Why against gays?

[Godless]

Originally Posted by FunkyTown

Okay, Godless - And who dictates that they're harmless? Obviously, the religious majority doesn't think that it's a harmless minority group. In this very thread, whether you agree or not(And I certainly do not with many, as I've stated), there have been several statements of why they believe it isn't harmless.

Society dictates whether a minority group is harmless. Homosexuals are productive, well-integrated members of our society. Many of us have gay friends and co-workers (sometimes unknowingly, but that's irrelevent). They're no different from us with the exception of who they choose to love. Who are we to tell them that their love is misplaced?

I understand the reasons why religious conservatives view gay marriage as harmful to our society (Sodom and Gomorrah, etc), but arguments like that have no place in the public debate. In an age of violent crime and terrorism, I highly doubt that gay marriage is going to destroy society as we know it.

Also, let's address the 'liberty' part. What do you think the definition of liberty is and why would a 'Marriage by a different name' law restrict the liberty of a significant number of your citizens?

Liberty is the basic right of an individual to life, love, and happiness. So long as your liberty doesn't jeopardize another person's, you should be allowed to exercise it freely. State-sanctioned gay marriage (as opposed to church-sanctioned) doesn't put anyone rob anyone else of their rights, therefore there is no reason to outlaw it. And changing the name is just insulting. It promotes the idea that gay couples are somehow inferior to straight couples.

To address anatess' post, cousins don't have a right to marry each other because procreation between family members is harmful to future generations. Genetic defects resulting from incest is a well-documented problem. Gay marriages poses no such threat to the well-being and happiness of future generations.

[Dravin]

Society dictates whether a minority group is harmless. Homosexuals are productive, well-integrated members of our society. Many of us have gay friends and co-workers (sometimes unknowingly, but that's irrelevent). They're no different from us with the exception of who they choose to love. Who are we to tell them that their love is misplaced?

By your own assertion: Society.

[Godless]

Originally Posted by Dravin

By your own reasoning: Society.

The point I was trying to make is that homosexuals are not separate from the rest of society, they are part of it. They are free to love each other and live happy lives together, and they do so without infringing on the rights and happiness of others. We have no problem accepting them until that controversial "M" word comes up. Such a narrow scope of discrimination is just mind-boggling.

[Dravin]

Originally Posted by Godless

The point I was trying to make is that homosexuals are not separate from the rest of society, they are part of it.

Which is kinda part and parcel when talking about society making a determination on a minority isn't it? When one talks about a minority that they are a smaller component of a larger society or whole is implied. If you were using minority in some other sense I would appreciate some clarification.

They are free to love each other and live happy lives together, and they do so without infringing on the rights and happiness of others.

You're argument here is that society is incorrect in it's determination. That society bungled the call, such as it were, is a separate issue. You asserted that it's up to society to make the determination, which provides the obvious answer to your question of who are 'we' to make a determination.

[FunkyTown]

I see. Godless: Who decides whether your liberty jeopardizes another person's? I'm still unsure what you mean when you say 'Society'. 'Society' put to a vote the very values you espouse and in every single case that I can think of, it was voted down and was legislated in to effect by individuals - A minority - Rather than society itself being able to decide. I don't think I'll be able to convince you, but I feel that your beliefs are inconsistent. I can point out where, if you'd like, though I suspect you know where they're inconsistent and simply don't care because you have set your own limitations on what society is.

Would you say that's accurate, or would you like me to explain exactly where your beliefs appear to be inconsistent?

Originally Posted by Godless

Liberty is the basic right of an individual to life, love, and happiness. So long as your liberty doesn't jeopardize another person's, you should be allowed to exercise it freely. State-sanctioned gay marriage (as opposed to church-sanctioned) doesn't put anyone rob anyone else of their rights, therefore there is no reason to outlaw it. And changing the name is just insulting. It promotes the idea that gay couples are somehow inferior to straight couples.

To address anatess' post, cousins don't have a right to marry each other because procreation between family members is harmful to future generations. Genetic defects resulting from incest is a well-documented problem. Gay marriages poses no such threat to the well-being and happiness of future generations.

[annewandering]

Gay couples are inferior to straight couples. The only things gay couples have going for them are 'love', hmmm sorry cant think of anything else. Now as individuals they may be close to saints but any individual can be saintlike.
They can not provide a basis of civilization, both present and future. They can not procreate within the couple structure. They can not be sealed in the temple so there is no eternal couple.
Go ahead and tell me how I am wrong and be sure to provide examples.

[Godless]

Originally Posted by FunkyTown

I'm still unsure what you mean when you say 'Society'. 'Society' put to a vote the very values you espouse and in every single case that I can think of, it was voted down and was legislated in to effect by individuals - A minority - Rather than society itself being able to decide. I don't think I'll be able to convince you, but I feel that your beliefs are inconsistent. I can point out where, if you'd like, though I suspect you know where they're inconsistent and simply don't care because you have set your own limitations on what society is.

Would you say that's accurate, or would you like me to explain exactly where your beliefs appear to be inconsistent?

I'm willing to admit inconsistency on my part in regard to majority consensus. The religious majority has shot down gay marriage, yes. And yet many of these same conservatives are willing to accept gays as individual members of our society. Like I said, it's just the marriage issue that people are getting hung up on. In this instance, I think it's perfectly okay for courts and legislators to stand up for the homosexual community in the face of popular opposition.

Who decides whether your liberty jeopardizes another person's?

Simple observation. There have been no observed instances of gay marriage compromising the rights of straight Christian Americans, unless you can provide me with examples that I may not be aware of.

Originally Posted by annewandering

Gay couples are inferior to straight couples. The only things gay couples have going for them are 'love', hmmm sorry cant think of anything else.

And who are you to say that that isn't enough?

They can not provide a basis of civilization, both present and future.

There's much more to civilization than having babies, and that's the ONLY contribution that gay couples can't provide.

They can not procreate within the couple structure.

Since when is the ability to procreate a requirement for marriage? What about sterile straight couples? Should we forbid them from marrying as well?

They can not be sealed in the temple so there is no eternal couple.

A religious problem, not a cultural one. And this isn't even an argument you can make in the public debate because most of your Christian counterparts don't believe in eternal temple marriage.

[annewandering]

It hardly matters what argument I can make to the general public. Truth is truth and that is what is important. Love is not enough unless it is godly love which means unselfish love for all including God.
Having babies obviously is of no importance to gay couples but it is of utmost importance to the survival of our species. Speaking of which it is ridiculous to call straight couples breeders. Ya and the other choice is sterile. Evolutionary speaking gay couples are dead end. Some straight couples can not reproduce but that is not the norm.
Dead end means no future for the species but that is equal to couples who are not dead end and actually provide a future? Odd idea indeed.

[Desertknight]

The problem for those who wish to preserve traditional marriage is that that battle was lost long ago. At least half a century. American society has become so secularised, so contaminated by modernism, that even those who think they may be defending what is traditional marriage, are unaware that they are not. Let me offer two bits history to make the point. This was recently mentioned on a popular series on television. In the early 1960's Gov. Nelson Rockefeller was the king-maker of the Republican Party. The king-maker wanted desperately to be the king. He might have made it too had he not done what was unforgivable to a Christian nation. He divorced his wife and married another woman. In 1965 that was considered by virtually every Christian church in the country, to be a violation of God's law and the commission of adultery. The Presbyterian pastor who re-married Mr. Rockefeller was defrocked for his efforts. South Carolina didn't have a judicial process to obtain a divorce until 1948, adopted against the overwhelming opposition of the state's pastors. (Until then, one had to have a bill pass the legislature, and be approved by the governor, under very special circumstances, to obtain a divorce.). The Christian definition of marriage that reigned for almost 2,000 years was not "One man, one woman." It was "One man, one woman, one time."

That is all gone now. Liberalised divorce laws and a changed society has made making and breaking marriages, mixing and blending families, as common as some people change their laundry detergent. Gay couples do want what everyone else has; the right to the same legal contract anachronistically still called marriage, as the couple marrying for the seventh time at 3AM in a Las Vegas wedding chapel by a "pastor" dressed as Elvis.

[carlimac]

Originally Posted by Desertknight

The problem for those who wish to preserve traditional marriage is that that battle was lost long ago. At least half a century. American society has become so secularised, so contaminated by modernism, that even those who think they may be defending what is traditional marriage, are unaware that they are not.

Gay couples do want what everyone else has; the right to the same legal contract anachronistically still called marriage, as the couple marrying for the seventh time at 3AM in a Las Vegas wedding chapel by a "pastor" dressed as Elvis.

I disagree with this statement. I'm sure that most everyone who is for traditional marriage is well aware of the rising divorce rates and the disintegration of the morals that kept marriages together for life. Those facts are pretty hard to miss.

"Traditional" in the very strictest sense may mean one marriage for life, but I believe that most who want to maintain what is commonly known as "traditional marriage" simply mean one man and one woman. For life (and in the LDS view- for eternity) is the ideal goal. Realistically, that's not always going to happen. And some marriages really shouldn't last that long. Divorce is a blessing in some cases. I think it's an insult to imply that those of us who argue for traditional marriage are too stupid or uninformed to know what it means.

As for what gay couples want...how do you know what exactly they all want? I find it very curious that the same crowd that in recent decades has said "marriage" (in any form) isn't necessary, is the same crowd that now is crying out for marriage for gays. Why do they suddenly think gays need marriage so desperately? Often heteros fighting for this don't even really thnk they need it for themselves, but by golly, their gay friends do need it as badly as a drink in the desert. It just doesn't make sense.

My own personal belief is that there is more to it than just wanting legal benefits of marriage. IF that's all they wanted, they could easily be satisfied with altering a few laws without having to go so far as calling their union "marriage". The undercurrent of this gay agenda is the need for public validation of their lifestyle choice. For some, that may not be part of it. But my sense is that the high level of defensive attitudes, the law suits, the demonstrations and fighting words that come from the LGBT crowd are a sort of overreaction- the result of wanting something they know isn't "right" and they are being denied. Like a little kid begging for cookies right before dinner. It appears to be a collective tantrum by a bunch of spoiled children. From my experience, when trying to deal with a child in that state of mind, no logical dialogue can happen.