Minneapolis - The New Gay! (buy, legally, versus)

[southernsmoke]

Originally Posted by snofarmer

It's funny to see when someone says gay that they assume it's only men, news flash there are just as many gay women.

How does it effect a strait couple if a gay couple gets married?

Just because you think or know it's wrong to be gay how does it change the fact that it does not effect you.

Being gay is not right for me but who am I to say what is right for you?

Are you so scared that if a gay person hit on you that you would not be able to say no?

Confusing the issue again. I'm not telling anybody they can't have gay sex. I'm saying that it is myopic and arrogant for people to go on about how gay marriage is a civil right and how anybody who questions that premise must be sleeping with farm animals (I'm looking at you, audadvc).

[Cruz Azul Guy]

Originally Posted by southernsmoke

... because government's primary interest is always letting people do whatever they want to do--which is why I am sure you advocate the eradication of all laws.

Why thank you for twisting my words, much appreciated. No, I do not advocate the eradication of all laws thank you very much.

But even so, your point confuses the issue. I am not suggesting criminalizing gay relationships. Marriage is a different thing entirely.

Where did I suggest that you were suggesting the criminalization of gay relationships? For me the use of the traditional definition of "marriage" isn't the issue, it is allowing gay people who are bound to life-long relationships and have families to the same rights that heterosexual families have. And yes, the decision of the state should have 0 bearing on how a few passages in the Christian bible have been interpreted.

[southernsmoke]

Originally Posted by Minnesota Spring

Mercury light bulbs may harm people. How does a gay couple getting married harm you?

If mercury light bulbs harm people (I don't necessarily disagree), then why are we being forced to buy mercury light bulbs instead of incandescent ones? How do incandescent ones harm you?

As for gay marriage... it harms the social institution of marriage. It disrupts the natural order. It confuses gender identity issues. It harms children. There is no logically defensible reason for redefining marriage to include the union of two men, but not to include polygamous marriages--so we are well on the way to just getting rid of "marriage" altogether (which some of you would go ahead and admit you think is a good idea, but others of you would probably shy away from).

[Laggard]

Originally Posted by southernsmoke

As for gay marriage... it harms the social institution of marriage.

Good god. Half of all straight marriages end in divorce. Half of the other half are cheating on the other half and half of that half are miserable.

Yes, two gay people who love each other getting married is really the most pressing threat to what is an extrememely healthy insitution.

[Laggard]

Originally Posted by southernsmoke

It confuses gender identity issues..

Afraid your mind can't deal with it?

[snofarmer]

Look at this way a gay couple buys a home and acquires assets. These assets may not be in both of their names.
If one should die they will not have the protection that marriage gives them.
What happens is the assets go to the next of kin and the person in the committed relationship gets nothing.

I think you have a lot to learn about how things work.

Your name calling is just showing your ignorant.
Again how does it effect you and your fetish.

Originally Posted by southernsmoke

Confusing the issue again. I'm not telling anybody they can't have gay sex. I'm saying that it is myopic and arrogant for people to go on about how gay marriage is a civil right and how anybody who questions that premise must be sleeping with farm animals (I'm looking at you, audadvc).

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by southernsmoke

As a preliminary note: characterizing my beliefs as "religious" does not delegitimize them any more than me characterizing yours as antireligious would delegitimize them.

Second, marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman. You want to try to redefine a pre-existing institution... and you are the one talking about destabilization? Marriage (between one man and one woman), aside from being the natural order of things, is also a stabilizing social force--and has been for a very long time.

And I take it that your position is that as long as the government makes no distinction between relationships between two men/three men/two women/two gals and a dude/etc., that private parties can go about doing as they please--i.e., not recognizing gay relationships. Can a wedding photographer choose to photograph only traditional weddings? Can a church refuse to hire a gay person? Can a business owner refuse to hire a gay person? Where are you trying to take this exactly?

What are you talking about? I wasn't "deligitimizing" your views, but since the only reason I've ever heard to ban gay marriage is based on religious beliefs, it's not a valid reason for the government to follow along. People are free to believe whatever they want, and churches are free to withhold marriages to whomever they want. The government, however, is different. Even those who disapprove of gay marriage should be able to understand that the government's approach to marriage is different than their church's approach to marriage. It's possible to disapprove of gay marriage and still be opposed to a state ban. If the only reason to ban gay marriage is because it goes against the religious views of some people, that's not a valid reason for the government to get involved. The theology belongs in the realm of religion, not in the realm of the public government. Churches CAN withhold sacraments from people -- that is not going to change even if gay marriage is legalized sometime down the road. And I have no problem with that. The government has no business telling people what they can and can't do in their religious life and beliefs, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others.

Discrimination in terms of businesses, etc., is a different issue than the government recognizing gay marriage.

And take a look at the history of marriage. I'm always shocked at how little the pro-ban crowd actually knows about the history of marriage. Our modern idea of marriage has very little to do with the historic practice. I don't think our modern society wants to go back to the older model. As a woman, I certainly don't. I do think that marriage itself can be a stabilizing force for a community, which is a big part of the reason I think that the relationships between two people of the same gender should be officially recognized by the government.

I think there are two elements of marriage here. There's the government-sanctioned marriage, and there's a religious-sanctioned marriage. Same word, two different things.

[snofarmer]

You make it sound like being gay is something new.

Why are you so worried that your kid might be gay?

there are all kinds of things your kids are exposed to, so do your job as a parent and be a parent and you will not have to worry if your kid sees or knows a gay person.

Why are you so threatened by it.

Marriage yet another thing the roman catholic church thinks they have control over. it's time to steep out of the stone age.

Originally Posted by southernsmoke

If mercury light bulbs harm people (I don't necessarily disagree), then why are we being forced to buy mercury light bulbs instead of incandescent ones? How do incandescent ones harm you?

As for gay marriage... it harms the social institution of marriage. It disrupts the natural order. It confuses gender identity issues. It harms children. There is no logically defensible reason for redefining marriage to include the union of two men, but not to include polygamous marriages--so we are well on the way to just getting rid of "marriage" altogether (which some of you would go ahead and admit you think is a good idea, but others of you would probably shy away from).

[southernsmoke]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

It's possible to disapprove of gay marriage and still be opposed to a state ban. If the only reason to ban gay marriage is because it goes against the religious views of some people, that's not a valid reason for the government to get involved.

As for the first sentence, yes it is possible. But it's not the required position to take.

As for the second sentence, I guess I kind of disagree (although it is sort of a semantic disagreement)--and I know that is going to be unpopular in this audience, but hear me out. In a democratic republic like ours, people should get to have a say in a lot of policy decisions. People's worldviews impact the way they vote. Religion is a big part of one's worldview. In a sense, it is kind of just a convenient argument for the antireligious people of the world to say that people should not allow their religious convictions to influence how they participate in society. But how is antireligion any less "religious" than religion? And how is the light bulb thing, for instance, any less moralizing than the gay marriage issue?

[southernsmoke]

Originally Posted by snofarmer

Look at this way a gay couple buys a home and acquires assets. These assets may not be in both of their names.
If one should die they will not have the protection that marriage gives them.
What happens is the assets go to the next of kin and the person in the committed relationship gets nothing.

I think you have a lot to learn about how things work.

Your name calling is just showing your ignorant.
Again how does it effect you and your fetish.

I know "how things work." If you want somebody to get your house when you die, it is really not that hard to do. Maybe you have a lot to learn.

I am not sure what "name calling" you are referring to.

Unless your posts get a little more serious and less condescending, I'm done responding to you.