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.

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?

No, not at all. If you aren't going to follow the law of the land, then you don't get privileges either. Like tax free land.

Jesus tells you to respect and love everyone. New Testament.
Moses had slabs telling you honor your neighbor. Old Testament.

Pretty sure both halves of the bible (and the main part of the Koran and Torah, as it were) tell people of these religions to respect gay marriage, even if it's not their cup of tea. Goes with following the laws passed down by important religious people. Actually, ridiculing gay relationships and attacking them is about as far from being Christian as you can get. In fact, calling yourself a Christian and treating people differently makes you an donkey-cave falsely hiding under a religious umbrella. But you're only lying to yourself.

General statement, btw-not singling anyone out here. Haven't read every response.

to the people against the pride parades

So wait, you are completely okay with religious holidays essentially shutting down the government and businesses for 4 weeks a year, but are not okay with a one day parade celebrated by people who just want to celebrate how far they have come in their efforts?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I don't agree with homosexuality, nor do I think it's natural or normal etc. However, in life, there is lots I disagree with. I don't think watching TV is a quality way to spend spare time, nor do I think spending money on certain things is wise. I could go on for hours with things people do that I disagree with or dislike for whatever reason. But I don't stop people doing these things.

Im sure people think im daft for spending money on fancy plastic, or people who think the fact I have a Honda instead of a Toyota is ridiculous etc. But I have never been given a hard time for anything I do that others disagree with so why give others a hard time? Well I don't.

If people want to get married then that's fine, even if you disprove of homosexuality then I still don't see what's wrong with it happening. I just hope when these people get married they find someone who wants to marry them to do so. Nothing worse than the teacher that forces you to play with the kid who ruins your fun or vice versa etc.

All in all, let them be. I have no real reason at all to not let them.

Not natural, how so?

Many animals show homosexual tendencies,

I'm guessing that you are a creationist seeing that you think humans have their own special set of natural laws

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

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?

No, not at all. If you aren't going to follow the law of the land, then you don't get privileges either. Like tax free land.

The law of the land over there is be Muslim or pay up.

I usually just translate "not natural" to "something I find icky" when people use that phrase in an argument. It helps.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

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?

No, not at all. If you aren't going to follow the law of the land, then you don't get privileges either. Like tax free land.

The law of the land over there is be Muslim or pay up.

Right.

What happens in Muslim countries is not relevant to this discussion, and it really isn't relevant to me wanting the US government to take away tax shelter status for churches who don't conform to civil laws.

Nice try, though.

Your view. Those who don't conform and sacrifice their beliefs have to pay. Sounds like what's going on over in the Middle East to me.

ATXMILEY wrote:
to the people against the pride parades

So wait, you are completely okay with religious holidays essentially shutting down the government and businesses for 4 weeks a year, but are not okay with a one day parade celebrated by people who just want to celebrate how far they have come in their efforts?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I don't agree with homosexuality, nor do I think it's natural or normal etc. However, in life, there is lots I disagree with. I don't think watching TV is a quality way to spend spare time, nor do I think spending money on certain things is wise. I could go on for hours with things people do that I disagree with or dislike for whatever reason. But I don't stop people doing these things.

Im sure people think im daft for spending money on fancy plastic, or people who think the fact I have a Honda instead of a Toyota is ridiculous etc. But I have never been given a hard time for anything I do that others disagree with so why give others a hard time? Well I don't.

If people want to get married then that's fine, even if you disprove of homosexuality then I still don't see what's wrong with it happening. I just hope when these people get married they find someone who wants to marry them to do so. Nothing worse than the teacher that forces you to play with the kid who ruins your fun or vice versa etc.

All in all, let them be. I have no real reason at all to not let them.

Not natural, how so?

Many animals show homosexual tendencies,

I'm guessing that you are a creationist seeing that you think humans have their own special set of natural laws

Some animals, not many. My GFs bird can also become sexually attracted to me and even attempt to make love to me but I don't see it as evidence that it is natural for us to want to make love to birds and so on because they want to do the same to us if we treat them a certain way... Thats why I never rub my GF's birds body, only her head. Don't want her becoming sexually attached to me at all.

In Bee Hives only queens are allowed to mate (until she gets overpowered etc) yet I would also not use that as an excuse that we should selectively breed humans. Some animal young kill each other, yet we do not pit our young against each other in arenas to weed out the weak etc.

At the end of the day, yes we are animals, but all animals are different laws and do follow different things etc. I do not have to do what animals do and excuse it is normal, we are very different to animals like animals are very different from each other. You can;t pick some animal traits and say "look we can do it too" and then say other traits from some creatures are not ok. Unless you want your kids to kill the weaker one...

As for the holidays, I grew up not being allowed to celebrate them. At the age of 21 I have participated in 2 Christmas lunches and gift giving and it suuuuucked. No easter, or anything like that, for my family they where just days off sometimes. In fact I usually worked with dad on those days for money. So I guess a day to celebrate anything for me is daft as it is. In short, yes I too hate Christmas and Easter and whatever holiday we have here in NZ. I didn't even celebrate birthdays growing up. Of course now that I work when my office is closed I just don;t mind getting paid for no reason.

No I don't find gay people icky, that would be very rude to my uncle or my GF's older brother. It doesn't mean I have to agree with their lifestyle.

People's particular brand of religion should not hold any sway over the equality of LGBT people.

And churches should lose their tax shelter status regardless, there's really no point in them missing out on taxes anymore.

Relapse wrote:
Your view. Those who don't conform and sacrifice their beliefs have to pay. Sounds like what's going on over in the Middle East to me.

More like: Those who don't conform to the laws of the nation upon which they erect their church will not receive the benefits of that host nation.

The US government gives churches a lot of perks, and if churches refuse to follow the laws of the land, well, let their congregation pony up the costs of operating the church. They can pay taxes on what monies they take in, and they can certainly pay taxes on the land their church sits on.

But I like your version of my argument too. It has a quaint victimhood to it that is adorable.

 Verviedi wrote:
People's particular brand of delusion

Tips fedora. Enlighten me good sir, what is this delusion you speak of and how can I rise above the masses and become knowledgeable in all things? How does one know if they are deluded?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Your view. Those who don't conform and sacrifice their beliefs have to pay. Sounds like what's going on over in the Middle East to me.

More like: Those who don't conform to the laws of the nation upon which they erect their church will not receive the benefits of that host nation.

The US government gives churches a lot of perks, and if churches refuse to follow the laws of the land, well, let their congregation pony up the costs of operating the church. They can pay taxes on what monies they take in, and they can certainly pay taxes on the land their church sits on.

But I like your version of my argument too. It has a quaint victimhood to it that is adorable.

"churches should follow the laws of the land!"

Looks at the laws of the land, looks at churches...

Aren't they following the laws of the land currently?

Insinuating in a very unsubtle fashion that someone is advocating for ISIS-like activities isn't terribly related to this thread. So don't. Everyone else, keep it polite, a lot of posts have been verging on rude.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Your view. Those who don't conform and sacrifice their beliefs have to pay. Sounds like what's going on over in the Middle East to me.

More like: Those who don't conform to the laws of the nation upon which they erect their church will not receive the benefits of that host nation.

The US government gives churches a lot of perks, and if churches refuse to follow the laws of the land, well, let their congregation pony up the costs of operating the church. They can pay taxes on what monies they take in, and they can certainly pay taxes on the land their church sits on.

But I like your version of my argument too. It has a quaint victimhood to it that is adorable.

"churches should follow the laws of the land!"

Looks at the laws of the land, looks at churches...

Aren't they following the laws of the land currently?

In the hypothetical situation that I was throwing out (before Relapse got all victimy and tried to make my argument about oppressing Christians) I stated this:

 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?

Does that answer your question. Or do you want me to name hypothetical churches that are breaking the law in my hypothetical scenario?

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Your view. Those who don't conform and sacrifice their beliefs have to pay. Sounds like what's going on over in the Middle East to me.

More like: Those who don't conform to the laws of the nation upon which they erect their church will not receive the benefits of that host nation.

The US government gives churches a lot of perks, and if churches refuse to follow the laws of the land, well, let their congregation pony up the costs of operating the church. They can pay taxes on what monies they take in, and they can certainly pay taxes on the land their church sits on.

But I like your version of my argument too. It has a quaint victimhood to it that is adorable.

"churches should follow the laws of the land!"

Looks at the laws of the land, looks at churches...

Aren't they following the laws of the land currently?

In the hypothetical situation that I was throwing out (before Relapse got all victimy and tried to make my argument about oppressing Christians) I stated this:

 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?

Does that answer your question. Or do you want me to name hypothetical churches that are breaking the law in my hypothetical scenario?

So what you are saying is a religion has to change it's fundamental beliefs in your little scenario and if they don't they need to pay up, correct?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Homosexuality is not a choice

No, but practising homosexuality or not is.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
nor does your version Christianity have sole dominion on what is considered marriage (or moral, for that matter).

No, but neither do you and neither does the LGBT community and neither does the government.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Marriage is most definitely a legal contract because a non-religious officiant can conduct it (judge, circuit clerk, etc.).

Yes, but it is also a religious contract.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Fishboy wrote:
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.

Wow, what a great way to have arguments. Lets call people with different opinions bigots! Yay!
I am dissapointed that some people here on Dakka can't speak to other people with different opinions without resorting to childish namecalling.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
No, but practising homosexuality or not is.

There is no such thing as "practicing homosexuality." You either are or you aren't.

No, but neither do you and neither does the LGBT community and neither does the government.

Exactly. Which is why you missed the point. The legal definition of marriage is not decided by one faith, hence why marriage is a civil contract between two people recognized by the state. That's also why the state has the authority to decide what marriages to recognize.

Yes, but it is also a religious contract.

If you chose for it to be. Understand this distinction yet? My marriage had absolutely nothing to do with God, am I not married? The framed marriage certificate and license I was granted by the Commonwealth of Virginia says I am.

Wow, what a great way to have arguments. Lets call people with different opinions bigots! Yay!
I am dissapointed that some people here on Dakka can't speak to other people with different opinions without resorting to childish namecalling.

When someone's exact words are this:

I am tired however of the LBGT community as a vocal whole demanding everyone accept their lifestyle and consider them the same.

Well, that's pretty much the exact definition of being a bigot. Because the LGBT community is the same as us; they get up in the morning, they go to work, they spend time with their families, they enjoy their hobbies. At the end of the day, they want to be treated the same because they're fething people and they deserve it. They don't want to be concerned with losing their job or being denied access to housing, all because of their choice in partner.

Here's an radical idea, if you don't want to be accused of being a bigot, don't say bigoted things.

Funny enough, I support gay marriage, but gay rights doesn't even enter the equation.

It's a legal institution. Denying it to couples with one gender configuration but not to others is sexist. Gender discrimination by law is intolerable in a civilized society. (Or rather, should be.)

This is an interesting question for me that I truthfully can't answer as a yes or no.

On one hand I have no qualms with gay people and don't want to see them discriminated against.

On the other, I think marriage as an institution gives waaaay too many legal rights at this point in time.

Thanks for giving something to do that isn't my assignment Dakka

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
No, but practising homosexuality or not is.

There is no such thing as "practicing homosexuality." You either are or you aren't.

No, but neither do you and neither does the LGBT community and neither does the government.

Exactly. Which is why you missed the point. The legal definition of marriage is not decided by one faith, hence why marriage is a civil contract between two people recognized by the state. That's also why the state has the authority to decide what marriages to recognize.

Yes, but it is also a religious contract.

If you chose for it to be. Understand this distinction yet? My marriage had absolutely nothing to do with God, am I not married? The framed marriage certificate and license I was granted by the Commonwealth of Virginia says I am.

Wow, what a great way to have arguments. Lets call people with different opinions bigots! Yay!
I am dissapointed that some people here on Dakka can't speak to other people with different opinions without resorting to childish namecalling.

When someone's exact words are this:

I am tired however of the LBGT community as a vocal whole demanding everyone accept their lifestyle and consider them the same.

Well, that's pretty much the exact definition of being a bigot. Because the LGBT community is the same as us; they get up in the morning, they go to work, they spend time with their families, they enjoy their hobbies. At the end of the day, they want to be treated the same because they're fething people and they deserve it. They don't want to be concerned with losing their job or being denied access to housing, all because of their choice in partner.

Here's an radical idea, if you don't want to be accused of being a bigot, don't say bigoted things.

You know 'bigot' doesn't actually speak towards any sort of moral system or belief right? Not liking racists because you are against racism is being a bigot.

I think we should get rid of marriage altogether and just bind people with legal contracts. Replace ministers with solicitors and so on so forth.


Not really, but you get the idea.

But, gay people aren't causing me any harm, they don't cause cancer or obesity. So why should I care, or even have an opinion, on what they do with their lives.

Where is third choice: I don't care?

 Krellnus wrote:
This is an interesting question for me that I truthfully can't answer as a yes or no.

On one hand I have no qualms with gay people and don't want to see them discriminated against.

On the other, I think marriage as an institution gives waaaay too many legal rights at this point in time.

Thanks for giving something to do that isn't my assignment Dakka

That's the basis of the push for it equalitywise.

I'm for it, it's just annoying how everyone has to continually make a big deal to try to stop it from happening, especially Tony.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
I think we should get rid of marriage altogether and just bind people with legal contracts. Replace ministers with solicitors and so on so forth.


Not really, but you get the idea.

But, gay people aren't causing me any harm, they don't cause cancer or obesity. So why should I care, or even have an opinion, on what they do with their lives.

At the core that's actually what it is, just with religious meaning put into it.

 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.

Agreed, but if the government is going to stick its nose in, then the best policy would be an inclusive policy.

 n0t_u wrote:

 Krellnus wrote:
This is an interesting question for me that I truthfully can't answer as a yes or no.

On one hand I have no qualms with gay people and don't want to see them discriminated against.

On the other, I think marriage as an institution gives waaaay too many legal rights at this point in time.

Thanks for giving something to do that isn't my assignment Dakka

That's the basis of the push for it equalitywise.

I'm for it, it's just annoying how everyone has to continually make a big deal to try to stop it from happening, especially Tony.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
I think we should get rid of marriage altogether and just bind people with legal contracts. Replace ministers with solicitors and so on so forth.


Not really, but you get the idea.

But, gay people aren't causing me any harm, they don't cause cancer or obesity. So why should I care, or even have an opinion, on what they do with their lives.

At the core that's actually what it is, just with religious meaning put into it.

Even then, marriage has been around a lot longer than any of the religions that we have today.

 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.

They do?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
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.

Agreed. Plus it violates the US Constitution.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

 Krellnus wrote:
This is an interesting question for me that I truthfully can't answer as a yes or no.

On one hand I have no qualms with gay people and don't want to see them discriminated against.

On the other, I think marriage as an institution gives waaaay too many legal rights at this point in time.

Thanks for giving something to do that isn't my assignment Dakka

That's the basis of the push for it equalitywise.

I'm for it, it's just annoying how everyone has to continually make a big deal to try to stop it from happening, especially Tony.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
I think we should get rid of marriage altogether and just bind people with legal contracts. Replace ministers with solicitors and so on so forth.


Not really, but you get the idea.

But, gay people aren't causing me any harm, they don't cause cancer or obesity. So why should I care, or even have an opinion, on what they do with their lives.

At the core that's actually what it is, just with religious meaning put into it.

Even then, marriage has been around a lot longer than any of the religions that we have today.

Exactly, religions tended to pick up things when trying to fit within a new culture in order to assimilate with them easier. At its core marriage was just a contract for trade between two richer families. As it was religiously picked up it became more commonplace.

 Vitali Advenil wrote:
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.

Indeed. I belong to one. All your gay marriages are belong to US!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
Your view. Those who don't conform and sacrifice their beliefs have to pay. Sounds like what's going on over in the Middle East to me.

Also agreed.

And its an unnecessary attack on religion.

Marriage can be a religious marriage/ceremony or contract. Some religions permit it, some don't. Now that its legal (aka the government, having stuck its nose in, decided to fix some of its own mess). If you don't like that some religions wont marry homosexuals don't be part of their special circle of friends. No skin off you. No skin off them. No issue. Move onto something important, like which will crack your noggin first: Kraken Rum or SoCo 100?

I say Nay to this whole thread.

The fathers of this great country separated church and state for a reason. Gays should have the same opportunities as everyone else.

Useless poll on a historically liberal members website.....was there any doubt that the yay would be overwhelming on here?