Gay Marriage: What's the Huge Deal?

This is mostly an "Open letter" so to speak, to the pro LGBT crowd. While I am not suggesting "Anti" people can't participate, indeed, I'd be interested in their views of why this issue is so important to them as well, the verbage of the post will sound like its addressed to pro-gay people... because it is.

Now, without furrther ado...

There are only two political issues I've really ever seen addressed in church, abortion and gay marriage. Those were also, of course, considered the politicial views that any good Christian should hold, or at least was assumed.

I've never seen any contradiction between my ever increasingly libertarian principles and the pro-life view on the abortion question. Of course, my pro-life view came first, and the libertarian views followed. But I've still never really seen a serious disconnect. Ultimately, there is no libertarian position on abortion since abortion is a question of when life begins. I'm aware of some advanced critiques to this (Property rights, exc.) I'm not unwilling to address them, but not in this thread. Let me suffice to say that I have never personally seen a contradiction between the two (Pro-life views and libertarian views.) I've also always understood why this issue is so important to churches. And its the one view I've never seriously questioned. I've considered pro-choice arguments of course, but never really came anywhere near agreeing with them, as I have at times seriously considered the left-wing views on economics, foreign policy, gay marriage, drugs, guns, exc. And on some issues, I've ended up taking the left-wing position, or something appreciably different than the right wing position.

Anyway, gay marriage. Its kind of a crazy issue because I have to be perfectly honest, I just don't really care all that much about that issue. Some have said "If I knew someone who was gay it would change my position." I don't want to get into personal details here, but suffice to say I have known such a person.

I've grown up in a (Conservative, Evangelical, Republican) culture that is opposed to gay marriage. While I've grown more sympathetic to the gay marriage movement overtime, I've never really crossed the line to really supporting them. In fact, I'm probably more against it than for it, probably mostly due to cultural conditioning, but also simply because I'm uneasy about the government changing the definition of marriage (Admittedly, this really means they shouldn't be involved at all. I agree with you. However, they are so I feel like they need to do it right.)

I'm honestly a lot more worried about other issues, and not explicitly because they are going to affect me. I will probably never be raped in an airport or indefinitely detained without cause or droned in a foreign country. Yet these issues have SERIOUS effects on other people, and are an example of the government actively destroying lives. Drugs are another one. I honestly have zero interest in using them, but it just seems wrong to me that the government would arrest someone, ruin their life, for using such a substance. It seems to me that if drugs were legal, they would be cheaper, which would reduce the suffering of the addict, even if he were never caught with them.

I also, of course, care about issues that are going to effect me. I'm likely going to pay into social security but never collect, unless, please, Paul Ryan's plan or something to the effect goes through and I'm not forced to pay into the ponzi scheme. I care about our foreign policy, both because I'm going to have to pay for it and because it ruins other people's lives. I care about the economy in general. Exc.

You might be thinking, "But why not gays?" Truth be told, even though I think a homosexual lifestyle (Defined as being sexually or romantically involved with another person of the same sex, not being attracted to such a person which is outside your control) is immoral, I don't feel a need to demonize it like some people do. Really, I know a lot of people on here like to compare it to random food or clothing regulations in the Old Testament (I'm not going to address why those don't apply In this thread since this thread is about gay marriage), while some conservative Evangelicals like to compare it to the sin of Sodom (Which wasn't homosexuality at all, but rape, extreme unhospitality, and not caring about the poor), or murder, or pedophilia, or other comparisons that don't make much sense. I personally think heterosexual sex outside of marriage, for better or worse, is a fair comparison to homosexual sex. The same types of people who find the former immoral usually find the latter immoral, its a similar degree of sin (Same exact type essentially) and I feel that it does the activity justice without comparing homosexuals to pedophiliacs or other unfair comparisons, it stands to reason that an action against a victim is "Worse.")

With that being said, I would stand up for any homosexual who was bullied, abused, or denied employment for their sexual orientation. I believe homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military (In spite of my personal discomfort regarding it, the Pentagon doesn't think its a problem so continuing to discriminate with no reason or basis is simply unfair and prejudiced.) I believe in civil unions (Nobody should die alone in the hospital.)

On the marriage issue, I really just don't see why I should care.

On the one hand, my Evangelical conditioning says I should be against it. After all, marriage is between a man and a woman.

Now, I don't really care if the government has ANY involvement in marriage at all or not, but I consider them withdrawing involvement to be a far, far weaker attack on marriage than "Getting it wrong" so to speak. I'd rather the government not recognize marriage (Why should they anyway?) than to recognize it and get the definition wrong, Ie. promiting (Which is different than tolerating) an alternative lifestyle.

An "equal rights" perspective, on the other hand, would say I should be for it, regardless of the moral consequences, I should fight for the legal recognition of same sex marriages even if I fight at the same time for culture to not be accepting of those marriages.

Ironically, the "Equal rights" argument is really why I don't like gay marriage. Had gay rights activists not overshot their cause, I might already be on their (Legal) side. As it stands, most of the people I have seen who are against gay marriage (Yes, I am aware of the WBC, I'm not talking about them, nor am I talking about random conservative politicians. I'm talking about people I know in real life) are reasonable on the subject. Many, maybe most, would be willing to allow civil unions as a compromise. Many are scared of the "Slippery slope" which leads potentially to legalized incestuous or polygamous marriages (I've heard pedophilia used too, but that's intristically unfair since it has a clear victim, incest and polygamy arguably and at least in some circumstances don't and so are a fairly comparison.) Many are very worried that churches may eventually be made to marry gays (People were already talking about making them do interracial marriages on the grounds that there's not a valid Biblical prohibition on doing so, which I agree that their isn't but you can obviously see the problems with outsiders interpreting the Bible for a church, and I've already heard the arguments that the Bible isn't anti-gay either, should those people be interpreting the Bible for my church as well? These are the kinds of questions which Evangelical Christians are rightfully afraid will be asked if gay marraige is legalized nationwide.)

Of course, while some people make overdramatic, hyperbolic comparisons to the civil rights act (Sorry Governor Johnson, I like you, I'd vote for you if I could, but that was an absurd comparison) want to condemn all opposition to their lifestyle on moral or cultural grounds as "Bigotry", want special hate speech laws to protect them, exc. others are more than happy to be allowed to marry and live their own lives, and I understand why an opposition to gay marriage may hurt them, and I sympathize.

There are many issues that I say "Let the states decide BUT if I were in that state, I'd vote for (Insert x here.)

In this case, I frequently say "Let the states decide" and literally leave it at that. I'm just not interested in the issue anymore, I feel like there are far more important issues for our Federal government to be worrying about. As such, I would have personally signed DOMA even though I don't really like the first part of the law (I'd rather get the Federal government out of marriage altogether, or legalize gay unions rather than forbid any recognition.) But mostly, I just don't see any good reasons I should care, either to oppose it as my Evangelical culture and those creating it would like, or to support the LGBT agenda that is likely to indirectly hurt me once passed (The more radical parts of the movement would certainly like to see people like me silenced.)

So, why should I care about SSM? Why is it so important? And why should it affect in the slightest what candidates I vote for?

I welcome any logical, honest arguments, for EITHER side of the issue.

I would ask that noone flame my stance, call me bigoted, exc.

So, why should I care about SSM? Why is it so important? And why should it affect in the slightest what candidates I vote for?

Click to expand...

You've already made the decision that there's something wrong with gay people or their involuntary attraction to members of the same sex, and that it is the role of government to enforce your moral standards.

As such, there's no debating you on the issue. I can't get you to care or change your views. Only you can.

I can answer you this: If the government told you that you couldn't get married to the person you loved, it would become a very important issue for you.

And you'd think the rest of us were heartless and amoral for not standing up for your rights.

If you believe in equal protection under the law, there is nothing but a contrivance stopping you from recognizing gay marriage in equal measure to traditional marriage.

If you say "OK, so I think government should stay out of marriage," then whatever, more power to you. But you can't advocate separate institutions (civil unions as opposed to marriage, separate but equal being inherently unequal) with any level of seriousness if consistent protection of civil liberties is your goal as opposed to a strong-handed moral stance.

And removing the government from marriage is not a reasonable option. It's a pipe dream promoted by those who would rather sink the boat on marriage than see fags homosexuals also get married.

You've already made the decision that there's something wrong with gay people or their involuntary attraction to members of the same sex, and that it is the role of government to enforce your moral standards.

Click to expand...

I don't think there's anything wrong with gay people. I think there's something wrong with pursuing a homosexual relationship. That may be a nitpick, but its an important one, the former deals with something that could be compared to race in that it is completely outside the person's control while the latter is an activity that you can choose not to pursue (Whether you should make a choice not to do so or not being irrelevant.)

I can answer you this: If the government told you that you couldn't get married to the person you loved, it would become a very important issue for you.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting perspective, and it shows how both sides paint the debate.

Liberals paint the debate overwhelmingly as "Government is telling gay people they can't get married." Conservatives, on the other hand, paint it as "Government is protecting the definition of marriage" or "Government is not recognizing gay marriage as marriage."

Regarding the former, gay people should absolutely be allowed to get married. No gay person should be fined, jailed, or anything else because they have a marriage ceremony with a person of the same gender. And most conservatives agree on this. Thus, the real debate is whether the government should recognize same sex marriage, which I don't see as the same thing. And frankly, whether the term "Marriage" or "Civil union" is used really seems like an aesthetic question to me.

And you'd think the rest of us were heartless and amoral for not standing up for your rights.

Click to expand...

I can understand why you think that, even if I disagree with it.

If you believe in equal protection under the law, there is nothing but a contrivance stopping you from recognizing gay marriage in equal measure to traditional marriage.

Click to expand...

I guess my objection is that "Gay marriage simply isn't marriage." Its not the hill I'm dying on, on either side, but that is my view and so that is how I would vote if it came up in my state.

It has a LOT to do with how I was raised though, admittedly. I can't dodge that fact so I'm not going to try.

If you say "OK, so I think government should stay out of marriage," then whatever, more power to you. But you can't advocate separate institutions (civil unions as opposed to marriage, separate but equal being inherently unequal) with any level of seriousness if consistent protection of civil liberties is your goal as opposed to a strong-handed moral stance.

Click to expand...

I don't necessarily think nonrecognition of gay marriage is a "Strong handed" moral stance. A moral stance, yes, but "Strong handed?" If sodomy laws were still on the books I'd be more inclined to agree with you.

And removing the government from marriage is not a reasonable option. It's a pipe dream promoted by those who would rather sink the boat on marriage than see fags homosexuals also get married.

Click to expand...

Its more the fact that, here's the thing, if government is not doing something, it is by definition not doing it wrong either. If government is doing something, I'd rather them do it correctly.

GhostWriter16 said:

I've considered pro-choice arguments of course, but never really came anywhere near agreeing with them, as I have at times seriously considered the left-wing views on economics, foreign policy, gay marriage, drugs, guns, exc. And on some issues, I've ended up taking the left-wing position, or something appreciably different than the right wing position.

Click to expand...

Feel the power of the left side. Let the big government flow through you, it makes you strong. Soon, you will learn to call the regulatory, athiest, gay-marriaging, socialist, welfare state your master.

In all seriousness, join us, we have cookies.

GhostWriter16 said:

I personally think heterosexual sex outside of marriage, for better or worse, is a fair comparison to homosexual sex.

Click to expand...

If gays could get married, would their sex still be immoral?

GhostWriter16 said:

These are the kinds of questions which Evangelical Christians are rightfully afraid will be asked if gay marraige is legalized nationwide.

Click to expand...

Oh no, now we have to stop being douches to gay people. What ever will we do.

GhostWriter16 said:

But mostly, I just don't see any good reasons I should care, either to oppose it as my Evangelical culture and those creating it would like, or to support the LGBT agenda that is likely to indirectly hurt me once passed (The more radical parts of the movement would certainly like to see people like me silenced.)

Click to expand...

The "Gay/LGBT Agenda" is buzzword and it doesn't mean anything, aside from "We want the same rights as you guys"

I don't think there's anything wrong with gay people. I think there's something wrong with pursuing a homosexual relationship.

Click to expand...

l while the latter is an activity that you can choose not to pursue

Click to expand...

It's not a nitpick to point out that you are then demanding that all gay people remain celibate just so you don't have to think about sex that is outside of your norms.

It's incredibly self-centered, just like your long post wherein you basically stated, repeatedly, "why should I care? it doesn't affect me".

Man, I'm a very, very happy heterosexual, and never will I be anything else. But the fact that this doesn't affect me personally doesn't mean this isn't a moral outrage.

It's very similar to saying "I think that Jews shouldn't have sex". And tacitly supporting a position that "Jews can't get married". I mean who cares, if you're not Jewish? And after all, they could always choose to remain celibate. Heck, they can even have their own non-government-sanctioned ceremonies and pretend to be married. So what if they don't have the same rights as us?

We're not majority Jewish, so who cares? it only hurts Jews. So "why should I care? Why should it affect me? I was raised to believe that Jews aren't allowed to be married, so that's what I believe."

Convince me otherwise. Of course, I'm not persuadable, but try anyway. The fact that I won't change my mind means I win the debate.

Liberals paint the debate overwhelmingly as "Government is telling gay people they can't get married." Conservatives, on the other hand, paint it as "Government is protecting the definition of marriage" or "Government is not recognizing gay marriage as marriage."

Click to expand...

The definition of marriage will not change for straight people.

As such, the people who are living in a universe where words mean anything you need them to mean, are the folks who are painting this as "straight marriage" under attack.

NOTHING CHANGES FOR STRAIGHT PEOPLE.

The bottom line is that it's always about you. Why should YOU care. Why should YOU vote for this. "My" marriage is under attack, when it's not.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with you or your freedoms or your rights.

You're not supporting it because you have a religious viewpoint that is intolerant of gay people being equal to you in every sense. And because your politics are based on "what's in it for me" hence why you're libertarian.

It's the me first politics that says "don't tax me", "don't regulate me", "don't get involved unless it helps me in some way".

That's how you think and how you vote. The reason why this thread begins on the wrong foot is because you basically talk about yourself throughout your whole OP. It's about you.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with you or your choices or your freedoms and in the places where it's legal, it hasn't made any real impact on straight couples. There may be bureaucratic snafus which are related to government not always being a smoothly operating machine, but religious freedom and traditional marriage exist and are not under attack in places where gays can get married.

If you could stop thinking about yourself first for one moment, you'd understand why you should support gay marriage, because it's the right thing to do, in spite of what a self-centered, self-righteous, and self-important religious organization taught you.

GhostWriter16 said:

I would ask that noone flame my stance, call me bigoted, exc.

Click to expand...

If you don't want people to call you a bigot, stop being one.

Indeed. What is the "huge deal" with those who are opposed to both gay rights and abortion? They both are simply inconceivable to me.

And there is most definitely a libertarian position on both issues. Being opposed to gay marriage and abortion are both extremely authoritarian stances which are diametrically opposed to the liberty of the individual. They both are attempts to use the state to legislate morality from the distance past.

GhostWriter16 said:

If government is doing something, I'd rather them do it correctly.

Click to expand...

Right.

Just like how we changed things so that women could vote, and black people could be equal citizens under the law. And why we stopped burning witches and tossing them in lakes.

If we're going to have a government, I'd rather they do it correctly. If we're going to talk about equality, freedom, and justice under the law, then why not actually make it so?

Equality, freedom, and justice for all, not just religious people.

Impressive wall of text, gratz for the effort.

I'm hardly an avid spokesman for gay rights but I think that the question 'Should we legalize gay marriages' is a wrong one - it should be the other way around as 'Should we criminalize gay marriages' and the answer to that is no because there's no good arguments for it. It's also probably easier to accept as a result of the latter question and taking account of the current status the law should be changed in favour of gay marriages.

Marriage is a union of two persons which society approves and it should not be monopolized by churches, religions or whatever. Civil partnerships should also be called marriages regardless of where it took place.

G

On the marriage issue, I really just don't see why I should care.

Click to expand...

Great. It shouldn't bother you if gay people get married then.

GhostWriter16 said:

Truth be told, even though I think a homosexual lifestyle (Defined as being sexually or romantically involved with another person of the same sex, not being attracted to such a person which is outside your control) is immoral, I don't feel a need to demonize it like some people do.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you don't actually know any gay couples. A gay relation isn't much different from a non-gay relation - except that the people involved are attracted to people of the same sex. Well, that happens. It's just a fact of life. So basically, people "opposing" gays are incapable of dealing with certain facts of life. Nothing to do with morality.

Homosexuality happens. It's part of human nature.

Same with abortions. They happen, whether abortion is illegal or not. (Difference is, if abortion would be illegal, the procedure would be a greater hazard to the women involved, as proper medical procedure can't be guaranteed. As was the case prior to abortion legalization.)

I used to think gay marriage was immoral and sick and that it should not be legal. Then I grew up. I mean, there's not one logical argument against it. It makes people happy and harms nobody in any way, so why not? If you're going to outlaw it, you might as well outlaw mixed-race marriages (once, of course, you arrive at satisfactory legal definitions for the various alleged races).

And as for gay marriage's alleged threat to traditional marriage... Well, two can play that game. After all, in many cultures across time and space, "traditional" marriage has been between a man and a girl or young woman handed to him by her father after a dowry exchange or something like that. Girls often have little say in such marriages. Divorce is typically quite difficult, and the men have far more power and privilege. The idea that marriage should usually be mainly motivated by love is a relatively new one, and the widespread acceptance of the thought that men and women should be equal partners in marriage is newer still. Divorces are also now rather more commonplace. So if gay marriage is threatening "traditional marriage", it's awfully late to the party.

Phrossack said:

So if gay marriage is threatening "traditional marriage", it's awfully late to the party.

Click to expand...

Well, the Christian view of traditional family seems to be a mother, two fathers, few boys & a couple of girls who are not important enough to have names so I wouldn't put too much weight on the traditional values. If those values are threatened after centuries there's probably a valid cause.

G

A traditional value is only worth having if the value itself is worth having.

Hence the "traditional" part is meaningless. Considering gay people immoral and unequal is not a value worth keeping. Some traditions need to die.

What about those churches and Christians who don't think the modern "gay" culture is morally related to the sodomy condemned in the Bible? ( I've met them )

Is the government interpreting scripture for those Christians? This seems like it cannot be reconciled with libertarianism.

I predict that you'll come around on this soon. Consider that a compliment

GhostWriter16 said:

I'm honestly a lot more worried about other issues, and not explicitly because they are going to affect me. I will probably never be raped in an airport or indefinitely detained without cause or droned in a foreign country. Yet these issues have SERIOUS effects on other people, and are an example of the government actively destroying lives. Drugs are another one. I honestly have zero interest in using them, but it just seems wrong to me that the government would arrest someone, ruin their life, for using such a substance. It seems to me that if drugs were legal, they would be cheaper, which would reduce the suffering of the addict, even if he were never caught with them.

I also, of course, care about issues that are going to effect me. I'm likely going to pay into social security but never collect, unless, please, Paul Ryan's plan or something to the effect goes through and I'm not forced to pay into the ponzi scheme. I care about our foreign policy, both because I'm going to have to pay for it and because it ruins other people's lives. I care about the economy in general. Exc.

Click to expand...

I've only skimmed through the OP and I'm tired so I'll reserve the right to go back and post a more detailed response later. But this is what really caught my attention.

Marriage absolutely, positively, without a doubt, has a "serious effect" on people's lives, including homosexuals who want to get married. Marriage isn't just about having children--legally, there are tons of rights and agreements associated with it. Whether or not you file as married or single on your taxes, for example, or whether or not you have the right to visit your spouse if they are in an emergency room, how inheritance works if one partner dies, adoption, and so on. If two homosexuals are living together and are a family in all but name in their day-to-day business, something like hospital visitation can cause significant hardship for one partner trying to care for another.

And it's not like a gay person being able to visit and care for the other in the emergency room situation affects you. It's like the drugs example you posted--you don't want to be in a gay relationship, that's fine. But why should some silly government contrivance prevent a gay person from exercising the same visitation rights you would have with your future spouse?

EDIT: Basically, this is why I think you have the "equal rights" argument wrong. It's not about making homosexuality a moral equivalent to heterosexual marriage. It's about giving a gay household that functions the same as any other household the same legal rights as that household.

Ghostwriter16: Why should you care about gay marriage? Well, why should you care about marriage at all? If you don't care about gay marriage, you might as well ban marriage you know, because you don't care about marriage.

GhostWriter16 said:

There are only two political issues I've really ever seen addressed in church, abortion and gay marriage. Those were also, of course, considered the politicial views that any good Christian should hold, or at least was assumed.

Click to expand...

It's fine for you to hold your own views. But why should religious texts motivate decisions that affect everyone, not just people of that religion? Wouldn't it be better to base decisions on solid sociological and legal understanding, and only deny rights where it would be harmful to society as a whole? As someone who is increasingly libertarian, I'm sure you'd agree.

GhostWriter16 said:

I've never seen any contradiction between my ever increasingly libertarian principles and the pro-life view on the abortion question. Of course, my pro-life view came first, and the libertarian views followed. But I've still never really seen a serious disconnect. Ultimately, there is no libertarian position on abortion since abortion is a question of when life begins. I'm aware of some advanced critiques to this (Property rights, exc.) I'm not unwilling to address them, but not in this thread. Let me suffice to say that I have never personally seen a contradiction between the two (Pro-life views and libertarian views.) I've also always understood why this issue is so important to churches. And its the one view I've never seriously questioned. I've considered pro-choice arguments of course, but never really came anywhere near agreeing with them, as I have at times seriously considered the left-wing views on economics, foreign policy, gay marriage, drugs, guns, exc. And on some issues, I've ended up taking the left-wing position, or something appreciably different than the right wing position.

Click to expand...

What did this have to do with gay marriage?

GhostWriter16 said:

Anyway, gay marriage. Its kind of a crazy issue because I have to be perfectly honest, I just don't really care all that much about that issue.

Click to expand...

You seem to care an awful lot, you even made a thread to clarify your own thoughts on it. To me it seems more like you want to make your points, then retreat to "I just don't care" to nullify replies.

GhostWriter16 said:

Some have said "If I knew someone who was gay it would change my position." I don't want to get into personal details here, but suffice to say I have known such a person.

Click to expand...

You don't know them anymore? Did their sexuality play any role in drifting apart?

GhostWriter16 said:

I've grown up in a (Conservative, Evangelical, Republican) culture that is opposed to gay marriage. While I've grown more sympathetic to the gay marriage movement overtime, I've never really crossed the line to really supporting them.

Click to expand...

As a libertarian that just doesn't care, surely you would support individual rights?

GhostWriter16 said:

In fact, I'm probably more against it than for it, probably mostly due to cultural conditioning, but also simply because I'm uneasy about the government changing the definition of marriage (Admittedly, this really means they shouldn't be involved at all. I agree with you. However, they are so I feel like they need to do it right.)

Click to expand...

If anyone does change the definition of marriage it should be the government. It doesn't just affect Christians and it has a real legal and economical effect beyond wearing a snazzy gold ring. It's not the middle ages anymore and religion isn't forced on people. Neither should religious imperatives.

GhostWriter16 said:

I'm honestly a lot more worried about other issues, and not explicitly because they are going to affect me. I will probably never be raped in an airport or indefinitely detained without cause or droned in a foreign country. Yet these issues have SERIOUS effects on other people, and are an example of the government actively destroying lives.

Click to expand...

Alright, so torture by government is not acceptable but discrimination is? Would you like to clarify where the line for government mistreatment goes where you start caring?

GhostWriter16 said:

Drugs are another one. I honestly have zero interest in using them, but it just seems wrong to me that the government would arrest someone, ruin their life, for using such a substance. It seems to me that if drugs were legal, they would be cheaper, which would reduce the suffering of the addict, even if he were never caught with them.

Click to expand...

How did this relate to the thread?

GhostWriter16 said:

I also, of course, care about issues that are going to effect me. I'm likely going to pay into social security but never collect, unless, please, Paul Ryan's plan or something to the effect goes through and I'm not forced to pay into the ponzi scheme.

Click to expand...

I doubt people who have to rely on social security planned on it. I've done so before and it's a stressful, poorly existence. This is in Finland, where social responsibility is probably ten times better than over there.

Also, caring for your fellow man isn't a ponzi scheme. It's that whole 'compassion' thing which I think is also mentioned a couple of times in the bible. Correct me if I'm wrong though, I don't know it very well.

GhostWriter16 said:

I care about our foreign policy, both because I'm going to have to pay for it and because it ruins other people's lives. I care about the economy in general. Exc.

Click to expand...

Okay, neat.

GhostWriter16 said:

You might be thinking, "But why not gays?" Truth be told, even though I think a homosexual lifestyle (Defined as being sexually or romantically involved with another person of the same sex, not being attracted to such a person which is outside your control) is immoral, I don't feel a need to demonize it like some people do.

Click to expand...

I remember your outburst against Useless from before. I think that was pretty bad on the 'demonize' scale. But I'm sure you've changed your ways since then.

GhostWriter16 said:

Really, I know a lot of people on here like to compare it to random food or clothing regulations in the Old Testament (I'm not going to address why those don't apply In this thread since this thread is about gay marriage), while some conservative Evangelicals like to compare it to the sin of Sodom (Which wasn't homosexuality at all, but rape, extreme unhospitality, and not caring about the poor), or murder, or pedophilia, or other comparisons that don't make much sense.

Click to expand...

There's a certain distinction. The first one is pointing out severely outdated rules from a religious text used to justify inequality, the other is relying on vague interpretations of said text. In decision-making where religious creed should have little significance, I'm sure you can see which one might not belong.

GhostWriter16 said:

I personally think heterosexual sex outside of marriage, for better or worse, is a fair comparison to homosexual sex. The same types of people who find the former immoral usually find the latter immoral, its a similar degree of sin (Same exact type essentially) and I feel that it does the activity justice without comparing homosexuals to pedophiliacs or other unfair comparisons, it stands to reason that an action against a victim is "Worse.")

Click to expand...

If heterosexuality is about the same as homosexuality on the immoral scale, why do you oppose gay marriage again?

GhostWriter16 said:

With that being said, I would stand up for any homosexual who was bullied, abused, or denied employment for their sexual orientation. I believe homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military (In spite of my personal discomfort regarding it, the Pentagon doesn't think its a problem so continuing to discriminate with no reason or basis is simply unfair and prejudiced.) I believe in civil unions (Nobody should die alone in the hospital.)

Click to expand...

You think discrimination is bad because the government opposes it? What about saying earlier that government shouldn't weigh in?

GhostWriter16 said:

On the marriage issue, I really just don't see why I should care.

Click to expand...

You've been caring for a long time, and you just cared in a pretty lengthy OP. I doubt you've stopped caring after you pressed 'submit'.

GhostWriter16 said:

On the one hand, my Evangelical conditioning says I should be against it. After all, marriage is between a man and a woman.

Click to expand...

So, again, you're using a biblical definition to effect inequality on everyone regardless of faith.

GhostWriter16 said:

Now, I don't really care if the government has ANY involvement in marriage at all or not, but I consider them withdrawing involvement to be a far, far weaker attack on marriage than "Getting it wrong" so to speak. I'd rather the government not recognize marriage (Why should they anyway?) than to recognize it and get the definition wrong, Ie. promiting (Which is different than tolerating) an alternative lifestyle.

Click to expand...

Didn't you say earlier "simply because I'm uneasy about the government changing the definition of marriage"? That doesn't mix in well with you not caring. The government recognizes marriage because it grants tangible benefits. If the government dropped that entirely and only maintained civil unions, leaving marriage as a formality for churches, then this would be an intra-church issue (which would be optimal).

Granting equal rights is not positive segregation. Do you think repealing DADT means the Pentagon is promoting homosexuality?

GhostWriter16 said:

An "equal rights" perspective, on the other hand, would say I should be for it, regardless of the moral consequences, I should fight for the legal recognition of same sex marriages even if I fight at the same time for culture to not be accepting of those marriages.

Click to expand...

Being on the fence only works when it's not a thin veil for the side you actually picked.

GhostWriter16 said:

Ironically, the "Equal rights" argument is really why I don't like gay marriage. Had gay rights activists not overshot their cause, I might already be on their (Legal) side.

Click to expand...

I can come up with a lot of anti-equality activists that also overshot their cause. Including you.

GhostWriter16 said:

As it stands, most of the people I have seen who are against gay marriage (Yes, I am aware of the WBC, I'm not talking about them, nor am I talking about random conservative politicians. I'm talking about people I know in real life) are reasonable on the subject. Many, maybe most, would be willing to allow civil unions as a compromise. Many are scared of the "Slippery slope" which leads potentially to legalized incestuous or polygamous marriages (I've heard pedophilia used too, but that's intristically unfair since it has a clear victim, incest and polygamy arguably and at least in some circumstances don't and so are a fairly comparison.)

Click to expand...

Gay marriage is a union of two legally responsible adults with the right to decide on their own life. The difference to heterosexual marriage is nada. Though, it should be noted that the only real reason for incestuous/polygamous unions to be barred is that they are strong taboos. The people involved will still be consenting adults with legal right to control their own life, so the arguments against them are reduced to avoiding inbreeding, and biblical rules.

GhostWriter16 said:

Many are very worried that churches may eventually be made to marry gays (People were already talking about making them do interracial marriages on the grounds that there's not a valid Biblical prohibition on doing so, which I agree that their isn't but you can obviously see the problems with outsiders interpreting the Bible for a church, and I've already heard the arguments that the Bible isn't anti-gay either, should those people be interpreting the Bible for my church as well? These are the kinds of questions which Evangelical Christians are rightfully afraid will be asked if gay marraige is legalized nationwide.)

Click to expand...

Once again, once marriage does not confer tangible benefits but civil unions do, the churches will be free to bar whatever type of marriage they wish. This is about people having equal rights regardless of whether you share the same interpretation of the same badly-aged religious text.

GhostWriter16 said:

Of course, while some people make overdramatic, hyperbolic comparisons to the civil rights act (Sorry Governor Johnson, I like you, I'd vote for you if I could, but that was an absurd comparison) want to condemn all opposition to their lifestyle on moral or cultural grounds as "Bigotry", want special hate speech laws to protect them, exc. others are more than happy to be allowed to marry and live their own lives, and I understand why an opposition to gay marriage may hurt them, and I sympathize.

Click to expand...

big·ot·ry [big-uh-tree]
noun, plural big·ot·ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

GhostWriter16 said:

There are many issues that I say "Let the states decide BUT if I were in that state, I'd vote for (Insert x here.)

In this case, I frequently say "Let the states decide" and literally leave it at that. I'm just not interested in the issue anymore, I feel like there are far more important issues for our Federal government to be worrying about.

Click to expand...

Great, then we're agreed. a) stop posting about gay marriage. b) make civil unions grant the tangible benefits of marriage and let churches squabble over the formal marriage. You won't have to care and the government can stop maintaining inequality and focus on more important things.

GhostWriter16 said:

As such, I would have personally signed DOMA even though I don't really like the first part of the law (I'd rather get the Federal government out of marriage altogether, or legalize gay unions rather than forbid any recognition.) But mostly, I just don't see any good reasons I should care, either to oppose it as my Evangelical culture and those creating it would like, or to support the LGBT agenda that is likely to indirectly hurt me once passed (The more radical parts of the movement would certainly like to see people like me silenced.)

Click to expand...

lib·er·tar·i·an [lib-er-tair-ee-uh n]
noun
1. a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct.
2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will ( distinguished from necessitarian ).

There's why you should care, as if you didn't care already. Frankly the way you come across is that you're grabbing at straws to justify opposition of same-sex marriage while repeating incessantly that you "don't care" so your weak performance won't be debated against.

GhostWriter16 said:

So, why should I care about SSM? Why is it so important? And why should it affect in the slightest what candidates I vote for?

Click to expand...

Because it's denying a large segment of the population equal rights, based on religious text. It's important because it's 2012 and people still have to feel like second-class citizens for the way they are.

GhostWriter16 said:

I would ask that noone flame my stance, call me bigoted, exc.

Click to expand...

It's a bit too late after that OP you wrote to request such things.