Gay marriage soapbox

In reply to poopshovel:

In my defense, I'm lazy and drunk. I may have skimmed most of them, although I noticed the jokey one.

N Sperlo wrote:

SVreX wrote: I dated a witch... Oh wait, off-topic in the off-topic- sorry.

SHHHH! THEY DONT KNOW ABOUT US!

I find it curious that you're are advocating gay marriage by attacking those with religious views. I think your real issue is with religious views and has nothing to do with gay marriage. So, my question is, "Do religions have the RIGHT to oppose gay marriage?"

Sure they do. Within their own walls.

Describe how that is gonna work if the Federal government mandates equal employment opportunities for gays. They are having enough trouble with contraception.

I'm not being argumentative. I am seriously curious.

Just as the Mormon Church was forced to abandon polygamy when the Federal government prohibited it, the Catholic church could be forced to consider gays equally for employment, or offer insurance benefits for gay family members of church employees, etc.

If the Federal government passes a law, a church cannot practice something illegal "within their own walls".

Hold on, I'm confused now. My marriage was civil. I mean we got along just fine, but it wasn't by a church. With all this definition bullE36 M3 flying around I don't know what I am.

(I know it was subtle, but it was a point. )

Datsun1500 wrote:

poopshovel wrote: Please have your many gay friends post why they support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Waiting....

Maybe you missed the part where I said I was raised by 2 very loving men that have been together for 45 years.. I had dinner with them this past week and asked what they thought. The general feeling was it is no ones business who they are in love with and they expect no special treatment because of that fact. As you can imagine being raised as the child of a gay couple I do know quite a few gay people.... Not all of them are on the side of gay rights. Most of them are "live and let live, and the government has no business in the bedroom" type of people. I also do believe it is not a choice to be gay, no more than I chose to be straight. Every gay person I have ever asked said the just knew they were gay from a young age.

Obviously I did. My bad. Don't I feel like a horse's ass (and I know what one feels like, because I'm married to a horse.)

IMHO "Gay Rights" issues and "constitutional ban on gay marriage" are two seperate things. I know for sure, from the last generation of gay dudes, that the general sentiment is (understandably) "We are socially accepted now...let's not rock the boat too much."

I get that. But are your folks/your folks' friends/gay folks that you know who are younger than your folks REALLY in support of a ban on gay marriage? If so, I'd genuinely like to here why.

Also: Sent a text to my buddy Kris, who is gay, and whom I've been friends with for 20 years.

Me: "What do you think of gay marriage?"

Kris: "That E36 M3 is berkeleying gay."

Lol.

SVreX wrote: In reply to Duke: Except I didn't say any of that. I am not a fan of DOMA, nor did I say ANYTHING about "protecting the family". You just played the "card".

You said:

SVreX wrote: I have no problem with people saying "I hate religious people". Maybe they should leave it at that.

...which clearly implies that the only reason anybody would disagree with religion, or with the efforts of religion to legislate morality FOR EVERYBODY, is because they hate religious people. You can't deny (well, you can deny it, but I won't believe you) that was your implication - it's obviously in reaction to what Poopie said a few posts above yours.

And yes, I apologize for not being clear that I was generalizing on the "family" issue rather than addressing you directly - but you also cannot deny that the stereotypical Religious Right person takes exactly the stance that I was railing against.

SVreX wrote: In reply to alex: I'm afraid I'm going to disagree with you on the needs for hate crimes legislation too. WHY a crime happens is actually not important, and it crosses into intent and the "thought police".

This statement goes against thousands of years of precedent in the creation and enforcement of laws. We have long considered that the intent of the offender is at least as important, if not more important, than the result of the offense when it comes to punishment of crime. It's the entire reason we have definitions like manslaughter, or various degrees of murder. Hate crime laws are necessary to recognize a crime that is absolutely premeditated, but is not provoked in any way by the victim or any external circumstance. If you didn't recognize such attacks as hate crimes, they might otherwise be considered to be acts of insanity because they would have no apparent motive. The reason the penalty is harsher is the same reason that the penalty for murder is harsher than that for manslaughter - because the crime committed is more wanton and unnecessary.

Grizz wrote: In reply to poopshovel: In my defense, I'm lazy and drunk.

This defense never goes over too well with my horse.

I don't have a horse, so I can use it.

Josh wrote:

SVreX wrote: In reply to alex: I'm afraid I'm going to disagree with you on the needs for hate crimes legislation too. WHY a crime happens is actually not important, and it crosses into intent and the "thought police".

This statement goes against thousands of years of precedent in the creation and enforcement of laws. We have long considered that the *intent* of the offender is at least as important, if not more important, than the *result* of the offense when it comes to punishment of crime. It's the entire reason we have definitions like manslaughter, or various degrees of murder. Hate crime laws are necessary to recognize a crime that is absolutely premeditated, but is not provoked in any way by the victim or any external circumstance. If you didn't recognize such attacks as hate crimes, they might otherwise be considered to be acts of insanity because they would have no apparent motive. The reason the penalty is harsher is the same reason that the penalty for murder is harsher than that for manslaughter - because the crime committed is more wanton and unnecessary.

This warrants a new thread, in which I will attempt to make you feel like a berkeleying idiot.

Josh wrote: This statement goes against thousands of years of precedent in the creation and enforcement of laws. We have long considered that the *intent* of the offender is at least as important, if not more important, than the *result* of the offense when it comes to punishment of crime. It's the entire reason we have definitions like manslaughter, or various degrees of murder. Hate crime laws are necessary to recognize a crime that is absolutely premeditated, but is not provoked in any way by the victim or any external circumstance. If you didn't recognize such attacks as hate crimes, they might otherwise be considered to be acts of insanity because they would have no apparent motive. The reason the penalty is harsher is the same reason that the penalty for murder is harsher than that for manslaughter - because the crime committed is more wanton and unnecessary.

Sorry, I'm not buying it. You can establish intent to murder by the viciousness of the attack and the weapon used. What the MOTIVE might be is irrelevant to the level of charge laid against the attacker. It's utterly irrelevant if the person attacked someone because he was gay, black, was carrying a lot of cash, or just liked the wrong sports team. All of those things can be investigated in order to prove motive, but they have no bearing on the appropriate punishment for the crime. Seriously, it's worse to kill somebody because he's gay than it is if you're just robbing him? What matters there is whether the attacker used lethal force or not.

On another note, yeah, I have never managed to understand the whole "if we let people marry the someone of the same gender, what stops them from marrying their dog?" thing.

It's a complete red herring. Seriously, why/how would you make that logical leap unless you consider a consenting adult homosexual as equivalent to a domestic animal?

SVreX wrote: Describe how that is gonna work if the Federal government mandates equal employment opportunities for gays. They are having enough trouble with contraception.

Equal opportunity is equal. It shouldn't matter who you are. The government shouldn't have to mandate it, but we know what will happen if they don't.

Of course they are. Their parts don't match. OK, but really, I don't think that employers must, or must not give contraceptives (or whatever that dealio was). I support it, but only because I like it. I really have no argument to other than that.

I'm not being argumentative. I am seriously curious. Just as the Mormon Church was forced to abandon polygamy when the Federal government prohibited it, the Catholic church could be forced to consider gays equally for employment, or offer insurance benefits for gay family members of church employees, etc.

Why shouldn't gays be considered equally for employment. Its employment, not membership. If they want to employ they damn well better offer insurance to everyone and their families regardless of being gay or straight. Weather they let them celebrate church is up to them. They can be as big of an shiny happy person as they want.

I think we've discussed a union is between two people, so I'm not touching the polygamy argument.

If the Federal government passes a law, a church cannot practice something illegal "within their own walls".

Of course they can't. But they can practice law. Trespassing etc. If they want to employ people, than they must equally employ. I know its kind of a thin line to walk, but if you choose to walk it, walk it you must.

SVreX wrote: So, someone who has a low libido and is essentially attracted to NO ONE has NO rights, right? What if I'm "attracted" to my cat?

I'm pretty sure you knew the answers to these questions before you posted them, but in any case, the first person should have the equal right to marry whomever they wish to, even if that happens to be nobody. I don't own a gun, for example, but if someone else does, their choice to exercise that right does not concern my own rights one bit.

If I'm "attracted to my cat" I obviously have no more capacity to enter into a marriage with the cat than I would any other contract. How many cars have you sold to cats in your lifetime?

You wanna marry a cat, it better be a cat of the opposite sex.

PROTECT THE SANCTITY OF ANIMAL MARRAIGE!

On yet another note, I see no reason whatsoever that polygamy among a group of consenting adults should be illegal.

Duke wrote:

SVreX wrote: In reply to Duke: Except I didn't say any of that. I am not a fan of DOMA, nor did I say ANYTHING about "protecting the family". You just played the "card".

You said:

SVreX wrote: I have no problem with people saying "I hate religious people". Maybe they should leave it at that.

...which clearly implies that the only reason anybody would disagree with religion, or with the efforts of religion to legislate morality FOR EVERYBODY, is because they hate religious people. You can't deny (well, you can deny it, but I won't believe you) that was your implication - it's obviously in reaction to what Poopie said a few posts above yours. And yes, I apologize for not being clear that I was generalizing on the "family" issue rather than addressing you directly - but you also cannot deny that the stereotypical Religious Right person takes exactly the stance that I was railing against.

Nice job taking it out of context.

Guess I don't need to deny anything, since you won't believe what I say anyway.

What the hell is a "stereotypical Religious Right person? Wikipedia includes the "Christian right", "Hindu nationalism" (Hindutva, Sangh Parivar), "Islamism", the "Jewish right", and "Theravada" (generally considered the Buddhist right) ALL under the term "Religious Right".

You are showing your own biases.

Duke wrote: On yet another note, I see no reason whatsoever that polygamy among a group of consenting adults should be illegal.

I'm kinda veering that direction as well, but maybe we'll call it something else.. You know.. definitions and all.

PROTECT THE SANCTITY OF POLYGAMY!

Cats allowed too.

Duke wrote: On yet another note, I see no reason whatsoever that polygamy among a group of consenting adults should be illegal.

Because it pisses off women. That's the entire reason it was made illegal.

And before someone corrects me, I mostly sure that was the reason.

Duke wrote: On yet another note, I see no reason whatsoever that polygamy among a group of consenting adults should be illegal.

I'll bet it would rock some people's world on this forum if I agreed with you.

poopshovel wrote: This warrants a new thread, in which I will attempt to make you feel like a berkeleying idiot.

Don't bother, dude. I already know I'm not an idiot, and you're too stubborn and tactless for it to be worth anyone's time to try to convince you of anything you don't already believe. I don't mean this as an insult at all, that's just who you are. I remember being in a heated discussion with you who knows how long ago over how fancy microbrew drinkers are lying about liking their fancy beers and real men drink miller lite and whiskey or some such, and now you're mr. hop-head extraordinaire chasing the same dragon I was 3 or 4 years ago . If you change your mind about anything, ever, it will be on your own schedule and your own terms.

This pie chart will simultaneously make you hungry and explain some of the other issues that were had with polygamist groups. Not that it couldn't be regulated...

* There is no validity in this chart

Grey area means "the age wives were first gotten at for a few thousand years before what, the 1900s?"

In reply to Grizz:

I doubt there is any actual validity to the chart. See it says so below it with the star.
I did not just add it in.

Grizz wrote:

Duke wrote: On yet another note, I see no reason whatsoever that polygamy among a group of consenting adults should be illegal.

Because it pisses off women. That's the entire reason it was made illegal. And before someone corrects me, I mostly sure that was the reason.

Only if you define polygamy as multiple wives. Then again, having five dudes to put up with might piss me off too...

In reply to Lesley:

Five husbands and still nothing would get done. The booze bill would be higher though.

Duke wrote:

SVreX wrote: In reply to Duke: Except I didn't say any of that. I am not a fan of DOMA, nor did I say ANYTHING about "protecting the family". You just played the "card".

You said:

SVreX wrote: I have no problem with people saying "I hate religious people". Maybe they should leave it at that.

...which clearly implies that the only reason anybody would disagree with religion, or with the efforts of religion to legislate morality FOR EVERYBODY, is because they hate religious people. You can't deny (well, you can deny it, but I won't believe you) that was your implication - it's obviously in reaction to what Poopie said a few posts above yours. And yes, I apologize for not being clear that I was generalizing on the "family" issue rather than addressing you directly - but you also cannot deny that the stereotypical Religious Right person takes exactly the stance that I was railing against.

My problem with allowing religion to decide this issue is WHOSE religion gets to decide. Catholics and Muslims are against. Unitarians and Buddhists are for. Other denominations land on both sides of the issue. Do you want to establish one state religion?