Conquer Club

patrickaa317 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:Marriage isn't a right. The term "right" has been changed over the years.

Free speech, arms bearing, and trial by jury are examples of rights.

Marriage is a contract between two individuals to allows certain benefits to them. Society has defined what is acceptable and what isn't. I personally do not agree with gay marriage but if a state approves it through their legal method, that is their choice. I do think this opens the door to redefining marriage to also include polygamy and incestual marriage (especially gay incestual marriage where reproductional issues are not of concern) but again, i am in favor of the states deciding this by whatever the legal method would be in that state (citizens voting, court rulings, amendments, etc).

Wow. I mean I sort of want to applaud you for being right wing, but still getting on board with gay marriage at least tentatively, but that opening the door to "gay incestual marriage" line is just amazing.

I'm going to settle with asking you if you actually understood all of the words you typed, starting with "incestual".

Do you actually know what "incestual" means?

And of course I know what incestual means. I'm not saying it will definitely lead to it but it could open the door. I'm not sure why it would be ok for two men in love to marry but if two male second cousins were in love you would not allow them to marry too. I understand the reproductional concerns if it is a male and a female but that concern is no longer valid when you are of the same sex.

Let me ask you this. Why do you support two individuals of the same gender to get married if they are in love but are not willing to support two individuals of the same gender to get married if they are in love and are related?

Look, before we carry on, it's kind of an obvious question that should be asked.

You said that you were concerned "especially [by] gay incestual marriage". This is not a typical concern for opponents of gay marriage, so...

Do you have any brothers or cousins you admire strongly?

Or male relatives in general? Have strong feelings for?

Now you know that this question comes up a lot when someone espouses strongly homophobic opinions in other forms- there's a strong (nowhere near 100%) chance that they might have issues dealing with their own homosexuality. That's no new news. It's kind of a given, and likely you'll have been asked about it before if you've ever expressed strongly homophobic opinions in conversation with people who are strong supporters of gay rights.

So, i hope you aren't offended if I point out that that was a pretty unique take on it, and quite a unique concern. Santorum got into trouble for bestiality before he could even suggest marrying male relatives.

So yeah- brother? Brother in law? Uncle?

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:Marriage isn't a right. The term "right" has been changed over the years.

Free speech, arms bearing, and trial by jury are examples of rights.

Marriage is a contract between two individuals to allows certain benefits to them. Society has defined what is acceptable and what isn't. I personally do not agree with gay marriage but if a state approves it through their legal method, that is their choice. I do think this opens the door to redefining marriage to also include polygamy and incestual marriage (especially gay incestual marriage where reproductional issues are not of concern) but again, i am in favor of the states deciding this by whatever the legal method would be in that state (citizens voting, court rulings, amendments, etc).

Wow. I mean I sort of want to applaud you for being right wing, but still getting on board with gay marriage at least tentatively, but that opening the door to "gay incestual marriage" line is just amazing.

I'm going to settle with asking you if you actually understood all of the words you typed, starting with "incestual".

Do you actually know what "incestual" means?

And of course I know what incestual means. I'm not saying it will definitely lead to it but it could open the door. I'm not sure why it would be ok for two men in love to marry but if two male second cousins were in love you would not allow them to marry too. I understand the reproductional concerns if it is a male and a female but that concern is no longer valid when you are of the same sex.

Let me ask you this. Why do you support two individuals of the same gender to get married if they are in love but are not willing to support two individuals of the same gender to get married if they are in love and are related?

Look, before we carry on, it's kind of an obvious question that should be asked.

You said that you were concerned "especially [by] gay incestual marriage". This is not a typical concern for opponents of gay marriage, so...

Do you have any brothers or cousins you admire strongly?

Or male relatives in general.

Now you know that this question comes up a lot when someone espouses strongly homophobic opinions in other forms- there's a strong (nowhere near 100%) chance that they might have issues dealing with their own homosexuality. That's no new news. It's kind of a given, and likely you'll have been asked about it before if you've ever expressed strongly homophobic opinions in conversation with people who are strong supporters of gay rights.

So, i hope you aren't offended if I point out that that was a pretty unique take on it, and quite a unique concern.

So yeah- brother? Brother in law? Uncle?

Brother in law would be fine under gay marriage as "in law" means not blood related but other than that, there is no admiration for other males or family members here so if you wouldn't mind answering the question, that'd be great. You did say my comment was quite amazing and way out there but won't explain why it actually is such a far out thought.

patrickaa317 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:Marriage isn't a right. The term "right" has been changed over the years.

Free speech, arms bearing, and trial by jury are examples of rights.

Marriage is a contract between two individuals to allows certain benefits to them. Society has defined what is acceptable and what isn't. I personally do not agree with gay marriage but if a state approves it through their legal method, that is their choice. I do think this opens the door to redefining marriage to also include polygamy and incestual marriage (especially gay incestual marriage where reproductional issues are not of concern) but again, i am in favor of the states deciding this by whatever the legal method would be in that state (citizens voting, court rulings, amendments, etc).

Wow. I mean I sort of want to applaud you for being right wing, but still getting on board with gay marriage at least tentatively, but that opening the door to "gay incestual marriage" line is just amazing.

I'm going to settle with asking you if you actually understood all of the words you typed, starting with "incestual".

Do you actually know what "incestual" means?

And of course I know what incestual means. I'm not saying it will definitely lead to it but it could open the door. I'm not sure why it would be ok for two men in love to marry but if two male second cousins were in love you would not allow them to marry too. I understand the reproductional concerns if it is a male and a female but that concern is no longer valid when you are of the same sex.

Let me ask you this. Why do you support two individuals of the same gender to get married if they are in love but are not willing to support two individuals of the same gender to get married if they are in love and are related?

Look, before we carry on, it's kind of an obvious question that should be asked.

You said that you were concerned "especially [by] gay incestual marriage". This is not a typical concern for opponents of gay marriage, so...

Do you have any brothers or cousins you admire strongly?

Or male relatives in general.

Now you know that this question comes up a lot when someone espouses strongly homophobic opinions in other forms- there's a strong (nowhere near 100%) chance that they might have issues dealing with their own homosexuality. That's no new news. It's kind of a given, and likely you'll have been asked about it before if you've ever expressed strongly homophobic opinions in conversation with people who are strong supporters of gay rights.

So, i hope you aren't offended if I point out that that was a pretty unique take on it, and quite a unique concern.

So yeah- brother? Brother in law? Uncle?

Brother in law would be fine under gay marriage as "in law" means not blood related but other than that, there is no admiration for other males or family members here so if you wouldn't mind answering the question, that'd be great. You did say my comment was quite amazing and way out there but won't explain why it actually is such a far out thought.

Tell your brother in law how you feel then, if he likes you then great! If he doesn't, even if you experiment a bit, you've done nothing illegal. It's not such a far out thought that he might have the same feelings.

Just remember that your love isn't worth less if he's not interested. Does he have access to this forum? Maybe just let him know who you are here, and let him come to you if he feels the same way.

patrickaa317 wrote:Marriage isn't a right. The term "right" has been changed over the years.

Free speech, arms bearing, and trial by jury are examples of rights.

Marriage is a contract between two individuals to allows certain benefits to them. Society has defined what is acceptable and what isn't. I personally do not agree with gay marriage but if a state approves it through their legal method, that is their choice. I do think this opens the door to redefining marriage to also include polygamy and incestual marriage (especially gay incestual marriage where reproductional issues are not of concern) but again, i am in favor of the states deciding this by whatever the legal method would be in that state (citizens voting, court rulings, amendments, etc).

If a state votes something into law, can that law truly be considered the choice of the people over whom the state governs?

Even if the majority of people vote for something in law (let's suppose), then is majority rule really favorable?

BigBallinStalin wrote:Can we all just walk away from this Phatsco threads--rest assured that Phatscotty is most likely a troll or frequently acts like an idiot?

Why bother?

he used to make more coherent arguments, or at least try to make coherent arguments. Since that didin't work I think he has devolved to what we currently see.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:Marriage isn't a right. The term "right" has been changed over the years.

Free speech, arms bearing, and trial by jury are examples of rights.

Marriage is a contract between two individuals to allows certain benefits to them. Society has defined what is acceptable and what isn't. I personally do not agree with gay marriage but if a state approves it through their legal method, that is their choice. I do think this opens the door to redefining marriage to also include polygamy and incestual marriage (especially gay incestual marriage where reproductional issues are not of concern) but again, i am in favor of the states deciding this by whatever the legal method would be in that state (citizens voting, court rulings, amendments, etc).

If a state votes something into law, can that law truly be considered the choice of the people over whom the state governs?

Even if the majority of people vote for something in law (let's suppose), then is majority rule really favorable?

Definitely not on either front but it is the way of the system.

patrickaa317 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:Marriage isn't a right. The term "right" has been changed over the years.

Free speech, arms bearing, and trial by jury are examples of rights.

Marriage is a contract between two individuals to allows certain benefits to them. Society has defined what is acceptable and what isn't. I personally do not agree with gay marriage but if a state approves it through their legal method, that is their choice. I do think this opens the door to redefining marriage to also include polygamy and incestual marriage (especially gay incestual marriage where reproductional issues are not of concern) but again, i am in favor of the states deciding this by whatever the legal method would be in that state (citizens voting, court rulings, amendments, etc).

If a state votes something into law, can that law truly be considered the choice of the people over whom the state governs?

Even if the majority of people vote for something in law (let's suppose), then is majority rule really favorable?

Definitely not on either front but it is the way of the system.

So long as it is Constitutional. Of course there are probably a lot of scenarios where it won't work, but we have to trust in the people to do the right thing. If it turns out bad we also have to trust in the people to fix it.

Patikkia summed it up pretty well though

patrickaa317 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:Marriage isn't a right. The term "right" has been changed over the years.

Free speech, arms bearing, and trial by jury are examples of rights.

Marriage is a contract between two individuals to allows certain benefits to them. Society has defined what is acceptable and what isn't. I personally do not agree with gay marriage but if a state approves it through their legal method, that is their choice. I do think this opens the door to redefining marriage to also include polygamy and incestual marriage (especially gay incestual marriage where reproductional issues are not of concern) but again, i am in favor of the states deciding this by whatever the legal method would be in that state (citizens voting, court rulings, amendments, etc).

If a state votes something into law, can that law truly be considered the choice of the people over whom the state governs?

Even if the majority of people vote for something in law (let's suppose), then is majority rule really favorable?

Definitely not on either front but it is the way of the system.

When you say "i am in favor of the states deciding this by whatever the legal method would be in that state," you still have to face the above questions. Basically, you're ignoring unforeseen consequences of your stance.

Either you favor the state's rights in denying minorities rights/benefits entitled to others, or you favor equal rights for minority groups (i.e. in support of equal liberty).

You are not truly expressing a "that's the way it is view" because you have already taken a stance on the issue by expressing your favor of the state's discriminatory law, which denies a minority group benefits entitled to others solely based on a couple's sexual preferences).

____________________________________________

Put it in this perspective. When black people were denied basic rights and freedoms until the 1960s, your stance of favoring the state means denying others equal rights/benefits. Additionally, you would defend such a discriminatory position with the weak "Slippery Slope" argument--e.g. "If black people are given basic rights, then omg, cows will be given basic rights."

Even if the above analogy doesn't perfectly apply to your stance, it's 1) still very telling of how weak your justification for denying others equal rights, and 2) it highlights your support of discriminatory laws as long as the state legislates and enforces such laws. Essentially, you exemplify the qualities of an obedient German in Nazi Germany.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:Marriage isn't a right. The term "right" has been changed over the years.

Free speech, arms bearing, and trial by jury are examples of rights.

Marriage is a contract between two individuals to allows certain benefits to them. Society has defined what is acceptable and what isn't. I personally do not agree with gay marriage but if a state approves it through their legal method, that is their choice. I do think this opens the door to redefining marriage to also include polygamy and incestual marriage (especially gay incestual marriage where reproductional issues are not of concern) but again, i am in favor of the states deciding this by whatever the legal method would be in that state (citizens voting, court rulings, amendments, etc).

If a state votes something into law, can that law truly be considered the choice of the people over whom the state governs?

Even if the majority of people vote for something in law (let's suppose), then is majority rule really favorable?

Definitely not on either front but it is the way of the system.

When you say "i am in favor of the states deciding this by whatever the legal method would be in that state," you still have to face the above questions. Basically, you're ignoring unforeseen consequences of your stance.

Either you favor the state's rights in denying minorities rights/benefits entitled to others, or you favor equal rights for minority groups (i.e. in support of equal liberty).

You are not truly expressing a "that's the way it is view" because you have already taken a stance on the issue by expressing your favor of the state's discriminatory law, which denies a minority group benefits entitled to others solely based on a couple's sexual preferences).

____________________________________________

Put it in this perspective. When black people were denied basic rights and freedoms until the 1960s, your stance of favoring the state means denying others equal rights/benefits. Additionally, you would defend such a discriminatory position with the weak "Slippery Slope" argument--e.g. "If black people are given basic rights, then omg, cows will be given basic rights."

Even if the above analogy doesn't perfectly apply to your stance, it's 1) still very telling of how weak your justification for denying others equal rights, and 2) it highlights your support of discriminatory laws as long as the state legislates and enforces such laws. Essentially, you exemplify the qualities of an obedient German in Nazi Germany.

Or I favor the democratic republic where we send officials to represent our needs as citizens and to follow the constitution. Marriage is not a right such as free speech, right to bear arms, or the right to vote. Gay people have the same constitutional rights as straight people.

Comparing me allowing the state to decide whether gay's marry or not to an obedient German in nazi Germany is quite absurd, no need to fear monger on that one. Big difference between killing innocent people than not letting people get married.

I'm not sure if you were actually serious in your comments there, maybe you were actually joking and I took you serious.

patrickaa317 wrote:Or I favor the democratic republic where we send officials to represent our needs as citizens and to follow the constitution. Marriage is not a right such as free speech, right to bear arms, or the right to vote. Gay people have the same constitutional rights as straight people.

Slavery was not originally constitutionally prohibited. The entire purpose of the amendment process is to recognize that societal morality changes with time. As we grow as a society and collectively realize that some rights are fundamental, we adjust our fundamental principles accordingly, even if some would like to use the rule of majority to strip from others a fundamental right.

At any rate, even if you don't see it as a fundamental right, the existence of the Fourteenth Amendment means the debate is moot. All persons are intended to be treated equally under the law, that's the spirit and text of that amendment. The status quo is an inequality in the eyes of the law.

Metsfanmax wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:Or I favor the democratic republic where we send officials to represent our needs as citizens and to follow the constitution. Marriage is not a right such as free speech, right to bear arms, or the right to vote. Gay people have the same constitutional rights as straight people.

Slavery was not originally constitutionally prohibited. The entire purpose of the amendment process is to recognize that societal morality changes with time. As we grow as a society and collectively realize that some rights are fundamental, we adjust our fundamental principles accordingly, even if some would like to use the rule of majority to strip from others a fundamental right.

At any rate, even if you don't see it as a fundamental right, the existence of the Fourteenth Amendment means the debate is moot. All persons are intended to be treated equally under the law, that's the spirit and text of that amendment. The status quo is an inequality in the eyes of the law.

Correct on the slavery issue and it was fixed through the constitutional process. It was definitely a flaw in the founding of this country but it was fixed through the design laid out, i.e. a constitutional amendment.

Regarding the 14th amendment:

Equal protection can be secured without granting a “right to marry.” This argument states that
even if we concede all the equal protection-related points made by supporters of same-sex
marriage, those arguments do not actually imply a constitutional requirement to allow same-sex
couples to marry; they only imply a constitutional requirement that same-sex couples and their
children receive the same legal prerogatives and benefits as opposite-sex couples. That is, if the
children of same-sex couples have the benefits of stability and support that result from their parents
having certain legal prerogatives, then by all means let’s give those parents those prerogatives, but
nothing in the Constitution requires that we call it “marriage.”

patrickaa317 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:Or I favor the democratic republic where we send officials to represent our needs as citizens and to follow the constitution. Marriage is not a right such as free speech, right to bear arms, or the right to vote. Gay people have the same constitutional rights as straight people.

Slavery was not originally constitutionally prohibited. The entire purpose of the amendment process is to recognize that societal morality changes with time. As we grow as a society and collectively realize that some rights are fundamental, we adjust our fundamental principles accordingly, even if some would like to use the rule of majority to strip from others a fundamental right.

At any rate, even if you don't see it as a fundamental right, the existence of the Fourteenth Amendment means the debate is moot. All persons are intended to be treated equally under the law, that's the spirit and text of that amendment. The status quo is an inequality in the eyes of the law.

Correct on the slavery issue and it was fixed through the constitutional process. It was definitely a flaw in the founding of this country but it was fixed through the design laid out, i.e. a constitutional amendment.

Regarding the 14th amendment:

Equal protection can be secured without granting a “right to marry.” This argument states that
even if we concede all the equal protection-related points made by supporters of same-sex
marriage, those arguments do not actually imply a constitutional requirement to allow same-sex
couples to marry; they only imply a constitutional requirement that same-sex couples and their
children receive the same legal prerogatives and benefits as opposite-sex couples. That is, if the
children of same-sex couples have the benefits of stability and support that result from their parents
having certain legal prerogatives, then by all means let’s give those parents those prerogatives, but
nothing in the Constitution requires that we call it “marriage.”

Yes, but those legal prerogatives and benefits are the financial benefits of marriage which are currently withheld from homosexual couples. The 14th amendment doesn't mean that we have to call biracial marriages marriages either.

But you have admitted that the 14th amendment does legally mean that homosexuals should have the exact same benefits that come with marriage for heterosexual couples?

It's true that we don't have to call it marriage, but most people who are opposed to homosexual marriage in particular are opposed to homosexual rights in general. That is, they aren't really interested in protecting the "sanctity" of marriage -- they just don't like gay people. I am opposed to it, but I am also opposed to state recognition of marriage anyway. As long as the state does recognize it, it is no longer really a religious tradition that the Christians get to have a say over. If it is deregulated, then fine, they can keep their marriage and we'll all have civil unions or something.

What I'm saying is that people who claim to be trying to protect the sanctity of marriage but also assert that they're fine with homosexuals having equal rights, are talking out of their asses because the sanctity of marriage was violated the second the state decided it could legally regulate it.

Yeah, and fucked up dudes demand equality and for an end to discrimination against them being unable to work as a waitress at Hooter's.

They are being denied their rights in the same kind of way. Dudes don't wait tables at hooters, and marriage is about a penis and a vagina.

Metsfanmax wrote:It's true that we don't have to call it marriage, but most people who are opposed to homosexual marriage in particular are opposed to homosexual rights in general. That is, they aren't really interested in protecting the "sanctity" of marriage -- they just don't like gay people. I am opposed to it, but I am also opposed to state recognition of marriage anyway. As long as the state does recognize it, it is no longer really a religious tradition that the Christians get to have a say over. If it is deregulated, then fine, they can keep their marriage and we'll all have civil unions or something.

What I'm saying is that people who claim to be trying to protect the sanctity of marriage but also assert that they're fine with homosexuals having equal rights, are talking out of their asses because the sanctity of marriage was violated the second the state decided it could legally regulate it.

I know many people who know and are friends with gay people but are also opposed to homosexual marriage, I think you saying that most of the people opposed to homosexual marriage do not like gay people is very subjective and also incorrect. If you can provide some studies or something to back that up, I would be interested. I think it is one of those things where people are quick to call you a "homophobe" if you say you do not approve of gay marriage even though "homophobia" is the fear of gay people and has became a very misused word or label. And I don't think it's a Christian vs Non-Christian thing. Many of my Christian friends support gay rights and many atheist people I know do not agree with gay marriage at all, those things are also commonly misconstrued.

I can completely understand what you mean about the state regulating marriage to begin with though. I have some Hmong friends who were married through their religious leader but because he does not have the state license to legally marry people, the couple is not recognized as being married by the state which actually works in their favor because she is then viewed as a single mother of 3 kids and even though her husband makes some pretty damn good money, they still get tons of help from the government because of being a "single mother" of three.

Homophobia is still homophobia even if you attempt to shroud it in the name of religion. Christians (or any other religious people) who believe that marriage should be protected in the Biblical sense are acting homophobic even if they don't personally believe that homosexual people are bad or evil. They still choose to support a religion that seems to demonize the union between two humans of the same sex. It's basically saying "yeah, we like you and all, but our holy book tells us that you're inferior and sinful, so we're going to exclude you. No offense bro."

Iliad wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:Or I favor the democratic republic where we send officials to represent our needs as citizens and to follow the constitution. Marriage is not a right such as free speech, right to bear arms, or the right to vote. Gay people have the same constitutional rights as straight people.

Slavery was not originally constitutionally prohibited. The entire purpose of the amendment process is to recognize that societal morality changes with time. As we grow as a society and collectively realize that some rights are fundamental, we adjust our fundamental principles accordingly, even if some would like to use the rule of majority to strip from others a fundamental right.

At any rate, even if you don't see it as a fundamental right, the existence of the Fourteenth Amendment means the debate is moot. All persons are intended to be treated equally under the law, that's the spirit and text of that amendment. The status quo is an inequality in the eyes of the law.

Correct on the slavery issue and it was fixed through the constitutional process. It was definitely a flaw in the founding of this country but it was fixed through the design laid out, i.e. a constitutional amendment.

Regarding the 14th amendment:

Equal protection can be secured without granting a “right to marry.” This argument states that
even if we concede all the equal protection-related points made by supporters of same-sex
marriage, those arguments do not actually imply a constitutional requirement to allow same-sex
couples to marry; they only imply a constitutional requirement that same-sex couples and their
children receive the same legal prerogatives and benefits as opposite-sex couples. That is, if the
children of same-sex couples have the benefits of stability and support that result from their parents
having certain legal prerogatives, then by all means let’s give those parents those prerogatives, but
nothing in the Constitution requires that we call it “marriage.”

Yes, but those legal prerogatives and benefits are the financial benefits of marriage which are currently withheld from homosexual couples. The 14th amendment doesn't mean that we have to call biracial marriages marriages either.

But you have admitted that the 14th amendment does legally mean that homosexuals should have the exact same benefits that come with marriage for heterosexual couples?

Sexuality is a classification that the Supreme Court hasn't demanded heightened scrutiny on while race is, so yes the 14th amendment does mean that biracial marriage between one man and woman must be recognized. This could be because race, like gender, is a feature that you are born with while the debate is out there whether sexual preference is a choice or a gene (I personally think it is a mixture of both, i.e. some people make the choice while others are naturally attracted to the same sex).

Married homosexual couples must have the exact same benefits available as married heterosexual couples, it is just that states do not allow gays to marry thus they are not entitled to the same benefits of marriage. A state can not say, "sure we'll let you 'marry' but you just don't get any marriage benefits because you are gay".

Iliad wrote:Yes, but those legal prerogatives and benefits are the financial benefits of marriage which are currently withheld from homosexual couples. The 14th amendment doesn't mean that we have to call biracial marriages marriages either.

But you have admitted that the 14th amendment does legally mean that homosexuals should have the exact same benefits that come with marriage for heterosexual couples?

But the preferential tax treatment and other financial benefits of marriage are there to compensate people for the financial trauma of raising children. There's no point extending them to homosexuals because they are not beset by this trauma. In fairness, I would acknowledge that marriage benefits shouldn't be extended to sterile heterosexuals, either.

Dukasaur wrote:

Iliad wrote:Yes, but those legal prerogatives and benefits are the financial benefits of marriage which are currently withheld from homosexual couples. The 14th amendment doesn't mean that we have to call biracial marriages marriages either.

But you have admitted that the 14th amendment does legally mean that homosexuals should have the exact same benefits that come with marriage for heterosexual couples?

But the preferential tax treatment and other financial benefits of marriage are there to compensate people for the financial trauma of raising children. There's no point extending them to homosexuals because they are not beset by this trauma. In fairness, I would acknowledge that marriage benefits shouldn't be extended to sterile heterosexuals, either.

Yes, clearly homosexual people are incapable of adopting children.

Metsfanmax wrote:Homophobia is still homophobia even if you attempt to shroud it in the name of religion. Christians (or any other religious people) who believe that marriage should be protected in the Biblical sense are acting homophobic even if they don't personally believe that homosexual people are bad or evil. They still choose to support a religion that seems to demonize the union between two humans of the same sex. It's basically saying "yeah, we like you and all, but our holy book tells us that you're inferior and sinful, so we're going to exclude you. No offense bro."

The Christian church I grew up in had a gay pastor in the late 1970's. My youth minister friend does as much as he can to bring the GLBT community to his Christian church. All Christians do not condemn homosexuality, just like all atheists do not support homosexuality.

ho·mo·pho·bi·a (hm-fb-)
n.
1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.

I do not support gay marriage. I am not afraid of lesbians or gay men thus I am not homophobic because I do not support the act of marriage between two men or two women.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Iliad wrote:Yes, but those legal prerogatives and benefits are the financial benefits of marriage which are currently withheld from homosexual couples. The 14th amendment doesn't mean that we have to call biracial marriages marriages either.

But you have admitted that the 14th amendment does legally mean that homosexuals should have the exact same benefits that come with marriage for heterosexual couples?

But the preferential tax treatment and other financial benefits of marriage are there to compensate people for the financial trauma of raising children. There's no point extending them to homosexuals because they are not beset by this trauma. In fairness, I would acknowledge that marriage benefits shouldn't be extended to sterile heterosexuals, either.

Yes, clearly homosexual people are incapable of adopting children.

The ones that do are wealthy enough that they can afford it. Adoption is a gradual process that can be pursued in a level-headed decision-making process, unlike the mindless animal lust that leads to making children in the ordinary fashion.

patrickaa317 wrote:I do not support gay marriage. I am not afraid of lesbians or gay men thus I am not homophobic because I do not support the act of marriage between two men or two women.

Your religion is openly anti-homosexual, and that is presumably the reason why you do not support marriage between two men or two women. It's total crap to say something equivalent to "I'm cool with gay people, but because my religion thinks they're going to hell, I can't support them being able to make the same commitment to a partnership that I can." Christians have learned to discard the parts of their traditions that do not mesh with evolving standards of morality (e.g. slavery of non-believers) -- why can't this be the same way?

You brought up the word homophobia, not me. I don't think anyone is actually afraid of gay people specifically because of their sexual preference. Most gay people I can think of are pretty harmless, actually. Colloquially, we think of this issue as one where people do not agree in equality for homosexuality because of some personal stance against that sexual preference. It doesn't matter if you chose it or if you take the stance because of your religion. It's still discriminatory.

Phatscotty wrote:Dudes don't wait tables at hooters, and marriage is about a penis and a vagina.

THE DEBATE IS OVER LOL

patrickaa317 wrote:I do not support gay marriage. I am not afraid of lesbians or gay men thus I am not homophobic because I do not support the act of marriage between two men or two women.

Totally sympathise. A lot of people call me anti-semitic for my beliefs that Jewish people shouldn't be allowed to own businesses. I'm not afraid of the Jews, and that doesn't make me anti-semitic simply because I refuse to treat them equally because they're Jewish.

Look, I simply don't like Jewish people. I don't go around smashing their windows- I just think they should be treated as second class citizens by the state. That means that I'm not anti-semitic.

What's so hard to understand?

Metsfanmax wrote:At any rate, even if you don't see it as a fundamental right, the existence of the Fourteenth Amendment means the debate is moot. All persons are intended to be treated equally under the law, that's the spirit and text of that amendment. The status quo is an inequality in the eyes of the law.

Every person IS being treated equally: society permits one man to marry one woman at one time. The law doesn't care whether or not your marry someone you like, so therefore sexual preference doesn't come into factor. The law does not need to change in order to grant special permission for homosexuals to marry anyone they like because it is impossible for the law to lay down that measure in a way that's equal for all. Saying one man can only marry one woman is cut-and-dry for EVERY person. If you don't like that arrangement, then don't get married. You shouldn't have the ability to force everybody else to change their beliefs just because you want a special designation.

Metsfanmax wrote:Homophobia is still homophobia even if you attempt to shroud it in the name of religion. Christians (or any other religious people) who believe that marriage should be protected in the Biblical sense are acting homophobic even if they don't personally believe that homosexual people are bad or evil. They still choose to support a religion that seems to demonize the union between two humans of the same sex. It's basically saying "yeah, we like you and all, but our holy book tells us that you're inferior and sinful, so we're going to exclude you. No offense bro."

It's not homophobic to believe that homosexuality is a type of sexual immorality.