Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This thread got entertaining fast.

I think we should just find the gay rights thread that hits all the talking points and sticky it with the important parts bolded. These always go the same route, the same arguments are made against gay rights, the same rebuttals even. No matter how well you use facts some people just wont budge because they refuse facts for beliefs, or some people will not be subjected to someone else's religion due to facts or difference in culture. Why be so pushy, keep your religion to yourselves. And before someone says it, gays and lesbians are not forcing you to do anything except leave them alone. If they are pushing anything it is oppression off of them.

http://www.beyondthetext.net/2012/05/18/queer-folk-and-gods/

Here is a blog that I find interesting and it speaks directly to people opposing gay rights. I am sure some people will not even bother reading it as they refuse to acknowledge opposing views, but for the rest of you interested there you go.

40kFSU wrote:Marriage is between a man and a woman. Blessed by God. If someone of the same sex wants to have a civil union, fine. If they then want to tell people they are married, who cares. Words mean things. If you and the PK cant understand that, I got nothing more for you.

Can you offer scientific, objective facts, or at the very least a rationale as to explain why Marriage, over all other institutions like Adoption, Tutel/curatel, or even Schooling, should be seen as sacred and elevated in the eyes of God? If you can't, your words are useless to carry any meaning, since that meaning is irrational or intuitive, and at that point we might as well remain beasts...

Wait, you're asking for scientific, objective facts why something should be sacred in the eyes of God?

Really? Really?

biccat wrote:Wait, you're asking for scientific, objective facts why something should be sacred in the eyes of God?

Really? Really?

I didn't see the word "should", it was kind* of you to add it though.

*Disingenuous and pathetic.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:Wait, you're asking for scientific, objective facts why something should be sacred in the eyes of God?

Really? Really?

I didn't see the word "should", it was kind* of you to add it though.

*Disingenuous and pathetic.

It's easy to miss stuff in these threads. I'm usually so beside myself with amusement that I miss a post here and there.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

40kFSU wrote:Marriage is between a man and a woman. Blessed by God. If someone of the same sex wants to have a civil union, fine. If they then want to tell people they are married, who cares. Words mean things. If you and the PK cant understand that, I got nothing more for you.

Can you offer scientific, objective facts, or at the very least a rationale as to explain why Marriage, over all other institutions like Adoption, Tutel/curatel, or even Schooling, should be seen as sacred and elevated in the eyes of God? If you can't, your words are useless to carry any meaning, since that meaning is irrational or intuitive, and at that point we might as well remain beasts...

Just keepin' it real.

Dang, my hatred of biccat got the better of me.

Also, at this point I assume anything he says is wrong, because he tends to say objectively wrong things. I need to work on that.

Having been to one gay wedding (which was pretty awesome and lots of fun and reflected the couple really well - also complete lack of satanic summonings, sacrafices of small children, etc), I think gay people should be able to get wed knowing hat they have the same rights as any straight couple should expet to have. Indeed the people conducting the ceromony and the owners of the venue said as much on several occasions.

Or a rationale. But yes. If someone say 'God's got a big boner for marriage', I'll ask where he got that info, or what makes him say that. If he can't offer acceptable proof, or an acceptable rationale which holds up against the known facts, then I'll simply reply that it's nothing more than his opinion, and a pretty silly one at that. The question remains : why Marriage and not Adoption? Have you any clue how freaking important the institution of Adoption has been under Roman Law and for the ancients? One act of ritualized adoption could save an entire ethnic group from death.

So, there's that, why marriage?

At this point 40kFSU, I assume your beliefs are "This book I read that 'God' wrote says this stuff is bad and immoral, so I say it is bad and immoral."

So when people come to you, tell you that your beliefs are bad and immoral and then show you evidence that the book you believe in so much has homosexual marriage in it, you back off and get very defensive. You refuse to continue the argument any further.

You really, at the point, have no leg to stand on.

PS: Also, I did call you a liar way back on page 2. Because what you said was a blatant lie.

Hello! I apologize for my absence. I have a family and a job. Must be nice to hang out all day. Of course Im sure everyone I am talking to is a multiple degree holding CEO. Ok, obviously all of the tolerant deep thinkers on Dakka are too scared of someone's faith to do anything besides do what they accuse me of doing. So, lets look at it like this.

You have Group A who hold a belief which is pretty old and based on their religion. Group B comes along and says they want to participate, but change some of the rules. Group A says sorry, cant change the rules, but we will set up something for you. The government steps in and forces the rules change regardless of Group A's wishes and against their beliefs.

Isnt Group B infringing on the rights of Group A?

Isnt Group B's rejection, off hand, of another groups beliefs bigoted?

Isnt Group B's automatic assumption and attack on Group A's morals bigoted?

I await your answers little brains.

rockerbikie wrote:You can't honestly compare those two. It is ridiculous.

The point being made is not Gay Rights = Black Rights.

It is the fact that objections used against gay marriage are the same as the objections that were against interracial marriage. (God Says No; It's Immoral.)

40kFSU wrote:Hello! I apologize for my absence. I have a family and a job. Must be nice to hang out all day. Of course Im sure everyone I am talking to is a multiple degree holding CEO.

That's cute. Clearly by stating such facts your argument becomes that much stronger. Its comical really, because it sounds like you have the opposite, needing to state it on an anonymous forum.

The rest of your argument is inherently flawed because the 'rules' of group A are based of poor understanding and selective reading in the first place. This has been shown multiple times in this thread, yet you continue to ignore it, for some unknown reason. You have yet to even acknowledge it.

And besides, what 'rights' do you speak of that are being infringed upon? The ability for gays to be wed under the same laws and tradition as heterosexual couples does not change the way in which straight couples may continue to be wed and live. This is not a zero-sum scenario where you have to sacrifice something in order for gays to be married.

40kFSU wrote:Hello! I apologize for my absence. I have a family and a job.

Funny how they always come up whenever a serious challenge to your views appears. Just in time for you to bow out.

40kFSU wrote:Hello! I apologize for my absence. I have a family and a job. Must be nice to hang out all day. Of course Im sure everyone I am talking to is a multiple degree holding CEO. Ok, obviously all of the tolerant deep thinkers on Dakka are too scared of someone's faith to do anything besides do what they accuse me of doing.

It's a Saturday, most of us probably have the weekend off. But nice try at bring people's education and employment into it, as if that had anything to do with it anyway.

And in further response, Group A didn't invent the belief nor do they hold a monopoly on it. It's not a belief, it's a very real aspect of culture/society that people wish to share, the belief aspect seems to be that some religious people think have sole rights to control it. Marriage was around before Christianity and Islam, no religion should be gifted the control over who in wider society has access to it. People of any faith or non-faith can get married, so why do you keep trying to hijack it as a sole concern of Christianity? Not even all christianity, there are lots of christians who support gay marriage.

No, Blacksails I have read all the so called research on this thread. I have even looked up a few cited verses. You are assuming all the stuff posted is accurate and in context. It isnt

But Im doing this wrong. How about someone tell me why we should change marriage. You guys want to change it, tell me why.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord_blackfang- Please. If you havent seen all my posts. Get a new monitor. I am secure and dont need to convince or brow beat people over the internet all day long to feel smart.

Ok, obviously the OTF isnt for me. I cant argue all day long and if you guys think 4 pages of responses isn't a legitimate amount of discussion. Wow.

I am shocked at the knee jerk bigotry and hatred for religion here.

I see, once again, you avoid actually arguing the points I raised.

Could it be that you are, as I have said, afraid of challenging your viewoints?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

40kFSU wrote:How about someone tell me why we should change marriage

To give equal rights to consenting adults who are just like everyone else with the sole exception that they happen to be sexually attracted to the same gender (or both genders). Preventing gay marriage isn't going to stop them from being gay, and allowing it will not harm the validity of anyone else's marriage or destroy the sanctity of marriage (certainly any more than we already have, hello there elvis priest giving drive by weddings to drunk hillbillies who happen to be cousins and will divorce two months after the marriage because one of them had sex with their other cousin and got knocked up by it).

You know, just like giving equal rights to consenting adults who just so happen to be of different races.

What points would that be? Mistranslations and a lack of hospitality? You keep talking about all this but it doesnt move the ball. You keep saying my opinions make me a hate filled moron. How do you expect any kind of a discussion?

On my viewpoints, I have arrived at mine as you have arrived at yours. Thought and research and conscience. I don't twist off and attack people character if I disagree. As you do.

Ok, cool. If Civil Unions confer those rights without changing marriage, why not?

40kFSU wrote:No, Blacksails I have read all the so called research on this thread. I have even looked up a few cited verses. You are assuming all the stuff posted is accurate and in context. It isnt

But Im doing this wrong. How about someone tell me why we should change marriage. You guys want to change it, tell me why.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord_blackfang- Please. If you havent seen all my posts. Get a new monitor. I am secure and dont need to convince or brow beat people over the internet all day long to feel smart.

Ok, obviously the OTF isnt for me. I cant argue all day long and if you guys think 4 pages of responses isn't a legitimate amount of discussion. Wow.

I am shocked at the knee jerk bigotry and hatred for religion here.

It doesn't need to change at all. 2 people get married. the end. Those two now have all the same government granted rights as any other 2 people who get married.

The real question is why you think you can tell other people who are not of your faith, and could care less about what your book says, that they can't enjoy the same government ran program as someone else.

40kFSU wrote:

I am shocked at the knee jerk bigotry and hatred for religion here.

I am shocked at your bigotry and hatred for gays.

Blacksails, I dont hate gays, never said I do. Grow up.

Sirlynchmob its not a government program.

40kFSU wrote:Blacksails, I dont hate gays, never said I do. Grow up.

And no said we were bigoted or hated religion. Grow up.

I politely direct your attention to the posts on the previous pages. You know, the ones you say I havent read.

40kFSU wrote:Blacksails, I dont hate gays, never said I do. Grow up.

Sirlynchmob its not a government program.

It is now, no matter what your religion or lack their of, the first thing you need to do is go to the court house and get a license. IE government approval.

Recognition, not approval.

40kFSU wrote:You keep saying my opinions make me a hate filled moron.

No, I did not. Stop lying to try to make yourself feel better.

40kFSU wrote:How do you expect any kind of a discussion?

I calmly and politely raised several etymological and theological points in an attempt to put up a fair debate, but I never made any assumption that you would be willing to discuss anything.

40kFSU wrote:Ok, cool. If Civil Unions confer those rights without changing marriage, why not?

The Supreme Court of the United States has long since ruled that separate but equal in law is not equal in practice.

40kFSU wrote:You have Group A who hold a belief which is pretty old and based on their religion. Group B comes along and says they want to participate, but change some of the rules. Group A says sorry, cant change the rules, but we will set up something for you. The government steps in and forces the rules change regardless of Group A's wishes and against their beliefs.

Isnt Group B infringing on the rights of Group A? question 1)

Isnt Group B's rejection, off hand, of another groups beliefs bigoted? question 2)

Isnt Group B's automatic assumption and attack on Group A's morals bigoted? question 3)

I await your answers little brains.

1) No, because you have no right to define Marriage based on traditionnal value.
2) Possibly, depends what way the rejection is done
3) Again, possibly, depending on how reprehensible are the values and norms used to reject the belief.

40kFSU wrote:I politely direct your attention to the posts on the previous pages. You know, the ones you say I havent read.

You mean all the posts that have nothing stating anyone hated religion or what it stood for?

You mean all the posts that have pointed out why your point of view is based on false assumptions and unnecessarily hurts and segregates gays?

When you drop lines like this:

40kFSU wrote:I am shocked at the knee jerk bigotry and hatred for religion here.

It insults everyone, essentially calling all of us bigots and hate religion, which is untrue. Hence why I returned the favour to you, to demonstrate how childish and pointless it was for to state the above line.

Mellssia, buddy, page 4, half way down. You said all my beliefs are based on hate. Now that is hardly the worst of the little brain attacks, but there it is. And it counts.

I invite you to read my posts again if you think I havent said anything concrete.

You are right, SCOTUS said separate but equal is not equal. That was regarding separate rules for citizens which set up 2 of everything. Because separate is not functionally equal. The Civil Unions are not the same thing. The are effectively marriage under a different name.

Fair enough Kovnik, if thats what you think thats what you think.

40kFSU wrote:Mellssia, buddy, page 4, half way down.

Do try to pay attention. I even put it in bold for your benefit.

40kFSU wrote:You keep saying my opinions make me a hate filled moron.

I never called you a moron . Do not lie to yourself and try to think that I did.

40kFSU wrote:You are right, SCOTUS said separate but equal is not equal. That was regarding separate rules for citizens which set up 2 of everything. Because separate is not functionally equal. The Civil Unions are not the same thing. The are effectively marriage under a different name.

IE, separate.

But not equal.

And since I am arguing for equality, and you have yet to give a valid reason why they should not be equal... well, I suppose that means you have no leg to stand on.