Voting Against Marriage Amendments

[pdoel]

The "gay rights" movement is not about mere legal equality but truly forcing others to believe as they do - precisely what the religious right is routinely accused of! Can you not see the irony and blatant hypocrisy of this?

Actually, the reality is the opposite of what you've just described. I couldn't care less what you think of homosexuals. You could hate them, accept them but disagree with them, or love them. I couldn't care less what you think, to be quite honest.

However, that does not mean that I do not deserve the right to protect myself and my partner, and declare our love for each other, until death do us part.

As for the "gay rights" movement trying to force others to believe what they believe. Can you give me an example of that?

Just because the government allows a gay marriage, how is that forcing you to be ok with it? It isn't.

However, religious groups voting against gay marriage is indeed, forcing me to abide by what THEY believe in. I cannot marry my partner simply because it would upset the religious people of this nation. How is that not forcing their beliefs on me?

If that's not hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

 

[Quiddity]

Here's a question. Is this based on your religious thoughts on the matter?

Yup..

If so, would you support a bill that outlawed anyone who has been divorced from allowing to remarry?

Nope..

Would you support a bill that would keep anyone who has had premarital sex have a "marriage"?

Nope...

There are many legal practices in this country right now that are against my religious beliefs. However, I realize that my religion does not speak for all. I can't imagine forcing people to live according to my personal religion.

It all depends on what the issue at hand is for me. I certainly would want to enforce jail time for rape for example (don't even dare think I'm comparing). And that is "part of my faith".

 

[Jaymes]

Thank you for phrasing it better than my frazzled mind can, pdoel.

 

[evearael]

These same people of religion have stood by, and most have even practiced things that are very much against the religion they are using to denounce homosexuality. People pick and choose what parts of their religion they want to follow. Divorce? Eh, doesn't fit with the times. Premarital sex? Yeah it's wrong, but I want it! You are making broad generalisations, though they are not entirely unwarranted.

There are religions out there that I don't agree with in the least. Christians have no problems with Jewish people marrying. Or Buddhists, or even atheists. If we're going to stick with the "marriage is a religious institution", then why do religious people accept the marriage of two atheists?

At one point, I didn't care if it was called a civil union or a marriage. I just wanted the ability to make a committment with my partner, that would allow us to protect ourselves in the event of a tragedy. Then, I saw a woman from either the house or the senate speak on the matter. I wish I knew her name, but I don't.

Anyway, she was a black woman. She was fighting against the ammendment making a marriage between a man and a woman. She said anything less than a "marriage" is unacceptable. She says she remembers the times of having to drink out of different water fountains, or fight to get into the same schools. She said she's been through "separate but equal" and it's not right.

I have to say, I completely agree. I understand. You want equality now. I want results. You cannot force compassion and understanding... it will come with time. In the mean time, we need to fight for legal rights through the political process and the only way that will suceed is to send the clear message that the churches will still be permitted to marry whoever they decide to.

 

[pdoel]

Do understand that it does appear to be pushed even after saying "let's agree to disagree", the issue is pushed. How does this not look like "believe as I do" at that point?

You seem to forget that there are two sides to this. Why is it that when a debate likes this occurs, you feel that if a homosexual defends themselves, they are forcing their belief on you. Yet, when you give your belief, and you state it over and over again, you don't see that you are doing exactly what it is that you are claiming the "gay rights" group is doing?

Hello pot? This is the kettle. Um, yeah, you're black.

You are guilty of exactly what it is that you are blaming the "gay rights" group of doing.

 

[evearael]

Hello pot? This is the kettle. Um, yeah, you're black.

That is precisely what he was getting at.

 

[Quiddity]

Actually, the reality is the opposite of what you've just described. I couldn't care less what you think of homosexuals. You could hate them, accept them but disagree with them, or love them. I couldn't care less what you think, to be quite honest.

I'll take your word on that.

However, that does not mean that I do not deserve the right to protect myself and my partner, and declare our love for each other, until death do us part.

Nor did I object to it.

As for the "gay rights" movement trying to force others to believe what they believe. Can you give me an example of that?

Post#55

Just because the government allows a gay marriage, how is that forcing you to be ok with it? It isn't.

It's not, I was specifically talking about discussions with homosexuals.

However, religious groups voting against gay marriage is indeed, forcing me to abide by what THEY believe in. I cannot marry my partner simply because it would upset the religious people of this nation. How is that not forcing their beliefs on me?

I've addressed this in my previous post.

 

[pdoel]

It all depends on what the issue at hand is for me. I certainly would want to enforce jail time for rape for example (don't even dare think I'm comparing). And that is "part of my faith".

Apparantly. So you've decided to go against the Bible when it better fits you, but won't do so when it fits others. Gotcha.

Glad to understand where you are coming from.

 

[Quiddity]

[/color]

You seem to forget that there are two sides to this. Why is it that when a debate likes this occurs, you feel that if a homosexual defends themselves, they are forcing their belief on you. Yet, when you give your belief, and you state it over and over again, you don't see that you are doing exactly what it is that you are claiming the "gay rights" group is doing?

Hello pot? This is the kettle. Um, yeah, you're black.

You are guilty of exactly what it is that you are blaming the "gay rights" group of doing.

I never once denied I wasn't.
The only difference is that I'm admitting it, while you are not.

 

[Quiddity]

Apparantly. So you've decided to go against the Bible when it better fits you, but won't do so when it fits others. Gotcha.

Glad to understand where you are coming from.

So now I'm going against the Bible? :areyoucra

 

[Green Gaia]

I never once denied I wasn't.
The only difference is that I'm admitting it, while you are not.

You're right. I will admit it. I am trying to convince anyone who will listen that I am worthy of equal legal rights.

 

[Quiddity]

You're right. I will admit it. I am trying to convince anyone who will listen that I am worthy of equal legal rights.

I think I'm done with this thread for today. I'll come back when I'm ready to listen to something I'm not really against. I clearly noted what I objected to...oh welll..

 

[pdoel]

I never once denied I wasn't.
The only difference is that I'm admitting it, while you are not.

Really? And where am I doing something against what I'm telling others?

I don't agree with divorce, but I realize that my religious beliefs aren't for everyone. So I wouldn't dream of stopping others from having one.

I don't believe in abortion, but I realize that many people feel strongly otherwise, and that they often have reasons that they feel are appropriate. While I could never agree to have a baby of mine aborted, I don't feel it's my job to force someone else to live by my beliefs.

There are many faiths that I don't agree with in the least. I won't name them, but it's safe to say that I'm a Christian, so any non-Christian religion, I don't necessarily believe in. There are also many denominations within Christianity that I don't agree with.

However, I also realize that until my time comes, I have no idea if the path I have chosen is correct, or I'm just as much off track as those religions I don't believe in. So why on Earth would I force my religion on these people?

As it is today, we accept just about any type of marriage you can think of. Inter-racial, inter-religion, non-religion, marriages that provide offspring, marriages that don't, marriages of convenience, open marriages, etc. etc. etc. I accept all those, even if I don't necessarily believe in the basis. I have no problem with that, and fully accept that not everyone believes as I do.

So how is my wanting the same rights that everyone else is offered, and simply asking that it be law, regardless of whether there are people out there who accept it or not, make me hypocritical?

 

[pdoel]

So now I'm going against the Bible? :areyoucra

Correct. The bible is strictly against divorce. The Bible is strictly against pre-marital sex.

If you are going to vote against gay marriage rights because the Bible tells you it is wrong, but yet, aren't willing to do the same to protect the teachings of the Bible in other areas, then yes, you are going against the Bible.

People often use the story of Sodom and Gomorreh to explain what God did to punish those who accepted homosexuality. Not only did he destroy those practicing it, but he destroyed the whole town, simply for not putting a stop to it.

How would that be any different from him destroying the good old U.S. of A simply because we've allowed and accepted divorce? Everyone just sits back and does nothing, because, well, what can I possibly do. However, that excuse didn't work in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, so why would it work now?

It amazes me that people are so adament against gay marriages because their Bible tells them it's wrong. But all the other laws of the Bible don't seem that important to these same people.

 

[Fluffy]

I do.

I agree with Maize. Those would seem to at least be "closet homophobics".

I view it as a misuse of the term "homophobic" and I feel that the ramifications of this are actually counter-productive to gaining equality. I view it as similar to some of the comments about men which were put forward by suffragette organisations when they were trying to get the vote for women. In other words it will turn away those fence sitters who might otherwise be willing to support us and it will further entrench those with "homophobic" opinions.

I see no good coming out of throwing round a term which a huge number of people are likely to be insulted by. It certainly won't aid equality in any way so I view the accusation as irrelevant at the very least.

 

[evearael]

I view it as a misuse of the term "homophobic" and I feel that the ramifications of this are actually counter-productive to gaining equality. I view it as similar to some of the comments about men which were put forward by suffragette organisations when they were trying to get the vote for women. In other words it will turn away those fence sitters who might otherwise be willing to support us and it will further entrench those with "homophobic" opinions.

I see no good coming out of throwing round a term which a huge number of people are likely to be insulted by. It certainly won't aid equality in any way so I view the accusation as irrelevant at the very least.

:clap

 

[Quiddity]

I view it as a misuse of the term "homophobic" and I feel that the ramifications of this are actually counter-productive to gaining equality. I view it as similar to some of the comments about men which were put forward by suffragette organisations when they were trying to get the vote for women. In other words it will turn away those fence sitters who might otherwise be willing to support us and it will further entrench those with "homophobic" opinions.

I see no good coming out of throwing round a term which a huge number of people are likely to be insulted by. It certainly won't aid equality in any way so I view the accusation as irrelevant at the very least.

:clap

 

[CaptainXeroid]

I view it as a misuse of the term "homophobic" and I feel that the ramifications of this are actually counter-productive to gaining equality. I view it as similar to some of the comments about men which were put forward by suffragette organisations when they were trying to get the vote for women. In other words it will turn away those fence sitters who might otherwise be willing to support us and it will further entrench those with "homophobic" opinions.

I see no good coming out of throwing round a term which a huge number of people are likely to be insulted by. It certainly won't aid equality in any way so I view the accusation as irrelevant at the very least.

:clap Emphasis mine!:clap
Bravo and Frubals for a most excellent post! I had been fishing for the proper verbage to respond, but I was called away to do some 'work'...., and you beat me to it.

I realize it is popular to demonize people who do not support SSM by calling them a myriad of masty names, but it is really an ignorant way to conduct a debate...unless you really don't want to give them a chance to change their minds. I mean, it is easier to sling mud than it is to build bridges.

 

[pdoel]

I see no good coming out of throwing round a term which a huge number of people are likely to be insulted by. It certainly won't aid equality in any way so I view the accusation as irrelevant at the very least.

It's kind of funny, if you think about it. Those who oppose gay marriage are offended by the term "homophobe". Yet, those of us who are homosexual, are expected to read these threads that refer to us as abominations, as sinful, as things that people will just have to "agree to disagree" on. We listen to people state their opinions on how allowing us to marry would destroy the sanctity of marriage, how God condemns anyone who accepts us, etc.

We listen to terms day in and day out, which are 10x worse than the term "homophobe", and yet, "homophoboe" is what people find offensive.

 

[pdoel]

I realize it is popular to demonize people who do not support SSM by calling them a myriad of masty names, but it is really an ignorant way to conduct a debate...unless you really don't want to give them a chance to change their minds. I mean, it is easier to sling mud than it is to build bridges.

It's also popular to use many different methods and much worse terms than "homopobe" to explain why gay marriage is wrong and should not be accepted. I guess this is just one double standard that can be accepted. Sad though.

And, just for the record, the first people to use the term "homophobic" in this thread aren't even homosexuals. I simply gave an argument which could show that a certain belief is actually the definition of homophobia. People may not like that, but when certain thoughts actually fit into the defintion, well, there you go.