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.

Fish, thanks for correcting me on my bible - unfortunately I'm not so well versed in it as others so I'm probably not the best one to argue from the bible. The only reason I was comparing the bible to 40k fic was because it seemed an apt if childish analogy - if God condemns homosexuality as a sin then he is petty and hypocritical. I have a number of gay friends, and it is not a lifestyle choice. It is sad that homosexuality is often communicated through hyped up stereotypes which make it look like a lifestyle choice, but it really isn't.
God would not create intrinsically disordered human beings, and yet homosexuality is natural - it occurs in nature, you see it with dogs and chimpanzees. How can they be sinning if they are just following their natural urges? The same goes with humans.

My moral compass I keep in my back pocket, my God-given reason as opposed to a holy text which was written by men. With divine inspiration certainly, but still by men. I'm just as fallible as they were, so why should I think they were any better? I am aware that there are people who marry their pets and I agree with you that that is inherently and morally wrong. Consent cannot be given by an animal, and it degrades the dignity of man, but consent can be given by another human adult. That is a different logical sphere, assuming we're leaving Richard Dawkins and evolution back on the shelf, which would probably be for the best.
But your stance raises the question: why be gay and a Christian. If they cannot be married, if they are not accepted by your religion, then why would they want to be part of your religion? Come to think of it, why are women Muslim? Why are women Roman Catholic? Why is anybody religious: because they believe in these things, regardless of how much these things disregard them. Is it too much to ask if these things they all believe in could be a little more accommodating?

I'm down for the yay part. I'm also down with polygamy, even though it's not my thing. You wanna marry five people? Go ahead, but good luck filing your taxes now.

 Fishboy wrote:
Ifyou are proud to be gay and different why do you demand the same "marriage" benefit as heterosexual couples?

Being a fan of 40k, you are "different". Shouldn't you, by your same logic, reject marriage?

If you cannot comprehend the idea that gay, lesbian, bi, and trans people are all people first and foremost, you will always end up failing God.

Its been around for a long time and those places that do have them haven't exploded in rainbows....yet.
Murcia finally caught up.

Its honestly a Massive meh to me so il go in the no vote.

Sometimes people have a different gender orientation "same sex" is not so much other than common number of X chromosomes.

A friend would have been labeled "bi-sexual" but I think I saw it for what it was: a lack of prejudice, willing to find a good person to care about and what gender they are really did not matter. Rare to see.

Marriage is a commitment both emotionally and legally: "yay", silly to say otherwise.

 Ruberu wrote:
There was a Christian bakery that refused to make a cake for a gay wedding and ended up with them losing their business.

Oh, you mean those people that knowingly violated the law of the state they chose to do business in?

And there are a couple states that the government threatened hate crimes against churches if they refused to wed gay couples. I don't have proof of this one right off the bat, nor do I know if it got anywhere.

"I don't have any proof, but I'm going to go ahead and say it like it's fact."

Kharn The Bae Slayer wrote:
Moving from Dakka Polls: threads about politics should go in the Off-Topic sub-forum. Thanks ~ Manchu

Personally I support gay marrige and lgbtq in general but I want to see if there is actually a good argument someone can produce as to why many people still discriminate against lgbt peoplLe.

Sorry I'm already taken. You can buy me some cake though if you want.

Take God out of the equation, since in no shape or form are any of our laws supposed to be based on religion. Is it taking away from the safety of the masses? Does it cause harm, or through in action allow harm to come? No, then get over yourself, and learn to accept. Let them marry. misery is the right of all people, not just men and women.

 Fishboy wrote:
Followed by someone who wants what I have even though they claim to be different?!? I don't understand that. Ifyou are proud to be gay and different why do you demand the same "marriage" benefit as heterosexual couples?

It isn't a zero sum game. If a homosexual couple gets married what does that take away from your own marriage? I mean if you are concerned how god sees things wouldn't god see through the "sham" homosexual marriages and only acknowledge the "proper" straight marriages? So whats the problem? Those homosexuals are going to hell anyway, right? So no skin of your nose.

The second part of your post doesn't make sense to me. Are you asking why homosexuals would want marriage benefits? Or are you asking why homosexuals want to call it marriage?

Gay marriage is cool beans.

Thought policing under the threat of gubmint ain't cool.

I do not understand why gay marriage is even considered an issue. It harms nobody, and even increases marriage license purchases.

I don't think the government should be in the business of marriage at all. Regardless of your orientation, you should go to the institution (or lack of) of your choosing and live the marriage you want to live.

 Fishboy wrote:
Followed by someone who wants what I have even though they claim to be different?!? I don't understand that. Ifyou are proud to be gay and different why do you demand the same "marriage" benefit as heterosexual couples?

Why do you think you have the sole claim over the word and institute of marriage?

If you want to be a special snowflake, I am sure no one will mind if you want to call your marriage something different... Maybe "religious partnership"?

After all, it is totally the same thing...

 zgort wrote:
I don't think the government should be in the business of marriage at all. Regardless of your orientation, you should go to the institution (or lack of) of your choosing and live the marriage you want to live.

So no tax benefits for marriage. We can also do away with spousal rights. What else should we trim to get government out of marriage?

 zgort wrote:
I don't think the government should be in the business of marriage at all. Regardless of your orientation, you should go to the institution (or lack of) of your choosing and live the marriage you want to live.

The government should be in the business because when it comes to rights, property, inheritance, healthcare, and vast numbers of other things, pretty much nothing has as big an impact as marriage... except death I guess

Legal rights are conferred by marriage, it absolutely should be open to all regardless of sexuality.
Inheritance, insurance, medical decisions, all are affected by marriage, denying gay people those rights is morally abhorrent.
And while we're at it, the bible is many things, but a bastion of morality is not one of them.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 zgort wrote:
I don't think the government should be in the business of marriage at all. Regardless of your orientation, you should go to the institution (or lack of) of your choosing and live the marriage you want to live.

So no tax benefits for marriage. We can also do away with spousal rights. What else should we trim to get government out of marriage?

Anything that gives marriage a financial benefit, because it's dumb.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 zgort wrote:
I don't think the government should be in the business of marriage at all. Regardless of your orientation, you should go to the institution (or lack of) of your choosing and live the marriage you want to live.

The government should be in the business because when it comes to rights, property, inheritance, healthcare, and vast numbers of other things, pretty much nothing has as big an impact as marriage... except death I guess

The government got involved because it was to protect the surviving spouse / kids.

I think they should be able to have partnerships on the same legal level as women and men.

But I dont see how anyone, especially ateists, can expect christians, or muslims to change their theology to accommodate gay marriage unions?

 triplegrim wrote:
I think they should be able to have partnerships on the same legal level as women and men.

But I dont see how anyone, especially ateists, can expect christians, or muslims to change their theology to accommodate gay marriage unions?

Oh, they will change. Religions constantly change over time.

But, for the sticklers who won't, this atheist would be totally fine with government intervention to remove the tax shelter status of churches who don't conform to civil laws. Let the well funded, "traditionalist" churches stay culturally backwards, but let their followers pay for the land the church sits on, and let the church pay taxes for the revenues it collects.

The churches that want to play ball and adapt to the 21st century can keep their freebies.

Seems fair, no?

If there was a seperation between civil and religious marriages (with both receiving the same treatment by the law), then I would be totally okay with gay marriage.
Homosexuals deserve equal rights to heterosexuals, but it is just wrong to force religious people to accept something that goes against their religion.

Of course. Why should someone be saved my bitter ire over my relative romantic incompetence just because they're gay? That's upwards of a good 10% of the total happy couples I could be resenting by some numbers, and probably at least half that. You'll take my unjustified, off-putting, problem-avoiding, self-righteous, bitterness from me cold dead fingers you will.

The funny thing is, all of the "keep marriage and civil partnerships separate" fall flat because there are churches that do want to perform same sex marriages. If you want religion to define marriage, then you have to allow these churches to give homosexual couples proper, gay marriages. Not every church thinks the same way, so you can't say gay marriage violates Christianity; for a good number of Christians, it doesn't.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 triplegrim wrote:
I think they should be able to have partnerships on the same legal level as women and men.

But I dont see how anyone, especially ateists, can expect christians, or muslims to change their theology to accommodate gay marriage unions?

Oh, they will change. Religions constantly change over time.

But, for the sticklers who won't, this atheist would be totally fine with government intervention to remove the tax shelter status of churches who don't conform to civil laws. Let the well funded, "traditionalist" churches stay culturally backwards, but let their followers pay for the land the church sits on, and let the church pay taxes for the revenues it collects.

The churches that want to play ball and adapt to the 21st century can keep their freebies.

Seems fair, no?

Kind of like churches in Muslim countries that have to pay for the privilege of being Christian?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Fishboy wrote:
Followed by someone who wants what I have even though they claim to be different?!? I don't understand that. Ifyou are proud to be gay and different why do you demand the same "marriage" benefit as heterosexual couples?

Why do you think you have the sole claim over the word and institute of marriage?

If you want to be a special snowflake, I am sure no one will mind if you want to call your marriage something different... Maybe "religious partnership"?

After all, it is totally the same thing...

The definition of marriage had to be changed to accommodate the new laws. Yes...a man and woman have the sole claim over the institution of marriage. Just because the definition was recently changed does not change the original aspect of marriage. I am not the one trying to be a special snowflake. The LBGT community are different and are proud of it but expect the world to change the rules to accommodate their life style. It is a choice ( it is not chromosonally based or animalistic dominance) and in that choice you are no longer operating in what was considered a marital relationship (original definition) so you fought and fought to have the legal rules changed. You are now forcing that on everyone around you. I am not in the shape to play football and am not the typical football player so should I force all the rules to be changed to accommodate my physical apptitudes and lifestyle? No I should go play ping pong or something else where I can eat Cheetos rather than make the world adapt to me. And now that LGBT (per your special snowflake quote) want to claim "marriage" to validate their life style you expect Christians or other religious back grounds to change what was marriage to something different? That is a typical attitude of the LBGT community that I have consistently experienced over the last 30 years. It would not matter if we changed our word from marriage to something else....soon you would be after that too. Marriage is more than a legal contract...it is a covenant with God...at least originally it was until mankind watered it down. It's not about legality...it's about validation. In the U.S. They proposed Civil Unions which gave LGBT the same rights as married couples. That was not good enough. Why is it so important that you call it marriage? It will be interesting when all the divorces come and see how the courts handle the separation of property since typically they side more on the female side of things.

All that said I am done commenting on this. We will have responses on both side filled with passion and are operating on Moral Compases 180 degrees out so will doubtfully ever agree. I do not do anything to discriminate against LBGT and know several people in my gaming community that of that affiliation. I am tired however of the LBGT community as a vocal whole demanding everyone accept their lifestyle and consider them the same.

Very pro marrige equality (and equality in general) . I hate it when people are treated differently for staff they and will fight against anything I see that threatens to do that (IIRC the term is egalitarian). It helps that I grew up a UU in a very accepting family, and was always raised with the belief that all people are actually created equal.

The supreme court decision was very important to me as quite a few of my very closest friends are homosexual (Almost all lesbian. I'm not quite sure why. ).

Relapse wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 triplegrim wrote:
I think they should be able to have partnerships on the same legal level as women and men.

But I dont see how anyone, especially ateists, can expect christians, or muslims to change their theology to accommodate gay marriage unions?

Oh, they will change. Religions constantly change over time.

But, for the sticklers who won't, this atheist would be totally fine with government intervention to remove the tax shelter status of churches who don't conform to civil laws. Let the well funded, "traditionalist" churches stay culturally backwards, but let their followers pay for the land the church sits on, and let the church pay taxes for the revenues it collects.

The churches that want to play ball and adapt to the 21st century can keep their freebies.

Seems fair, no?

Kind of like churches in Muslim countries that have to pay for the privilege of being Christian?

And to finish my post I believe the Koran specifically states that is the correct thing to do for Christians who will not convert so that is not a "change" or adaptation. As for forcing churches to accept gay marriages and perform them that is as wrong as it was for the Christians during the inquisition to force people to become Christians. I like hamburgers and steaks therefore do I have a right to force every vegan to cook me a steak? As for the churches that want to perform gay marriages they are way off base and falling further away from God by not only allowing sin but encouraging it.

Pro gay marriage.

Don't hate, don't discriminate. It certainly doesn't hurt anyone.

I am pro-gay marriage. That being said I do believe that people should be allowed to exercise reasonable religious beliefs, and that no substantial burden be placed on the exercising thereof.

 Ruberu wrote:
This ended up with a few states governments making laws protecting businesses against this incase they don't want to serve someone because of their race, religious views, gender, sexual preference and so on. The first that comes to mind is Indiana because I was just at Gen Con. There has been some talk that Gen Con might move where they have it because the convention center can choose not serve someone and Gen Con can't do anything about it.

1. That is incorrect. The original law was that no one providing goods or services could act be forced to act where their religious beliefs were substantially burdened. No reasonable person could claim that denying a gay man service at GenCon was a substantial burden on exercise of religion
2. Homosexuality was not a protected class in Indiana at the time the law was passed. So claims that the law provided a legal basis for discrimination are without merit.
3. The law did not make discrimination legal on the basis of "race", "religious views", "gender", etc.
4. Outside of protected classes anyone may be refused service for any reason. If a hotdog vendor at GenCon decided that he hated Bronies then he is within his rights to refuse service, and GenCon could do nothing about that either.

 Fishboy wrote:
The definition of marriage had to be changed to accommodate the new laws. Yes...a man and woman have the sole claim over the institution of marriage. Just because the definition was recently changed does not change the original aspect of marriage. I am not the one trying to be a special snowflake. The LBGT community are different and are proud of it but expect the world to change the rules to accommodate their life style. It is a choice ( it is not chromosonally based or animalistic dominance) and in that choice you are no longer operating in what was considered a marital relationship (original definition) so you fought and fought to have the legal rules changed. You are now forcing that on everyone around you. I am not in the shape to play football and am not the typical football player so should I force all the rules to be changed to accommodate my physical apptitudes and lifestyle? No I should go play ping pong or something else where I can eat Cheetos rather than make the world adapt to me. And now that LGBT (per your special snowflake quote) want to claim "marriage" to validate their life style you expect Christians or other religious back grounds to change what was marriage to something different? That is a typical attitude of the LBGT community that I have consistently experienced over the last 30 years. It would not matter if we changed our word from marriage to something else....soon you would be after that too. Marriage is more than a legal contract...it is a covenant with God...at least originally it was until mankind watered it down. It's not about legality...it's about validation. In the U.S. They proposed Civil Unions which gave LGBT the same rights as married couples. That was not good enough. Why is it so important that you call it marriage? It will be interesting when all the divorces come and see how the courts handle the separation of property since typically they side more on the female side of things.

Homosexuality is not a choice nor does your version Christianity have sole dominion on what is considered marriage (or moral, for that matter). I love that wanting equal rights is now considered "validation" and wanting said rights is "forcing that on everyone around you." Your football analogy is just horrible, by the way. Marriage is most definitely a legal contract because a non-religious officiant can conduct it (judge, circuit clerk, etc.).

All that said I am done commenting on this. We will have responses on both side filled with passion and are operating on Moral Compases 180 degrees out so will doubtfully ever agree. I do not do anything to discriminate against LBGT and know several people in my gaming community that of that affiliation. I am tired however of the LBGT community as a vocal whole demanding everyone accept their lifestyle and consider them the same.

Ah, the classic "friend argument," beloved by prejudice people everywhere. Damn dude, you're playing all the right cards. Of course, you ruin it by following up with saying you're "tired of the the LGBT community wanting people to consider them the same." You straight up say that you don't want the gays to think they are the same as everyone else nor for people to treat them like they treat you.

I have to tip my hat to you, sir... that is a level of honest bigotry few people on Dakka have ever admitted to.