The Debate Thread: Same-Sex Marriage

[benji]

Here's something I've seen a few places, but I don't think we touched on:

And we also have a duty under the First Amendment not to infringe on people's right to practice their religion. And gay marriage in now implicates the first amendment.

Any thoughts?

[Oznogrd]

Here's something I've seen a few places, but I don't think we touched on:

And we also have a duty under the First Amendment not to infringe on people's right to practice their religion. And gay marriage in now implicates the first amendment.

Any thoughts?

Umm no...Then all evangelical christians need to be put to a stop for trying to convert hindus/atheists/anyone different from them. That seems to be legal...they dont have to personally acknowledge gay marriage. its not their business.

[benji]

I do find it interesting, the same person who said what I quoted was arguing against that mosque near the WTC site in another thread because he claims that person wants to institute Sharia Law. I assume it's a logical disconnect that only protects Christians. Since me drinking alcohol violates the "rights" of Muslims under the same logic.

Although it may just be a majoritarian argument, as the same guy is arguing that the majority has the right to define "marriage" so I suppose it could logically follow that he would say that drinking alcohol in say, Saudi Arabia, DOES violate their rights thus why they can punish me, but the United States is nominally majority Christian therefore they are the only religion with this protection.

Which would of course implicate that the Free Exercise Clause only applies to Christians, as the free exercise of Hinduism would violate one of the Commandments and thus violate the "rights" of Christians.

The mental gymnastics required to avoid saying "I don't like gays" and turn that emotional response into a legal argument is quite amusing.

[Oznogrd]

There is no way it could not be the result of intoxicating substances....even if the brain naturally makes them.

[benji]

Another take from a different person, similar logic I think:

I supported same sex marriage when I thought it was about the right to act without interference.

But that is not what it is about.

It is about initiating force through the courts, civil rights style, against anyone who insists that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

It's about the oppressed rising up and getting revenge against the oppressors through the court system.

It is not about acting without interference, it is about actively interfering in the lives of others.

And here's yet another take, just because it's funny:

True enough, but many people equate gay marriage with gay sex, which they find yucky, except when it's two hot lesbians having the sex. Anal intercourse, it could be said, is a slippery slope.

[shadowgrin]

And here's yet another take, just because it's funny:

True enough, but many people equate gay marriage with gay sex, which they find yucky, except when it's two hot lesbians having the sex. Anal intercourse, it could be said, is a slippery slope.

That argument is self-supporting and lends credence to itself.

[Oznogrd]

i stil ldont get the logic that gays interfere with your life? are you gay? no? then it doesnt matter nor should it. Do you around asking your christian friends if they only fuck in the traditional missionary style?

[Andrew]

Umm no...Then all evangelical christians need to be put to a stop for trying to convert hindus/atheists/anyone different from them. That seems to be legal...they dont have to personally acknowledge gay marriage. its not their business.

Exactly. As I said before, by all means a religion should be allowed an opinion on homosexuality, refuse to perform same-sex marriages or recognise them if that is their belief. If something that is completely removed from the church and really doesn't affect them in any way is an affront to their freedom of religion, then shouldn't marriages performed by a celebrant also be outlawed? Or indeed, anything else that doesn't go through or get the thumbs up from the church?

i stil ldont get the logic that gays interfere with your life? are you gay? no? then it doesnt matter nor should it. Do you around asking your christian friends if they only fuck in the traditional missionary style?

I agree, it really seems like they're grasping at straws and desperately trying to justify their position by making gay people out to be a threat. Allowing same-sex marriages would grant gay couples certain benefits that currently only straight couples can take advantage of, but it wouldn't be taking benefits away from anyone. So I think it comes down to "We don't like gay people, it's wrong and a sin, they shouldn't be allowed to have what we have" and that's being spun into a tale of how rights are being violated and an uprising is in the works.

[benji]

i stil ldont get the logic that gays interfere with your life? are you gay? no? then it doesnt matter nor should it. Do you around asking your christian friends if they only fuck in the traditional missionary style?

So you have no problem with someone, somewhere, doing something you don't like?!?

It makes them think about it, and they don't like thinking about it!!!

Not to mention that all this gay stuff might make your children think it's okay to be gay and then they will be gay!

[shadowgrin]

phpBB [video]

[puttincomputers]

I do find it interesting, the same person who said what I quoted was arguing against that mosque near the WTC site in another thread because he claims that person wants to institute Sharia Law. I assume it's a logical disconnect that only protects Christians. Since me drinking alcohol violates the "rights" of Muslims under the same logic.

Although it may just be a majoritarian argument, as the same guy is arguing that the majority has the right to define "marriage" so I suppose it could logically follow that he would say that drinking alcohol in say, Saudi Arabia, DOES violate their rights thus why they can punish me, but the United States is nominally majority Christian therefore they are the only religion with this protection.

Which would of course implicate that the Free Exercise Clause only applies to Christians, as the free exercise of Hinduism would violate one of the Commandments and thus violate the "rights" of Christians.

The mental gymnastics required to avoid saying "I don't like gays" and turn that emotional response into a legal argument is quite amusing.

woah there! that mosque offends almost every american because the particular religion it is devoted to was the one that supposedly brought down the world trade center. if supposed christians had burned down mecca should they be allowed to build a church there when the christians are a minority?

btw there is a simple remedy to the situation.

injure a pig so that it bleeds and let it run around in that area. uh oh. land would be "unholy". no mosque. everyone satisfied, except for muslims. i wonder what would happen next? maybe an iranian nuke? a dirty bomb?

[koberulz]

That's pretty much the point of the first amendment. Speech/religion that doesn't offend doesn't need to be protected.

[Oznogrd]

woah there! that mosque offends almost every american because the particular religion it is devoted to was the one that supposedly brought down the world trade center.

The religion didnt bring it down, terrorist idiots did. There's a world of difference between real Islam/Muslim and what most Americans believe it to be. Christians did take over the Middle East. It was called the Crusades: you can't tell me there's not churches there. You also cant tell me a "religion" taking down a building is any different than "missionaries" going into villages and making people give up their own culture and accept ours in "the name of god and helping them" Its horseshit, it always has been. Let em build the damn mosque and maybe we can start educating rather than assuming everything we want to believe is true.

[benji]

that mosque offends almost every american

So? Lots of things offend lots of people. One taking offense does not grant them authority to strip others of their liberties.

if supposed christians had burned down mecca should they be allowed to build a church there when the christians are a minority?

Do the Christians own the property?

And you consider the site of an abandoned Burlington Coat Factory two blocks away from the location of World Trade Center for 35 years to be the equivalent of a holy site that's existed for 1500 years?

That'd be one big ass church too, you're aware that Mecca is a city right? (And can you burn down the Kaaba? Does granite burn?)

btw there is a simple remedy to the situation.

The simplest remedy is to allow the property owners to do with their property as they wish no?

They bought the bulk of the property and have an agreement to buy-out the lease on the rest of it. Should be the end of the discussion no?

[puttincomputers]

woah there! that mosque offends almost every american because the particular religion it is devoted to was the one that supposedly brought down the world trade center.

The religion didnt bring it down, terrorist idiots did. There's a world of difference between real Islam/Muslim and what most Americans believe it to be. Christians did take over the Middle East. It was called the Crusades: you can't tell me there's not churches there. You also cant tell me a "religion" taking down a building is any different than "missionaries" going into villages and making people give up their own culture and accept ours in "the name of god and helping them" Its horseshit, it always has been. Let em build the damn mosque and maybe we can start educating rather than assuming everything we want to believe is true.

the crusaders were not christian but catholic. big difference.

[Oznogrd]

the crusaders were not christian but catholic. big difference.

Whats this belief that catholics aren't christians? Catholics believe in Jesus, 1 true god, and their teachings. Catholic is a denomination of christianity. Whoever's teaching you about religion is brainwashing you putt.

[shadowgrin]

As a non-practicing Catholic I say Mr. Oz is right about Catholicism being a part of Christianity and puttin being crazy.

[puttincomputers]

its a difference in theology. remember Jesus said that even the demons say he is the Christ. He also said that does not make them good guys.

[Wall St. Peon]

Um, puttin...Catholicism is part of Christianity. A very large part of Christianity. Are you saying Catholics are demons?

[Oznogrd]

its a difference in theology. remember Jesus said that even the demons say he is the Christ. He also said that does not make them good guys.

By that logic: you could be a demon. HEATHEN!! BURN HIM!

[shadowgrin]

Jesus said that even the demons say he is the Christ. He also said that does not make them good guys.

Of course demons know he is the Christ. Lackeys know who the big dawg is. Jesus is saying he's the badass mofo them demons don't want to mess with.

Christianity is a religion which believes that Christ is the god and savior. Catholics believe the same thing, so do other Christian denominations.
What retarded Christian denomination are you from anyway as not to know that or are you just the one that's retarded?

[benji]

Lose an argument so start ranting about Catholics? I think I've seen this before.

[puttincomputers]

lol. i aint lost this one yet.

shadow there is more to christs doctrine than just believing

[benji]

You conceded it when you ignored my post and 90% of illini's post to instead rant about the Catholic demons under your bed.

[NovU]

May not be relevant to the topic, but for a good Catholic guy you are, you seem to be quite close minded on Mexican immigrants. This gives me feeling that people these days use religions to their advantage at their convenience, rather than really living it.

And I am Christian myself but before that I'm a human being with wants and needs. Hoping to improve myself though rather than preaching others when I'm not even good Christian myself.