Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time

[Lynks]

Dar says "Eating meat"!

[vn_Tanc]

Animals don't count.
I'm happy to tolerate you eating any dead people who give you their permission.

Edit: I'm also happy to tolerate whiny-ass vegetarians. I can take the suffering they inflict as long as I have my bacon.

[Aaeamdar]

1. "Partial Birth Abortion" is a catch phrase of the Christian right. They want you to think that partial birth abortions are done as a means of terminating pregnancies. They are not, the procedure is a medical one purely designed to save the health or life of the mother. The laws passed to prevent them are all misleading (and they all have - if constitutional - exceptions for the life and health of the mother - thus they prevent nothing, since the life or health of the mother is the only reason the procedure has ever been done).

2. The Christian right is not fringe. They are mainstream. The anti-gay, anti-abortion (and in the case of Catholics at a minimum, anti-contraception) policies are all perfectly in line with mainstream Christianity. If you are not an anti-gay, anti-abortion Christian then you are in the liberal fringe. That is a good thing, to be sure. But you, not the Christian right are the ones in the minority in your religion.

3. To Adex in particular, when you say:

It bugs me when I hear people touting tolerance as the great virtue of society.

It's just fancy dressing for "Let me do what I want even if it harms others."

and

Each of these groups [gays, environmentalist, pro-choice] promote agendas that "push their beliefs" on others.

you are again forgetting the fundamental difference between the Christian right and the movements you put forth as counter examples. The Christian right is interested, at least with regard to its two big issues - gays and abortion - in preventing the actions of others. They gay movement does not want to force people to be gay, they just want the same rights and privileges as every other member of our society. The sole purpose of Christian political opposition to gays is to help ensure that gays are not treated equally (and not too long ago to see to it that gays were put in jail for being gay).

Likewise, the pro-choice movement does not want to force Christians (or anyone else) to have abortions. They don't even argue that abortions are a good thing (in fact, it is pretty much recognized by everyone that abortions past a certain point are always harmful - just potentially less harmful than continuing the pregnancy). They just want to ensure that women have the right to an abortion if they choose to (and if a doctor is willing to perform it). At least on this issue, however, the Christian right has some claim to protecting an innocent beyond some point in the pregnancy.

Environmentalists are a mixed bag on this account.

The point is, you way over use the "push your beliefs on others" and this is clear when you claim tolerance = accepting that one person will harm another. Any social liberal never considers using tolerance when there is a harm to another. You don't here the word "tolerance", for example, discussed in the abortion argument, because even the proponents of abortion rights understand that (beyond a point) there is a harm to another. You do here the word tolerance used all the time with respect to gay rights, because there it is very clear that the only "harm" is to the sensibilities of those upstanding Christians who don't like the idea that gays exist.

So, yes, when not redefined in some odd way as you have done, tolerance is a virtue. Where politics is concerned, I can think of no greater virtue.

[Aaeamdar]

Edit: I'm also happy to tolerate whiny-ass vegetarians. I can take the suffering they inflict as long as I have my bacon.

You cannot have your bacon, but you may have my sausage.

[Adex_Xeda]

The level of tolerance that is demanded of christains exceeds that of moderation. It pushes us to the point where we must accept evil acts if we were to conceed.

Since the christians don't conceed to this extreme demand of tolerance, they are bashed, the constitution is intepreted well past it's original intent as a crowbar to isolate christains from voting their moral code. Yet at the same time every other group has free reign to vote theirs.

I don't agree with the agenda of gay rights movement, or the pro abortion folk, but I'll be damned if I'm not respectful of their right to pursue it politically.

It's a shame I receive no similar respect in return.

[Aaeamdar]

That's because the Christian right's perspective on gay rights is that gays should have fewer rights than everyone else. Of course you will get no respect for such possitions. Would you expect Blacks and Jews to "respect" the opinions of the Klan? It should not come as any great shock that when you promote policies of bigotry, thinking people don't respect it.

I don't see any lack of respect, however, on the abortion debate.

[Adex_Xeda]

These aren't easy issues.

Many people see the acts of homosexuality as harmful to society.
Many homosexuals see it as fight for equal rights.

Some see abortion as the killing of innocents for the sake of convience.
Some see abortion as the necessary removal of a lump of cells.

These are moral codes in direct conflict. Stuff like this in a historical context has lead to wars. Yet we in America choose to live together. We can either hate each other and cut each other down, or we can respect each other's right to pursue a government that represents the conglomerate morality of all voting groups.

The key to that is respect of each other's liberty. Give the other guy room to vote what he thinks best, despite your level of agreement of his stance.

[Lohrno]

These aren't easy issues.

Many people see the acts of homosexuality as harmful to society.
Many homosexuals see it as fight for equal rights.

Some see abortion as the killing of innocents for the sake of convience.
Some see abortion as the necessary removal of a lump of cells.

These are moral codes in direct conflict. Stuff like this in a historical context has lead to wars. Yet we in America choose to live together. We can either hate each other and cut each other down, or we can respect each other's right to pursue a government that represents the conglomerate morality of all voting groups.

The key to that is respect of each other's liberty. Give the other guy room to vote what he thinks best, despite your level of agreement of his stance.

I partially agree. But I think that allowing said acts is necessary as like I said, the alternative would be one group legislating their debatable ethics over another.

-=Lohrno

[Aaeamdar]

So it is your suggestion that the Klan's (and to be "evenhanded" the Black sepratist's) possitions should be respected? That the idea that the races should be "pure" (anti-miscogenation laws pronounced unconstitutional a mere 20 years ago).

It is your suggestion that the idea that Blacks should be treated equally under the law is merely a difficult issue. Some see Blacks as harmful to "true" American society. That's just a difference of opinion? Bigotry of that sort is nothing to be ridiculed, its something that all sides on the matter should simply respectfully debate?

[Adex_Xeda]

I know you're not going to agree with my morality.

I literally don't see it as an equal rights issue. Is it equal rights to allow a thief the liberty to steal?

You don't see homosexual acts as something that is harmful. You see nothing harmful thus see no reason to oppose it.

We're not going to find middle ground there.

We agree that there is no agreement. What do you do next?

Do you joke about all the sister-fucking fundamentalist trailer trash redneck xenophobe baptists, and how they should have their citizenship revoked?

Do you gripe about how all the fudge packing fags are trying to take over the country, and how they should be kicked out of the USA?


Respect each other's right to vote. It's the great moderator. I can't agree with you. But I can agree to live under the same laws as you until we both agree to change those laws to something else.

[Aaeamdar]

So you are going to evade yet again (for what must now be the tenth or more time) the question I put to you on wether racism is merely a matter of differing opinion?

[Aaeamdar]

Respect each other's right to vote. It's the great moderator.

This is absolutly incorrect. Voting is only the great moderator if all laws are applied evenly. As soon as you allow a group to pass laws that apply only to others and then as soon as the group not effected by those laws becaomes the majority - voting is no longer an equalizer. That dynamic - avoiding the tyrany of the majoirty - is exactly what equal protection of the laws is all about.

[Adex_Xeda]

So it is your suggestion that the Klan's (and to be "evenhanded" the Black sepratist's) possitions should be respected? That the idea that the races should be "pure" (anti-miscogenation laws pronounced unconstitutional a mere 20 years ago).

It is your suggestion that the idea that Blacks should be treated equally under the law is merely a difficult issue. Some see Blacks as harmful to "true" American society. That's just a difference of opinion? Bigotry of that sort is nothing to be ridiculed, its something that all sides on the matter should simply respectfully debate?

Again you argue from a stance that equates the struggles of race with the struggles of a group that wishes to pursue an immoral act.

I might have been born a with thieving tendancies, but I don't have the moral weight to demand societal acceptance of my stealing things.

I might have been born with gay tendancies, but I don't have the moral weight to demand societal acceptance of my acting on those tendancies.

To me both the theif and the homosexual act, are harmful to the participants and the people around them.

I have a totally different moral frame. It near impossible for me to see the world through your eyes, or you to see it through mine.

Given this great obstacle, the best we can do is respect each other's right to add influence to our common set of laws. Those provide compromise where we as individuals can not.

[Tenuvil]

Problem is Adex, your morality is in opposition to the tenets of your leader.

"Love thy Brother as thou wouldst thine self"

"Do not point out the mote in thy brother's eye till you remove the beam in thine own"

Christ taught unconditional love, tolerance, and above all forgiveness. I don't see many Christian qualities in too many Christians. Fact is, if anything they use it as a shield of self righteousness to deflect criticism for their imperfections and humanity.

[Lohrno]

The thing is this Adex --

Stealing something is a societal no no. Almost everyone agrees that this is wrong.

Now whether you personally accept homosexuality as wrong or not is irrelevant because far more people are divided over this than the theft issue. You may put the two on the same pedestal, but they are definitely not.

Whether you like it or not, a lot more people condone/tolerate homosexuality than stealing.

That is why it is a debatable ethic, and should be allowed. Personally I don't like to see things like that, but I accept that others do and I don't blame them for it. I am not going to go out and demand a legislative remedy for my own personal distaste for seeing homsexual acts. I also do not think less of people for being homosexual.

These are people too, and it astounds me that others would want them to not live a happier life.

-=Lohrno

[Aaeamdar]

Define the harm of the "homosexual act" to "the people around them."

[Lynks]

Is it equal rights to allow a thief the liberty to steal?

No, since a working member of society's rights are being violated.

Also, stealing directly affects an individual (you), while homosexuality does not (none of your business).

[Lohrno]

No, since a working member of society's rights are being violated.

Also, stealing directly affects an individual (you), while homosexuality does not (none of your business).

Sure it does, he goes "ewwwwww."

-=Lohrno

[Adex_Xeda]

Problem is Adex, your morality is in opposition to the tenets of your leader.

Not true, you suffer from selective reading

"Love thy Brother as thou wouldst thine self"

"Do not point out the mote in thy brother's eye till you remove the beam in thine own"

My brother is a theif. He was caught red handed. Do I stop loving him? Of course not. Do I love him any less if I refuse to accept his opinion that thievery is ok? No, I just disagree with him. My brother wants to pass a law that provides public endorsement and acceptance of unrestricted stealing. I love the guy, but he's a nut if he thinks I'd support such a law.

Jesus did teach us to hate one thing. He told us to avoid and despise acts of evil. He mentioned that we were all guilty of evil acts and thus should not hate one another, but rather challenge each other to avoid evil acts.

Christ taught unconditional love, tolerance, and above all forgiveness. I don't see many Christian qualities in too many Christians. Fact is, if anything they use it as a shield of self righteousness to deflect criticism for their imperfections and humanity.

No, Christ taught unconditional love of the individual, unlimited forgiveness for the individual that needs it, and tolerance for an individual's failings as they struggle to remove the selfish and evil tendancies from their life.

[Aaeamdar]

Define the harm of the "homosexual act" to "the people around them."

[Adex_Xeda]

The thing is this Adex --

Stealing something is a societal no no. Almost everyone agrees that this is wrong.

Now whether you personally accept homosexuality as wrong or not is irrelevant because far more people are divided over this than the theft issue. You may put the two on the same pedestal, but they are definitely not.

Whether you like it or not, a lot more people condone/tolerate homosexuality than stealing.

That is why it is a debatable ethic, and should be allowed. Personally I don't like to see things like that, but I accept that others do and I don't blame them for it. I am not going to go out and demand a legislative remedy for my own personal distaste for seeing homsexual acts. I also do not think less of people for being homosexual.

These are people too, and it astounds me that others would want them to not live a happier life.

-=Lohrno

You highlight my point Lohrno

Since acts of homosexuality are in contention as being right and wrong in american society, our laws reflect this contention by allowing much greater acceptance of homosexual acts than it does thievery. The process works despite diametric disagreement by its participants.

[Adex_Xeda]

Define the harm of the "homosexual act" to "the people around them."

This isn't about me validating my moral code.


This is about all of us respecting each other's right to vote their moral code.

Why? because it's a channel for compromise in a situation where few methods exist.

[Aaeamdar]

The laws we are debating have no relation to homosexual acts. They relate exclusively to homosexuals. As of 4 years ago, laws prohibiting homosexual acts (between constenting adults) are unconstitutional. Note, mind you, in spite of your faith in the unfettered democratic process, absent court rulings to the contrary, the homosexual act between consenting adults would still be a crime punishable by incarceration in your State of Texas (and many others).

But, given the Court finally figuring out that regardless of what a majority of bigots thinks, you should not be putting people in jail for buggery, that is no longer an issue.

The laws at issue have nothing to do with acts (sins), they have to do with people - homosexuals - whether they are practicing the act or not.

Laws banning gay marriage, for example, are not laws prohibiting or comdemning a sin (an act), the laws prevent a person from marrying based on his status, even if that person is living his or her life completely without sin.

Laws (or more properly, rules) preventing gays from service in the military are, again, based on status, not acts. If a person were to proclaim they are gay but that they are also celebate, they would still be prohibited from military participation.

There is not a single right you are refering to that has anything to do with the homosexual act, these are all laws that prohibit the non-sexual acts of homosexuals based solely on their homosexuality, not based on any sin (act) they may or may not be practicing.

[Aaeamdar]

Define the harm of the "homosexual act" to "the people around them."

This isn't about me validating my moral code.


This is about all of us respecting each other's right to vote their moral code.

Why? because it's a channel for compromise in a situation where few methods exist.

So are you incapable of defining the harm you claim exists?

[Lohrno]

You highlight my point Lohrno

Since acts of homosexuality are in contention as being right and wrong in american society, our laws reflect this contention by allowing much greater acceptance of homosexual acts than it does thievery. The process works despite diametric disagreement by its participants.

No, the precedent is that things in contention which are shown to be non harmful is to allow them. You see the whole point of America is to have a society where people are as free as possible. You know, liberty and justice for all..

-=Lohrno

[Tenuvil]

You see the whole point of America is to have a society where people are as free as possible. You know, liberty and justice for all

not any more apparently

[Lohrno]

This is about all of us respecting each other's right to vote their moral code.

Why? because it's a channel for compromise in a situation where few methods exist.

Would you be okay if suddenly 70% of the population turned muslim, and banned all pork products because they vote their moral code? Or would you fight for your right to eat pork products?

-=Lohrno

[Aaeamdar]

This is not new with Bush (and the Christian right he represents), Tenuvil. Kerry's stated possitions on gays are pretty much identical. Bush did not create the inequality that exists today, he (along with the vast majority of Democrats) simply supports its continuation. He has had the authority to revert Clinton's bigotted (but superior to the pre-Clinton system) "don't ask, don't tell" policy to a complete ban. He has not. Clinton was the one that signed DOMA. The vast majority of Democrats in office at the time voted for it. With the sole exception of his support for the constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage, Bush's possition on gays does not materially differ from the typical Democrat.

[Marbus]

Adex I think it's ok to vote your moral code in being for or against an issue...politically. The difference is that in regards to some of these issues you aren't voting a moral code in relation to your politics you are voting it to change a goverment FOUNDED on the separation of church and state. The founding fathers warned of this, yet many in the far right continue to act like they would be all for legislating morality. NOT doing so is one of the few things that truly brought all of them together. This shouldn't even be an issue, our freedoms, diversity and foundation is what has always kept us strong. Abandoning that will eventually spell certain doom...

It's ok to belive someone is wrong, it's ok to believe someone is going to hell, it's even ok to be a racist SOB as long as you KEEP IT TO YOURSELF. When you step outside that realm to force others into your belifs or actions you defy all America has fought and stood for during the past 200+ years.

Marb

[Aaeamdar]

This is about all of us respecting each other's right to vote their moral code.

Why? because it's a channel for compromise in a situation where few methods exist.


Would you be okay if suddenly 70% of the population turned muslim, and banned all pork products because they vote their moral code? Or would you fight for your right to eat pork products?

Adex's stated possition is not inconsistant with his fighting for his own right to do whatever his moral code tells him he should be doing. I think what you really mean to ask is, would Adex respect the right of a Muslin Majoirty to democratically change the Constitution revoking the First Amendment and then pass laws criminalizing the practice of Christianity. I personally believe that Adex's reliance on the virtues of "pure" democracy would fade if he ever became a minority subjected to discriminatory laws, but he has the luxury of claiming otherwise since that theory cannot be tested.

[Lohrno]

It's ok to belive someone is wrong, it's ok to believe someone is going to hell, it's even ok to be a racist SOB as long as you KEEP IT TO YOURSELF.

I disagree. I fully support freedom of speech. Even if it's comming from Nazi KKK members.

When you step outside that realm to force others into your belifs or actions you defy all America has fought and stood for during the past 200+ years.

Yes, this is the crux of it. You don't legislate ethics or religious beliefs unless they are those needed to keep society safe: IE Don't kill or steal from people or cause them harm.

-=Lohrno

[Lohrno]

Adex's stated possition is not inconsistant with his fighting for his own right to do whatever his moral code tells him he should be doing. I think what you really mean to ask is, would Adex respect the right of a Muslin Majoirty to democratically change the Constitution revoking the First Amendment and then pass laws criminalizing the practice of Christianity. I personally believe that Adex's reliance on the virtues of "pure" democracy would fade if he ever became a minority subjected to discriminatory laws, but he has the luxury of claiming otherwise since that theory cannot be tested.

I'm separating religion from ethics here because not 100% of people who support banning gay marriage are Christian, and not 100% of Christians support banning gay marriage. I kind of regret using muslims as an example, because probably not 100% of them think eating pork is wrong, but it's just hypothetical.

-=Lohrno

[Tenuvil]

I like to consider myself a sound thinker, someone who applies critical reasoning and logic and comes to independent conclusions.

Yet the attitudes of the Christian Right confound my efforts to understand them.

I see this group vocally and publically working to deny Constitutionally protected rights to a group of people whose only "crime" is they are following a homosexual lifestyle.

I see this group acting more hateful and intolerant to anyone that doesn't follow their moral code to the letter every day.

It makes me sad that people who profess to folllow the words of a great man such as Jesus could be so small, petty and hateful.

[Aaeamdar]

Lohrno,
Adex is not asking merely for freedom of speach. He is asking that his bigotted posstions on gays be accepted as a mere political difference. He fully has my support when it comes to his right to critisize gays for being gay. He did not ask for that, however, he asked for me to respect his position. He thinks of it as merely a difference of opinion. He is, of course, right in a pure sense. But then the same can be said of those that want to treat Blacks differently under the law. Both are, to the same extent, merely differences of opinion, but labling them as such sterilizes the distinction between political differences and bigotry.

[Aaeamdar]

[not] 100% of people who support banning gay marriage are Christian

Of course not. Many of them are Jews. Many are Muslin. 0% of them are irrelegious. The thing is, in America, in practicle terms religion = Christianity when it comes to politics. If the Christians were not anti-gay, I would really not care if all the other religions in America were. Only the Christians have power to actually make laws.

[Lohrno]

Lohrno,
Adex is not asking merely for freedom of speach. He is asking that his bigotted posstions on gays be accepted as a mere political difference. He fully has my support when it comes to his right to critisize gays for being gay. He did not ask for that, however, he asked for me to respect his position. He thinks of it as merely a difference of opinion. He is, of course, right in a pure sense. But then the same can be said of those that want to treat Blacks differently under the law. Both are, to the same extent, merely differences of opinion, but labling them as such sterilizes the distinction between political differences and bigotry.

Hence why I asked that question. To see if he would support this ethical legislation if it was put to a majority. With many of the Republican party, and southerners who would like nothing more than to go back to slavery, I am not sure I see the difference between their politics and bigotry. It seems bigotry is in fact a political value, as they campaign on it. Don't get me wrong, bigotry is not limited to the Republicans though, but so many campaign on it that I think it's fair to associate them with doing it. I would like to think that people would dismiss bigots immediately, but this is not the case, and many support them.

-=Lohrno

[Aaeamdar]

Don't get me wrong, bigotry is not limited to the Republicans though, but so many campaign on it that I think it's fair to associate them with doing it.

I certainly agree with that. Republicans promoting these laws and campaigning on them are the bigots. Democrats are merely cowards where these issues are concerned. You won't (often) find Democrats actively campaigning to pass legislation that restricts the rights of gays, you just see them voting for it.

[Adex_Xeda]

There's like three different themes going on at the same time here and some of you are confusing them and then mis-applying them to me.

1. I request you look back at previous threads about gay marriage and you'll clearly see that my stance on the issue supports equal legal access for gay/straight couples via civil unions. I also support the removal of governmental endorsement of hetro pairings in the form of governmental marriage titles. If these changes were enacted two gay folk could have all the legal benefits that married people do, all the while the government would not be forcing endorsement of gay/straight unions under a mantle similar to marriage.

2. I saw this thread and detected a bunch of christain bashing, primarily because of some vocal christain groups' active participation in politcs. Those groups have just as much right to participate politically as any other citizen. To deny or bash them is hypocritically bigoted.

3. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that there is a separation between the formation of law and making moral stances. Law springs from moral stances. People determine their morality from all types of sources or philosophies or religions. It is unfair and irrational to demand that christains abstain from using their faith to determine theirs.

[Lohrno]

1. I request you look back at previous threads about gay marriage and you'll clearly see that my stance on the issue supports equal legal access for gay/straight couples via civil unions. I also support the removal of governmental endorsement of hetro pairings in the form of governmental marriage titles. If these changes were enacted two gay folk could have all the legal benefits that married people do, all the while the government would not be forcing endorsement of gay/straight unions under a mantle similar to marriage.

Fair enough. That's perfectly acceptable. Something tied to religion should not be tied to government as well.

2. I saw this thread and detected a bunch of christain bashing, primarily because of some vocal christain groups' active participation in politcs. Those groups have just as much right to participate politically as any other citizen. To deny or bash them is hypocritically bigoted.

Yes but legislating ethics is not well, ethical. =D

3. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that there is a separation between the formation of law and making moral stances. Law springs from moral stances. People determine their morality from all types of sources or philosophies or religions. It is unfair and irrational to demand that christains abstain from using their faith to determine theirs.

Not really. I certainly am not singling out Christianity, it is wrong for anyone to promote legislation of an ethical value they hold that would only harm others, and not benefit society in any way.

-=Lohrno

[Aaeamdar]

It is unfair and irrational to demand that christains abstain from using their faith to determine theirs.

Yes, of course. But in EXACTLY the same way it is unfair to ask a racist to abstain from using his or her racism when determining whether Blacks should be allowed to marry whites (as one of countless examples). That, however, does not mean you need to call it anything other than the blatant racism it is nor do you owe it any respect.

To deny or bash them is hypocritically bigoted.

It is not hypocritcal or bigotted to call a bigot a bigot.

Look, its like this. I despise Christianity (the institution, not the philosphy). I can't think of a single institution that has done this country or this world greater harm. Seeing churches makes my skin crawl. Seeing atheletes on teams point up to heaven or god or whatever the fuck they are pointing to when they hit that homerun makes me think what a complete moron that athlete is (I never see them point to God when they strikeout). You talk about the "harm" homosexuality has on "those around them," but are incappable (or unwilling) to define it. I could actually define (or at least list) the harm Chrisitianity has on "those around it." But all that said, I would never think to pass laws (assuming I had the power) prohibitting the practice of Chritianity or pass laws treating Christians differently under the law than me. And that single principal is the world of difference between a responisble citizen and a bigot.

[Rekaar.]

is necrophilia illegal? why? has zero effect on anyone but the person involved, right?

cocaine?

[Lohrno]

is necrophilia illegal? why? has zero effect on anyone but the person involved, right?

Digging up/descecrating corpses is a taboo in almost all societies. It would be like if you paid someone designated a section of the park for your statue to rest, and some random person comes along and smashes it. It's a property issue, as well as a universal taboo.

cocaine?

Cocaine while it is kind of a debatable ethic is demonstrably bad for society (people get addicted and die). Demonstrate to me that homosexuality is bad for society, and that people die from it. Not from a disease, but from homosexuality itself. If we have a 90% homosexual society then obviously that's bad as birth rates decline. However this never happens.

-=Lohrno

[Rekaar.]

But no one is looking to make homosexuality itself illegal. It's marriage and family I want to protect, as those 2 institutions do effect the very core of our society.

A gay lifestyle by definition - and choice - precludes you from having children on your own. It's simply not natural for a family to not have a man and a woman.

[Lohrno]

But no one is looking to make homosexuality itself illegal. It's marriage and family I want to protect, as those 2 institutions do effect the very core of our society.

A gay lifestyle by definition - and choice - precludes you from having children on your own. It's simply not natural for a family to not have a man and a woman.

But you still want to discriminate against them by not allowing them to marry. Well, let's get away from the term Marriage let's say 'have civil unions' for the sake of argument because many attach religious meanings to this. Why would you not be in favor of getting the governmeny out of the marriage business then? The churches will never let gay people marry, and if they are forced to, that would be a violation of the first ammendment. So what better way to protect 'marriage' than to pursue this? Otherwise the gov't is discriminating, as well as violating the separation of church and state. If Civil Unions replaced marriages then your marriages can take place in churches, and their 'civil unions' can take place wherever they can get them to take place.

-=Lohrno

[Rekaar.]

The concern I have with the protection of marriage has nothing to do with any kind of religious significance. The concern I have is given an inch, take a mile. If we grant civil unions with very limited (in some respects) priviledges as traditional marriage it'll be about 2 days of celebration until the drumbeat starts up again to erode any technical difference between the two.

Now I don't say that as justification for not doing anything. I'm just saying that's my concern with civil unioninzing it. Maybe it's the term "union" that always makes me wary of corruption =p

Is it discrimination to prevent blind people from obtaining a driver's license or to prevent a child pornographer to work with children? I'm not trying to demonize, but these are pretty clear examples.

You mentioned earlier that necrophilia was illegal because it is taboo in almost every society, and that it somehow violates property rights. First, how many societies does something have to be "taboo" in before you feel comfortable legislating it? And second, if the person is dead but not yet buried, do you really think the law exists to protect property? Could it be that it's just not right regardless of what some sicko thinks, and that's why it's illegal? Could it really be just that black and white?

[Lohrno]

The concern I have with the protection of marriage has nothing to do with any kind of religious significance. The concern I have is given an inch, take a mile. If we grant civil unions with very limited (in some respects) priviledges as traditional marriage it'll be about 2 days of celebration until the drumbeat starts up again to erode any technical difference between the two.

Why have a double standard in the first place?

Is it discrimination to prevent blind people from obtaining a driver's license or to prevent a child pornographer to work with children? I'm not trying to demonize, but these are pretty clear examples.

I'm not seeing how these relate to civil unions...Are you claiming that there is some safety concern in letting gay people have civil unions? These are safety concerns you have cited.

You mentioned earlier that necrophilia was illegal because it is taboo in almost every society, and that it somehow violates property rights. First, how many societies does something have to be "taboo" in before you feel comfortable legislating it?

It has to either be taboo and/or demonstrably bad for society and/or the health of people. This falls under at least 2 if not 3 of these. It has to be taboo in almost any society. I would claim that homosexuality isnt even taboo in our society. Remember what taboo means...

And second, if the person is dead but not yet buried, do you really think the law exists to protect property? Could it be that it's just not right regardless of what some sicko thinks, and that's why it's illegal? Could it really be just that black and white?

Yes I'd say probably 99% of the world does not approve of necrophilia for various reasons. Most people have some sort of reverence for the dead and would consider this to be a lack of respect for the corpse. This is not the case with homosexuality.

If you want to talk about 'natural' homosexuality does occur in nature. As do sex changing. There are fish that will change their sex if their group is lacking in one particular gender. I've never heard of necrophilia in nature. Nature is a poor example though, and I'm not sure how it applies here. The female black widow spider mates with the male and then eats it. I'm sure you'd agree that is not good for society...

-=Lohrno

[Animale]

I also want to protect family and marriage. It just so happens that I have a wider view of what those things entail. Protect families I say, just protect ALL families. Protect marriages I say, just allow ALL to marry who they love.

Its bullshit to say you want to protect families and marriage, and use that as an excuse to prevent others from enjoying "lawful" families and marriages. BULLSHIT.

Animale

[Lohrno]

You know the odd thing is that we discuss this. I mean in the end nothing is really going to change... It's kinda funny and kinda sad....

-=Lohrno

[archeiron]

The concern I have with the protection of marriage has nothing to do with any kind of religious significance. The concern I have is given an inch, take a mile. If we grant civil unions with very limited (in some respects) priviledges as traditional marriage it'll be about 2 days of celebration until the drumbeat starts up again to erode any technical difference between the two.

Why have a double standard in the first place?

Is it discrimination to prevent blind people from obtaining a driver's license or to prevent a child pornographer to work with children? I'm not trying to demonize, but these are pretty clear examples.

I'm not seeing how these relate to civil unions...Are you claiming that there is some safety concern in letting gay people have civil unions? These are safety concerns you have cited.

You mentioned earlier that necrophilia was illegal because it is taboo in almost every society, and that it somehow violates property rights. First, how many societies does something have to be "taboo" in before you feel comfortable legislating it?

It has to either be taboo and/or demonstrably bad for society and/or the health of people. This falls under at least 2 if not 3 of these. It has to be taboo in almost any society. I would claim that homosexuality isnt even taboo in our society. Remember what taboo means...

And second, if the person is dead but not yet buried, do you really think the law exists to protect property? Could it be that it's just not right regardless of what some sicko thinks, and that's why it's illegal? Could it really be just that black and white?

Yes I'd say probably 99% of the world does not approve of necrophilia for various reasons. Most people have some sort of reverence for the dead and would consider this to be a lack of respect for the corpse. This is not the case with homosexuality.

If you want to talk about 'natural' homosexuality does occur in nature. As do sex changing. There are fish that will change their sex if their group is lacking in one particular gender. I've never heard of necrophilia in nature. Nature is a poor example though, and I'm not sure how it applies here. The female black widow spider mates with the male and then eats it. I'm sure you'd agree that is not good for society...

-=Lohrno

[Nick]

If you oppose gays being allowed to marry you are either;
A. A homophobic bigot.
B. Stupid.
C. A religious zealot intent on suppression of freedom of humans.
D. All of the above.

Gay people exist, always have, always will, they are not evil because of this either, so shut up.

Anyone who believes the bullshit organized religions unquestioningly is happy to be taken for a ride by their fellow men.
By all mean try and be instrinsicaly like Jesus, or Buddha, or whoever, but bear in mind these doctrines were written by men, not some ficticious overlord who would hate gays WHICH IS REALISTIC!

The very fabric of life and death, or society, or the moment, does not depend on gays being disallowed from making a pact with someone they love (the widespread murder your christian representatives n the white house support is somwhat more important) What a double standard of fucking morality.

Why the fuck should ghey peple not get the right a human should be able to take for granted. Do you not understand this you hypocrite.

You make people stupider by spreading your bullshit Rekaar.