room, religion. Now, as it relates to discrimination, anyone of any faith will have the opportunity not to be discriminated against, and to not discriminate illegally against others."

That is not as it should be; one doesn't have the 'opportunity to not be discriminated against'; one simply does not have the right to demand that others enter into contracts with them.


"Now, as to why laws shouldn’t be founded on religious doctrine, because many Americans believe in separation of church and state, and while it does not have any strict legal foundation, many Americans would be opposed to a law such as that."

Again; opposing gay marriage does not require one to put their argument in religious terms; not is there any prohibition for religion influencing politics in the Constitution. Your reasoning appears to be thus; "A lot of Americans believe in separation of Church and State, so that should be the law of the land", yet you condemn the laws prohibiting gay marriage in the US despite popular support. You cannot have it both ways; either popular support is sufficient to call a law good, or it is not.


"Of course, that would only be if the law was only founded in religion, say forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)."

So quick to condemn Christianity, yet you refuse to even look for a plausible explanation for that verse:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Sham.....t_and_rape.htm
Short answer; the previous verse was clearly referring to rape, and was using a different word; 28-29 are not referring to rape, but rather consensual sex.


"Speaking of which, that’s what I wanted to ask you. Which one of us holds the burden of proof? I would say you, since you are against the laws currently established, which seems more like the prosecution."

First off, no; the law, as it currently stands, is 37 states defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Second, I'm not the one trying to coerce people into offering THEIR goods and THEIR services to people they do not wish to; you are the one who would bring legal force against them. So, you are the one who must prove actual harm. You have not done so; so, my argument stands. In regards to same sex marriage, you have done nothing to debunk my argument; you have not proved that anyone deserves special legal benefits just for living with another person, let alone gay couples, so you have not proved why we should expand marriage even further to encompass gay couples.

“First: it is a religious belief. That is, it's a belief based on your religion. Second, it IS a belief system, and a religion - it is a belief about god or gods, namely that there are none, and that naturalistic processes are the only things that have ever or will ever exist.”

Atheism is not a religion. It is a religious belief, but it is, by definition, not a religion. The lack of belief in a deity and lack of worshiping of any deity prevents it from being classified as a religion. It also lacks any holy text, creed, dogma, code, or collective ideas apart from believing there is no god or gods. A person can believe whatever they want other than that. You can believe that gravity isn’t real and the lizard people will take over the world and you can still be an atheist as long as you don’t believe in a god or gods. The word Atheist itself shows this. The prefix a- means without, not, and theism means the belief in a god or gods, hence without the belief in and god or gods.

“Now, you say it's not a religion? If that's the case, then your beliefs have no legal protection - after all, the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof". So, if your beliefs are not religious, well... You don't have First Amendment protection for them.”

And? Since I don’t have a religion I don’t need rights protecting religion. It’s comparable to saying a person who does not own a dog needs rights to protect dog owners. The only thing I would have to worry about is being forced to be in a religion, which is against the first amendment.

“Moreover, for the purposes of this discussion, arguments based on religion are perfectly admissible, if your own personal beliefs are admissible. You say that there are a lot of different religions, with different beliefs, and since not everyone shares those beliefs, you insist that they cannot be used in debate. Not everyone believes what you believe, however, so by your own rules you cannot use them in your debate.”

One’s personal beliefs, religious or otherwise, shouldn’t have anything to do with their argument. Arguments are based on the merit of what’s presented, not who’s saying it or what they believe. If a Christian argues for anything, it shouldn’t matter what their religion is. Evidence and logical reasoning are what makes arguments. If you want to use a religious doctrine as evidence, or that god wants you to, well you need proof that your either A. god exists, which is impossible to prove or disprove at this time, or B. the religious doctrine is accurate and correct to peer reviewed standards, and if the doctrine is based on the belief in a god or gods, than see A.

“Moreover, while my belief that homosexuality is wrong is a religious belief, the belief that people have the right to freely enter or refrain from entering contracts, for whatever reason or no reason at all, is their fundamental right. You cannot dismiss their right simply because they exercise their religion in a way you don't personally approve.”

Your absolutely correct, but I can dismiss it based on the fact that there is no evidence in their argument. If we don’t need evidence or logical reasoning for an argument than there’s nothing preventing the idea government should be abolished because it’s being controlled by aliens from being taken as fact.

“Ummm... But I DO believe you should have the right to discriminate against people for whatever reason you want. I believe you, the hypothetical business owner, should not be punished by law if you refused to hire or sell to Christians, or for people who hold to their beliefs, or... Again, any reason, or no reason. You think it's wrong to discriminate based on certain things; alright. I do too, but I disagree on what those things are. But 'ban what is wrong' is not a proper foundation for law. If it were an acceptable basis for law, then Christians could rightfully try to ban homosexuality altogether.”

Ok, you believe that, now prove why your beliefs are correct. I gave you evidence used in the case of Brown vs. The Board of Education that showed that segregation caused a negative impact on the lives of the students who were segregated against. Logical reasoning combed with the fact that the group of people who are gay have a much higher risk of suicide (Elevated rates of suicidal behavior in gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth. Bagley, Christopher; Tremblay, Pierre, Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention, Vol 21(3), 2000). There are also spikes every time same sex marriage legislation falls though and same-sex marriage is now allowed ("The Impact of Institutional Discrimination on Psychiatric Disorders in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Populations: A Prospective Study by Mark L. Hatzenbuehler, MS, MPhil, Katie A. McLaughlin, PhD, Katherine M. Keyes, MPH and Deborah S. Hasin, PhD". Ajph.aphapublications.org. 2010-01-14. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.168815. Retrieved 2011-08-21). Two minority groups that faced and face discrimination and at some times segregation have a more negative attributes than the general population of like individuals, in this case non-minority or straight students. Yet again, evidence showing that discrimination and acts thereof have a negative impact on the health of those who are discriminated against.

To avoid going back and forth, if you’d like to say that discrimination does not lead to negative health effects please provide enough evidence to disprove or create reasonable doubt.

Now, what I’m referring to when I say logical reasoning is using different kinds of evidence to come to a conclusion supported by said evidence that supports my hypothesis. For example, if A+B=C, than logical reasoning dictates that A=C-B.

Last thing I wanted to mention is that I’m not discriminating against religious people, because I am holding them and their “evidence” to the same regard I hold everyone else. They have just as much right to discriminate as everyone else does. If I was to believe that their religious beliefs should be held to a higher regard based, not on evidence, but simply the fact that it wouldn’t be nice or it would be considered disrespectful, than I would be a bigot. The same holds true for all individuals. Now, if actual evidence came forth that showed that religious people had a comparably worse negative impact in places where gay marriage is recognized with comparably similar cultures (not foreign countries like South Africa, but instead states in the US that have legalized gay marriage, like California or Maine) than I would be forced to adjust my stance accordingly.

“*chuckles* Now who's making assertions about what may or may not happen? Sorry, no; it's not likely that not allowing gay marriage will lead to segregation, crimes towards gays, etc. As it stands, they have... Well, the rights of every other citizen. That's a far cry from the Trail of Tears, or what the Nazis did to the Jews. If your greatest complaint is that people aren't giving you special bennies, you can't claim those comparisons.”

May or may not my point is not. Likely and unlikely my point is. Throughout modern history many groups have faced mass segregation, and today minorities already face violence based on their sexuality, everything from bullying to murder, as do other minorities. I in no way know or claim to know that violence will happen if discrimination is allowed, but history seems to support the fact that groups that are discriminated against face a far higher risk for attempted “cleansing.” Also, my claim was not based on the lack of marriage equality, but instead the discrimination. Lastly, the treatment of the Jews in the Holocaust is not comparable to how gays are treated today, however, the treatment in the years before the Holocaust is is likely to be comparable to how gays would be treated in the years following your proposed discrimination laws.

“Moreover, you cannot argue that some people doing damage later because they were influenced by policies of today is not the same thing as the policies today causing damage. If people, some day later, choose to be violent against gay people, then that is their choice - it is not the fault of the law not offering gay marriage, nor is it the fault of the people opposed to gay marriage. If merely influencing someone indirectly to do evil is itself considered a form of harm, then... Well, pretty much everything is harmful. For example, your speaking against Christians putting their beliefs today, if tomorrow Christians are prosecuted, would then be considered harm, and by that standard we could regulate against it. But, again, that's preposterous; you aren't calling for harm against Christians, and those who are harming them are doing it of their free will; you are not responsible for their actions. Likewise, laws against gay marriage are not responsible for any future harm against gay people; those who harm gay people are the ones responsible for harming gay people.”

If you create a law that is somewhere down the line used to commit violence it is not your fault that the violence took place. However, you are at fault for contributing to an environment that supported and even encouraged violence, thus making you at fault for the contribution to the violence. Take the movie Taxi Driver; the people who made it cannot be held responsible for Hinckley trying to kill the president, but they still were a contributor to the crime. What your suggesting is akin to that of a person filling a room with an explosive gas and not being held accountable for the resulting explosion when someone tries to light a candle. Yes, the responsibility rests upon the person who struck the match, but there wouldn’t have been an explosion had the room not been filled with gas. Of course this is a bit of an exaggeration, but what if you were in a room full of people smoking, and the smoke causes a child with asthma to die, who then can be held accountable? This is why motive is such an important part of crime as well as how much the persons knew of their actions. If I knew that someone has murderous tendencies and a temper problem, then giving them a gun makes me partially responsible for whatever they do with that gun. When there’s evidence that suppressing a group of people causes a negative effect on their health and someone suppresses the group, they are partially responsible for whatever negative health problems result as a cause of the suppression. To an almost negligible extent, every person who supports something that creates the atmosphere for a crime to take place is responsible for the creation of the atmosphere for the crime, and therefor a contributor to the crime. Of course, this would never hold up in court or result in any punishment, nor do I think it should unless someone actually conspired to commit the crime.

“So, your argument is as follows: "Discriminating by not-being-able-to-afford-it is protected by law, therefore it's good". You do realize that discriminating against gays was protected by law for the longest time, yes? Yet you don't think it's good. Your argument is unsound; the premises are false.”

I’ll admit, I was wrong in regards to the discrimination of people who can’t afford something. It’s not discrimination at all. Discrimination is unjust treatment of different categories of people, and even if you can’t the group of people who can’t afford something a group, they are being given the same ability to purchase the item as everyone else, but just like everyone else I am not allowing them to pay any less than what I am asking everyone else to pay. I would say that isn’t discrimination because they aren’t being treated differently than others, they are simply refusing to the legally just price I put forth. Now, we could argue what just means (I’m referring to in the meaning of “deserved or appropriate in the circumstances” and “based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.” We could also argue what fair means, but by definition fair means “in accordance with the rules or standards,” so if one if following the laws, they are being fair), but we can argue semantics until the end of time.

“...You have freedom of speech, but you don't allow people to disagree with homosexuality? I don't think that word means what you think it means.”

What I meant is that the laws preventing people from talking out against homosexuality would never stand in America because we have freedom of speech. I think anyone should be able to say what they want about homosexuality. Now, Canada’s law along will all other foreign countries’ laws shouldn’t hold immediate weight in the US just because they do it. That would mean we shouldn’t have a democratic society just because China is single-part socialist, which doesn’t make sense. Instead we should see what other countries do, see if the arguments were supported by evidence, and then figure out how it would fit in with our current laws. In terms of this argument, however, foreign countries’ laws are irrelevant.

“It IS an issue, yet I don't see anyone standing up for those who want to raise their children to believe homosexuality is a sin, nor do I see anyone standing up for those who argue such.”

It is an issue, just not one that impacts this debate. I’d love to argue this further, however, when we are done with these two debates.

“...You can only say what? That you abhor them? For what reason do you decry them?”

My personal feelings are irrelevant in this debate.

“Irrelevant; those countries DO have the death penalty, and they think it's A-Okay, and the death penalty for homosexuality is there by popular demand. Either propose a standard by which you can decry them and accept where that standard leads, or revoke your condemnation of their laws and the laws of the United States.”

Their laws do not have an effect on our laws and our laws don’t have an effect on their laws. What your saying is comparable to saying I must propose a way to harvest apples that also applies to oranges, or I need to stop proposing ways to harvesting apples all together.

“First - they don't have the legal ability to marry each other in 37 of 50 states; 37 states have laws on the books defining marriage as 1 man and 1 woman. Only Connecticut and Iowa recognize same sex marriage, and that is through court rulings - not legislative action, not the will of the people, but court rulings. New Hampshire and Maine have statutes that explicitly allow it. So, no; in the US, Marriage is defined by the majority of states as 1 man and 1 woman.”

What I quoted was the definition of marriage held nationally, and I did it because it does not define marriage as a man and a woman. My point is that marriage isn’t defined nationally as a different sex couple, only the majority of state constitutions say that, and the majority is irrelevant.

“Feeling inferior and discriminated against are not valid causes of harm, otherwise just about ANYTHING could be passed as a law - including disallowing gay marriage, because Christians feel that it erodes their own marriage and makes them feel discriminated against. Likewise, those who don't want to serve gay couples could, because they're being discriminated against, insist on laws that allow them to discriminate.”

You assumed I meant that the laws lead to inferiority and discrimination, but what I meant was that the law leads to inferiority, which leads to discrimination. I don’t Christians, about 70% of the population, will feel inferior, nor can they feel that their rights are inferior as they would have the same rights as everyone else. Their arguments would also be held to the same standard as everyone else. Lessening something or the power of something doesn’t inherently make it inferior. Saying you're being discriminated against when you’re being held to the same standard as everyone else also isn’t discrimination. Discrimination is unjustly treating a group different (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/u.....discrimination); and inferior means having a rank lower than everyone else’s (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/u.....glish/inferior).

“Prop 8 did not, in fact, violate the Equal Protection; it simply does not allow for equal benefits, which is a far cry from violating equal protection. Moreover, this is the same district that consistently rules gun bans as Constitutional, whereas the Second Amendment is pretty darn clear on the issue. Basically, the 9th Circuit is fucking nuts, and is more influenced by what is popular than by what is Constitutional.”

Prop. 8 was ruled unconstitutional and confirmed unconstitutional on June 26, 2013. The Constitutions reads: “all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” According to the founders of the US, all people are equal, by virtue of their humanity, in possession of certain rights that it is the responsibility of government to protect. Therefor, that holding same-sex marriages equal is protected under the Constitution.

“On the contrary, it would not. Point by point rebuttal:

Wedding Sales would still happen, if they wanted to get married; nothing is stopping them from holding a ceremony and entering into "contracts for that very purpose.
Second, the sale of marriage licenses will not actually generate wealth; it will just transfer wealth from one person to another, without anything being created in the process.
Third - whether or not that is an acceptable argument depends on whether it is right in the first place. If it is right, then the economic impact is just icing on the cake. If it is not right - if, as I argue, that allowing same sex marriage would in fact harm the rights of business owners - then using economic benefit for gay marriage is akin to using economic benefit to argue for slavery.”

Skipping to the third point you made, then the entire thing is irrelevant.

“Irrelevant; the benefits cost money, and that money comes from taxpayers. Other people are being made to pay for their marriage. That is harm. That is assuming that your assumption is true, of course - and since marriage rates have been going down in the Netherlands... And the rate of divorce in Belgium is incredibly high.”

I was under the impression that this argument was for same-sex marriage being equal to marriage between a man and a woman. Therefor, the argument of who get’s what benefits is irrelevant if you are arguing that neither should get benefits. Again, I am arguing for equal treatment, not benefits.

“Statistically misleading; it stands to reason that places with more marriages per 1000 people will likewise have more divorces per 1000 people; comparing population-to-divorce without accounting for that is... well, statistically irrelevant.”

Alaska saw a rise in the rate of divorce at 17.2% when they altered their constitution to prohibit gay marriage. Massachusetts’s divorce rate lowered by 21% after they legalized same-sex marriage. Also, 6 out of 8 of the states with the lowest divorce rate have same sex marriage. I think that shows a negative correlation between divorce rate and same sex marriage legalization, as well as the fact that between 2003 and 2008 the top 7 states with the highest divorce rate all had a constitution that prohibited same-sex marriage. (Nate Silver, "Divorce Rates Higher in States with Gay Marriage Bans," www.fivethirtyeight.com, Jan. 12, 2010).

“*facehoofs* You do realize that that court case only legalized interracial marriage, yes? By that reasoning, one could say that the Supreme Court legalized any conceivable form of marriage whatsoever.”

In Loving v. Virginia the Supreme Court ruled that marriage was “one of the basic civil rights of man.” I don’t see anything about race or gender in there, and that along with the Constitution supporting the equality of man arguably makes same-sex marriage a civil right.

“That is not as it should be; one doesn't have the 'opportunity to not be discriminated against'; one simply does not have the right to demand that others enter into contracts with them.”

I already went over this above. Christians are not allowed to be discriminated against based on their religious beliefs or religion, just as gay people have the right to not be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. Christians do not have the right to discriminate based on things protected under the anti-discrimination laws, just as everyone isn’t allowed to.

“Again; opposing gay marriage does not require one to put their argument in religious terms; not is there any prohibition for religion influencing politics in the Constitution. Your reasoning appears to be thus; "A lot of Americans believe in separation of Church and State, so that should be the law of the land", yet you condemn the laws prohibiting gay marriage in the US despite popular support. You cannot have it both ways; either popular support is sufficient to call a law good, or it is not.”

Evidence or logical reasoning based on evidence is what matters. A law that just so happens to be religious is fine if it had evidence to support it. So popular support isn’t sufficient to call a law good, however, usually the populous is good and supporting the side with better evidence. This shouldn’t be a contributing factor though.

“So quick to condemn Christianity, yet you refuse to even look for a plausible explanation for that verse:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Sham.....t_and_rape.htm
Short answer; the previous verse was clearly referring to rape, and was using a different word; 28-29 are not referring to rape, but rather consensual sex.”

That is a straw-man argument. Again, evidence and logical reasoning based on evidence is what matters, not faith, lack there of, holy books, or anything else that doesn’t hold up under the same scrutiny as all other evidence.

“First off, no; the law, as it currently stands, is 37 states defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Second, I'm not the one trying to coerce people into offering THEIR goods and THEIR services to people they do not wish to; you are the one who would bring legal force against them. So, you are the one who must prove actual harm. You have not done so; so, my argument stands. In regards to same sex marriage, you have done nothing to debunk my argument; you have not proved that anyone deserves special legal benefits just for living with another person, let alone gay couples, so you have not proved why we should expand marriage even further to encompass gay couples.”

I showed evidence of a negative effect on those who are segregated against. Again, my argument is for equal treatment, not necessarily benefits or rights. I do request that you show evidence as well.

Why the fucking shit do you believe your oppinion matters so much
I hate people like you soo much

Wow. Not only is it harassment, but its hypocritical harassment; why do you think your opinion of me matters at all?

BANNED.

Can't have a journal on a furry website without some drama.

Considering neither of us has responded to the thread(s) we had going, I'm going to let sleeping dogs lie and say the argument is over. If you'd like to continue I will, but I'd have to wait until next Friday as I'm very busy this week. However, you and this thread have been on my mind, and I thought I'd share a bit about why I'm so adamant about what I'm arguing. Now, this doesn't have anything to do with my argument, but instead WHY I'm arguing other than the urge to argue for what's right.

I saw you talk about how Christianity helped you and your cub, but I'm here to say that it doesn't help everybody. Christianity, or more importantly Christians, nearly killed me. I was bullied by Christians my entire life, as a kid because I was too shy, and as a teenager because I was gay. I always found it confusing since they preached love and caring but would turn around and be mean to me and others for no reason other than "the bible says their going to hell." You may think that they weren't true Christians, but they were still Christians none the less.

I spent a lot of time worried that I would be going to hell because I couldn't love girls. I stayed up many nights crying, afraid to sleep because I didn't want to die and go to hell.

Now, my life as a Christian wasn't all bad. There were a lot of good people and times, and I still go to youth group because of the friends I met there. However, after a lot of thinking and research and contemplating all sorts of religions (thought about Islam, Judaism, Pantheism, Wicca, etc.). I finally came to the conclusion of no religion, and just being an Atheist. This wasn't just because of my bad experiences as a Christian, but also because I never understood the religion in the first place. In the words of Dawkins, "There is no such thing as a Christian child: only a child of Christian parents.” It all made sense to me after that. I felt so free, no longer needing to worry about hell or sin or anything like that. I believe in good and evil of course, but simply as ideas that are created from the id, ego, and superego, along with many other contributing factors that give each person a unique and individual moral compass. Of course, I still fear death, especially since I believe that when I take the big sleep I'm not going to be waking up anywhere.

Now, I'm not saying Christianity can't be good. In fact, it can be a metaphorical God-send to some, but we can't forget that Christianity has killed before. Focusing just on the modern day, a few names come to mind: Tyler Clementi (pushed to suicide by jumping off of a bridge; 18 years old), Billy Lucas (15), Harrison Chase Brown (15), Cody J. Parker (17), Seth Walsh (13 year old who hung himself in his backyard because of Christian bullies. He lasted on life support for over a week before his mother had to make the decision to take him off life support).

This is why I don't like Christianity. It has caused too much pain and violence for me to support. Yes, it helps, but I just think the cost is too great, especially when there are alternatives (including non-violent theistic alternatives). It could also work out well if Christians reformed their behavior so they weren't causing suffering to those who did not ask for it.

That's a key thing too. No child asks to be indoctrinated into their parent's religion, yet parents teach them to believe exactly what they believe and nothing more. This is a hyperbole, as not all Christians do this, but certainly enough to do cause harm. I think the world would be a much better place if people simply kept their religion to themselves (pray any time you want, just don't lead a public group in prayer unless there is the expectation that all in attendance are Christian; read your bible fervently, just don't attempt to bludgeon your neighbor with it).

I do understand that many Christians feel it is their duty to teach their children the bible, or to "save" their neighbor by urging them to repent, but the long and short of it is that not everyone is Christian, not everyone wants to be Christian, and not everyone is the right fit for Christianity, so don't force it on people who aren't literally asking for it. A very innocuous example: when my mother passed away back in 2012 many people said to me "she's in a better place," and it only made me mad every time. They knew I was an atheist, as it wasn't a secret and I spoke of my views on theology often and in great detail, yet they, even with good intentions, metaphorically jabbed me in the side with every God fueled comment. At the time it was hard enough coping with the loss my own way, but every time someone mentioned heaven it only made it worse because it actually made me long for something I don't believe in, the same way a child longs for santa to be real after his or her parents have spilled the beans. It only hurt more when Christians tried to help.

This is why I cringe when I see people training their children or friends to be Christians, because while it could turn out good, it could also turn out so, so wrong.

If I was forced to return to the Christian church and pray and be "a good Christian" I would be devastated. However, I try not to judge those who are Christian based solely on that. I think what matters is what makes the individual happy while trying not to hurt anyone else. Again, I don't want to argue or anything of the like. I only wanted to share some about why I was debating, and hopefully give you insight as to how others feel and why they have opposing views. I don't want to change your mind, as I wouldn't want to force you to do anything, but I hope you learned something and grew from this experience as I have.

"I saw you talk about how Christianity helped you and your cub, but I'm here to say that it doesn't help everybody. Christianity, or more importantly Christians, nearly killed me. I was bullied by Christians my entire life, as a kid because I was too shy, and as a teenager because I was gay. I always found it confusing since they preached love and caring but would turn around and be mean to me and others for no reason other than "the bible says their going to hell." You may think that they weren't true Christians, but they were still Christians none the less."

Those Christians, if indeed they were truly Christians and not simply giving lip-service to satisfy social norms, were not doing as Christ commanded. Do not blame Christ for the failings of Christians, please; it is not by Christ that those people did evil against you, but by their own sinful nature.

"I spent a lot of time worried that I would be going to hell because I couldn't love girls. I stayed up many nights crying, afraid to sleep because I didn't want to die and go to hell."

You are no more or less damned by homosexual practices than you are by any other sin, and none have the capacity to not sin; it is purely by God's grace that we are saved. If you choose to follow Christ, you will struggle, yes. You may never be free of sinful desires in this life, either. But it is not by our works that we are saved from our sin, it is by Christ's payment for those sins that we are saved from the penalty.

"Now, my life as a Christian wasn't all bad. There were a lot of good people and times, and I still go to youth group because of the friends I met there. However, after a lot of thinking and research and contemplating all sorts of religions (thought about Islam, Judaism, Pantheism, Wicca, etc.). I finally came to the conclusion of no religion, and just being an Atheist. This wasn't just because of my bad experiences as a Christian, but also because I never understood the religion in the first place. In the words of Dawkins, "There is no such thing as a Christian child: only a child of Christian parents.” It all made sense to me after that. I felt so free, no longer needing to worry about hell or sin or anything like that. I believe in good and evil of course, but simply as ideas that are created from the id, ego, and superego, along with many other contributing factors that give each person a unique and individual moral compass. Of course, I still fear death, especially since I believe that when I take the big sleep I'm not going to be waking up anywhere."

I must disagree with Dawkin's quote; inasmuch children have the capability of belief, they can believe in Christ or not. They may not have the ability to make moral decisions, but they may still believe that it is true. I also must question your motivations, seeing how you seemed to conveniently settle for the one that makes you the most comfortable, and likewise ask how you are so certain that there is no God, gods, or supernatural. Moreover, if there is no actual good and evil, then all of morality is meaningless; if it is all subjective, then nothing that anyone does matters from any moral perspective. One can no more condemn murder than one can applaud altruism, since there is no real standard by which these things may be measured - just other people, with their own funny notions about something that doesn't actually exist. I do not know whether to be glad or frustrated that you do not take your philosophy to its natural conclusion; when you claim that there is no god, no ultimate authority or power that defines the laws of the universe and of the supernatural, you are as a fish that claims that there is no water but believes in wetness.


"Now, I'm not saying Christianity can't be good. In fact, it can be a metaphorical God-send to some, but we can't forget that Christianity has killed before. Focusing just on the modern day, a few names come to mind: Tyler Clementi (pushed to suicide by jumping off of a bridge; 18 years old), Billy Lucas (15), Harrison Chase Brown (15), Cody J. Parker (17), Seth Walsh (13 year old who hung himself in his backyard because of Christian bullies. He lasted on life support for over a week before his mother had to make the decision to take him off life support)."

By what command were these people killed? Christians kill, yes - or, at least, those claiming to be Christian kill. But they are not following the Bible.


"This is why I don't like Christianity. It has caused too much pain and violence for me to support. Yes, it helps, but I just think the cost is too great, especially when there are alternatives (including non-violent theistic alternatives). It could also work out well if Christians reformed their behavior so they weren't causing suffering to those who did not ask for it."

You don't like something, not because you have a reasonable objection to its doctrine, but because you don't like what some of those who claim to follow it do?

You should be far more concerned with what is true and what is not, rather than what people do when they claim allegiance to it. As it is, various atheist states - such as the former Soviet Union - actively punished those who believed God, and pushed for universal atheism. Everything was done for the State, in their view, and they utterly rejected God. How many people died there?

"That's a key thing too. No child asks to be indoctrinated into their parent's religion, yet parents teach them to believe exactly what they believe and nothing more. This is a hyperbole, as not all Christians do this, but certainly enough to do cause harm. I think the world would be a much better place if people simply kept their religion to themselves (pray any time you want, just don't lead a public group in prayer unless there is the expectation that all in attendance are Christian; read your bible fervently, just don't attempt to bludgeon your neighbor with it). "

So, basically, completely eliminate freedom of speech. Why should I allow you to post your views on my journal, if this is how you believe religion should be treated? You have yourself expressed your own religious beliefs in a public place to those who do not believe as you do, and yet you claim that others shouldn't express their beliefs in public to those who do not believe as they do! This, deary, is what is called a double-standard.

As it is, your fears are unfounded; I've been far more indoctrinated by secular institutions than I have by religious ones. I've actually had robust debates with Christian friends, while in the secular schools all my attempts to seek the truth were met with "this is what the course teaches, sit down and shut up". Besides, this is the information age; you can hardly expect kids to not be exposed to other points of view.


"I do understand that many Christians feel it is their duty to teach their children the bible, or to "save" their neighbor by urging them to repent, but the long and short of it is that not everyone is Christian, not everyone wants to be Christian, and not everyone is the right fit for Christianity, so don't force it on people who aren't literally asking for it."

False. Everyone needs Christ, even if they do not realize it, and if 'forcing it on them' is just telling them what they believe is true about Christ and salvation, then you need to grow a thicker skin and accept that we have freedom of speech for a reason. I want you to really think what you're asking us to do. We believe that those who have sinned are damned to eternal separation from God - it may be a simple void, it may be a barren wasteland, it may be a fiery pit of eternal suffering, we just know that it will be a place where there is 'weeping and gnashing of teeth' - and we believe that we have the key to not only avoiding this fate, but of eventually experiencing something far, far greater than anything that will ever exist on this world, something greater than anything we can imagine.

And you want us to zip up about this?

The only way someone who genuinely believes the truth about Christ could NOT share it with people... is if they didn't care if you spend an eternity suffering for your transgressions. Do you WANT Christians to hate you?! Do you WANT us to be the kind of people that could watch you burning alive, writhing in pain and begging for aid, and to just shrug and walk away?!

No. It is out of love for God and love for our neighbor that we seek to share the good news with you! If your theological foundation is so unsound that you cannot bear that, or cannot bear children to hear it, then perhaps you should rethink your theological foundation. Children will grow up; they will learn discernment, whether the parents wish it or not. If your beliefs are true, you should have no issues telling them the truth of it - and you should have no fear of the falsehoods that others may tell them. You may raise your children how you see fit, so long as you provide them with a home and food and care, and we shall do the same.


"A very innocuous example: when my mother passed away back in 2012 many people said to me "she's in a better place," and it only made me mad every time. They knew I was an atheist, as it wasn't a secret and I spoke of my views on theology often and in great detail, yet they, even with good intentions, metaphorically jabbed me in the side with every God fueled comment."

...You are offended that people believe differently from you? That they seek to comfort you with what they believe???

Sweetie. You don't just not believe in God; you actively hate Him. I don't know why, but you need to work this out. Even from an atheistic perspective, it's not healthy.


"At the time it was hard enough coping with the loss my own way, but every time someone mentioned heaven it only made it worse because it actually made me long for something I don't believe in, the same way a child longs for santa to be real after his or her parents have spilled the beans. It only hurt more when Christians tried to help."

If you truly are as rational as you claim, why do you not simply dismiss their claims as the desperate hope of people who fear death? That would be the logical, reasonable thing to do - not to get angry about it. But, again - you seem to have some personal hatred for God, not just nonbelief, so that probably won't work.


"This is why I cringe when I see people training their children or friends to be Christians, because while it could turn out good, it could also turn out so, so wrong."

How? If they are raised up to be Christian, then they will love their neighbor and love God. They may say things you don't like, but it will be out of love rather than out of hate - and you can easily disregard that. It is those who claim to be Christian but go against His teachings that you have a problem with, not those who genuinely seek and serve God. The ones you should fear are those who claim to be Christian but keep it all bottled up, who don't live it, who don't express it in their day-to-day life - yet, those are the ones you say we should emulate!


"If I was forced to return to the Christian church and pray and be "a good Christian" I would be devastated."

No one is forcing you to, and no one wants to force you to. Well, except perhaps a few fringe crazies.


"However, I try not to judge those who are Christian based solely on that. I think what matters is what makes the individual happy while trying not to hurt anyone else."

What matters is what is true - nothing else is sufficient, nothing else will suffice. Making people happy scarcely matters if you truly are going to be judged by God's standards when you die.


"Again, I don't want to argue or anything of the like."

Then why did you post something loaded with argument?


"I only wanted to share some about why I was debating, and hopefully give you insight as to how others feel and why they have opposing views. I don't want to change your mind, as I wouldn't want to force you to do anything, but I hope you learned something and grew from this experience as I have."

You claim to not want to change my mind, but you are doing to me exactly what you condemn Christians for doing to you - forcing your beliefs in my face. Sort your head out; your objections are based on your own personal hurts and griefs, not based upon what is true and not true. If it were, you wouldn't be exhibiting such blatant double-standards, and repeating empty mantras about the importance of human happiness or other such blather, while simultaneously claiming that there is no ultimate right or wrong (if there were not, then seeking the happiness of others would itself be pointless, the intellectual equivalent of masturbation - just making yourself feel good, satisfying your strange moral compass for your own sake).

Perhaps it wasn't wise to post here again. What I said may have seemed argumentative, but I was and still am frustrated with all matters of faith. I apologize none the less, as I was at fault. I can assure you that I don't hate God, as I don't believe in him.

In all honesty I posted again with intentions of friendship. You seem like a very intelligent person who truly cares for many things, and I thought that maybe we could be friends. I understand if you'd rather not considering the short and turbulent history we have.

*shrugs* I'm fine being friends, but if we are to be friends you'll have to accept that love of Christ and a desire to follow His commands is part of who I am. I could not be friends with you and not try to share the good news of the Gospels with you.

If you do me the same courtesy, I'm sure will be fast friends. =)

I'm going to put it quite simply: I'm for equal rights, no discriminating based on any stupid category, whether it be race, gender, sexuality, etc. If the person is truly an asshole, I think it is acceptable to discriminate.

Yes, the whole 'rights' movements are a bit exaggerated in some areas, but I think if society would just stop coming up with dumb reasons to hate and/or discriminate against other people, we wouldn't need these movements to happen at all.

I'd expand my views on the subject but I'd prefer to not get into a big discussion; my schedule is a bit full atm.

Why do you think that a person should be coerced by force of law to provide goods or services to people they do not wish to? If it's for a stupid reason, such as racism, then I agree it's foolish and I would not shop there - but why do you have any say as to what a person may peaceably do with what is theirs?

well, it's the principle of the thing...if everyone was civil to each other the world would be a better place. Some people are just stubborn and pig-headed, there's not really any way to convince them to 'play nice', ergo these laws are created for these stubborn, pig-headed people. I'm not saying it's right, quite frankly these people should be shunned from society or something, but it is the way it is.

So, you would bring the force of law against anyone simply because you did not personally approve of what they do - that is, you do not believe that what they're doing is 'civil' or 'good for society' or whatever. Tell me, how different are you from those who would make homosexual behavior because they believe it's 'deviant' and that homosexuality is bad for society? Moreover, you have agreed with anti-discrimination laws that regulate private entities in how they behave; you cannot, therefore, say that you don't think it's right.

Woah, hold up for a second there. I wouldn't bring the force of law down on anyone because I did not personally approve of what they do. I don't actually have that kind of power, but that's beside the point. I think it's quite obvious that discrimination for the stupid reasons I mentioned in my first post should at the very least be frowned upon, if not illegal. There is absolutely no reason for it in today's society, and I can argue with you about that til I'm blue in the face.

I do agree with some anti-immigration laws, I don't remember telling you that I agreed with any of them though. Also beside the point, clearly some do take it a bit too far (hiring requirements, for example, sometimes have a minimum 'minority' requirement - I think that hiring someone should be based SOLELY on how well they can perform, not whether they are a minority and the company needs to fill a quota)

You say that discrimination should be frowned upon if not illegal in that post, but in the prior post you say "I'm not saying it's right [to make it illegal]". Which is it? Do you favor laws that prevent businesses from discriminating based on reasons you personally find stupid, or do you not favor said laws?

I'm saying that while I think [in some cases] discrimination should be illegal, it's not necessarily the best course of action. Do I favor laws? Honestly, it depends on the law, and specifically what it does. I can't say for sure whether I'm for or apposed to all laws regarding discrimination.

And quite frankly, 'reasons I personally find stupid' - if people don't find these reasons stupid, they could possibly be bigots, and use those reasons to discriminate. I don't see a valid reason for it.

Say, precisely, what kind of discrimination laws you support and those that you do not support.

those that only target specific behavior that they're meant to prevent, and don't make irrational requirements that may compromise quality or whatnot

So, the laws that prevent a person from, say, discriminating based on race simply because the proprietor does not like people of a certain race - you believe those laws are good and just? That is, you believe it is good and proper for the law to prevent the bigoted proprietor from not serving people of a certain race?