Open letter to Bush on Church and State

[Arondale]

MichFan, I disagree.  If it is in fact 70%, which I doubt, but I'm sure you or others will jump to provide a link, it won't be 70% for long.

 

You know why it won't be 70% for long?  Ignorance and bigotry are dying off.  The more people that actually meet, work, interact, call as friends gay Americans, the more the stigma will dissappear.  You may not dig the lifestyle, but there is no real reason to discriminate against it by law.

121096[/snapback]

 

I don't know about 70%, but last I heard there were at least 38 states that passed gay marriage amendments, many by wide margins. Two that I remember - I know Louisiana passed their amendment by almost 80% and Ohio passed one in this past election by around 60%. It is very hard to ignore those numbers and when amendments are passed that is an indication that this is an important issue, not just some passing trend that will fade in a few years. People are taking it very seriously and the facts show much of the country is against gay marriage.

 

Just because I do not condone homosexuality and I am against gay marriage, that does not prove ignorancy or bigotry. My next door neighbors are gay and we are very good friends with both of them. My wife's best friend from college is gay. All three of these individuals know full well where my wife and I stand, but come over and ask any of these people if I am a bigot or KzooMike and I think they will tell you quite the opposite.

[JoeFerguson]

If you are in favor of gay marriage then you are liberal on the issue.  Stop ducking the label and wear it with honor.  I'd gladly accept being called conservative on the issue and wouldn't take offense to it.  I really didn't care to debate you on the point you were making.  Your post accused two conservatives of selectivity applying  biblical values as it suits their agenda.  It's a ridiculous argument.  Neither was suggesting that homosexuality should be illegal based on biblical grounds.  The post from Arondale you quoted from had nothing to do with him using the bible to prove homosexuality was wrong, it was in response to his perception that others were improperly using verses from the bible.  Just because people have religion doesn't mean they necessarily force their religion on others.  You were accusing them of exactly that.  It was wrong.

121078[/snapback]

 

First of all, one can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I always interpretted the 'lib' label as an all encompassing ideological label. If I am in favor of gay marriage, why can't you just label me as a "Gay Marriage Supporter" as opposed to a "liberal". It would be a lot more descriptive. AD brings up a good point by saying why even label people? I wasn't offended by the "liberal" label, I was just pointing out that by using it as an insult it greatly decreases your clout as a debater. Name calling doesn't win arguments or sway opinions, it only pleases people that already agree with you. Obviously these labels are generalizations anyway.

 

Now, as far as my "ridiculous" post goes, once again you have not read all of the posts in this thread. Although the post I quoted Arondale on was not dealing with the issue of gay marriage directly, this post actually does:

 

Just a question for everyone arguing for gay marriage.  Where does morality come into play in all of this?

 

I can give everyone all the reasons why I am against gay marriage, but the foundational reason is based in my faith.  As a Christian, I believe homosexuality is morally wrong.  I believe it is a choice and nothing more.  So even before considering gay marriage, I believe homosexuals are sinning in their lifestyle.  That being the case, there is no way I can condone these people continuing in their lifestyle, let alone being granted equality in marriage.

 

My question is basically meant to ask whether you believe in moral absolutes.  Homosexuality has always existed, but it has not always been so widely accepted in society, yet several have posted that because society accepts it that is the very reason why it should be allowed.  Others have argued that if it doesn't personally affect me then it should not be an issue.  The thing missing in these arguments and others similar to them is any reference to morality. 

 

118828[/snapback]

 

I believe the key words in this post are: "As a Christian, I believe homosexuality is morally wrong." Although this quote does not specifically mention the Bible, I think Arondale would happily agree that as a Chrisitan, his opposition to homosexuality comes directly from the Bible. I really didn't think he was forcing his views on me, he was just telling them to me. I was just giving him the reasons why I disagree with those views.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I don't know about 70%, but last I heard there were at least 38 states that passed gay marriage amendments, many by wide margins.  Two that I remember - I know Louisiana passed their amendment by almost 80% and Ohio passed one in this past election by around 60%.  It is very hard to ignore those numbers and when amendments are passed that is an indication that this is an important issue, not just some passing trend that will fade in a few years.  People are taking it very seriously and the facts show much of the country is against gay marriage.

 

Just because I do not condone homosexuality and I am against gay marriage, that does not prove ignorancy or bigotry.  My next door neighbors are gay and we are very good friends with both of them.  My wife's best friend from college is gay.  All three of these individuals know full well where my wife and I stand, but come over and ask any of these people if I am a bigot or KzooMike and I think they will tell you quite the opposite.

121111[/snapback]

 

 

Do you feel superior to these people? Or do yo feel you are equal?

[Johnny Coli]

Just because I do not condone homosexuality and I am against gay marriage, that does not prove ignorancy or bigotry.  My next door neighbors are gay and we are very good friends with both of them.  My wife's best friend from college is gay.  All three of these individuals know full well where my wife and I stand, but come over and ask any of these people if I am a bigot or KzooMike and I think they will tell you quite the opposite.

121111[/snapback]

Then why do you care if they call it a "marriage" or a civil union?

[ExiledInIllinois]

Then why do you care if they call it a "marriage" or a civil union?

121117[/snapback]

 

I am not speaking for the guy... I have a feeling it validates his relationship? I just don't understand this.

[Arondale]

Do you feel superior to these people?  Or do yo feel you are equal?

121115[/snapback]

 

I don't feel superior to any of them. They are all very close friends of my wife and myself.

 

My wife's roomate did not "realize" she was gay until a few years ago and we were some of the last people she told because she mistakenly thought we would somehow disown her or end our friendship. We simply told her that we do not agree with her lifestyle, but that does not in any way mean we suddenly hate her.

 

Let me give a simple analogy. If my brother or someone close in my family committed adultery, I would certainly speak out against the act and make my position clear, but the relationship that was there would not change. This may be slightly off as an example since adultery can be very difficult to deal with, but I think you get the picture.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I don't feel superior to any of them.  They are all very close friends of my wife and myself.

 

My wife's roomate did not "realize" she was gay until a few years ago and we were some of the last people she told because she mistakenly thought we would somehow disown her or end our friendship.  We simply told her that we do not agree with her lifestyle, but that does not in any way mean we suddenly hate her.

 

Let me give a simple analogy.  If my brother or someone close in my family committed adultery, I would certainly speak out against the act and make my position clear, but the relationship that was there would not change.  This may be slightly off as an example since adultery can be very difficult to deal with, but I think you get the picture.

121126[/snapback]

 

 

I do.

 

Then why does there need to be laws governing what marriage means? By what you said, it really wouldn't bother you if two gay people were married? It is just a word?

 

Why the limits?

 

Do you try and change them?

[Arondale]

Then why do you care if they call it a "marriage" or a civil union?

 

I am not speaking for the guy... I have a feeling it validates his relationship?  I just don't understand this.

121124[/snapback]

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "it validates his relationship".

 

To be honest, I don't want it called a marriage or a civil union. I believe civil unions are wrong as well.

 

J.C., you have stated in a past post that as long as society agrees with something then you are fine with it and will fight for the corresponding rights. That is moral relativism at its best and it is very dangerous. Do you have no moral standards that you consider sacred?

 

I do not believe we can go around changing moral values based on what society thinks is okay. A lot of this you guys just won't agree with or even understand so I'm not going to go too in depth. Basically, my faith as a Christian leads me to believe that God did not just create the world and all of its detail, but He also created man and then set forth morals to live by. Just as in creation there are absolute, physical laws of nature (gravity, etc.), I believe there are also absolute moral laws. You can't violate the physical laws without consequences (try jumping off a cliff) and you can't violate the moral laws without consequences. This gets into an entirely new subject, so I'll just leave it at that.

 

That is where I am coming from - feel free to ask questions.

 

I believe marriage is given to man to be between a man and woman. I believe homosexuality is a sin and gay marriage is wrong, so I will fight against it. It is not an issue of validating my relationship or being a bigot. I won't compromise moral values just because society is pressuring me. Again, it comes down to an issue of morals - I posted in more detail on this in a previous post.

[ExiledInIllinois]

That is where I am coming from - feel free to ask questions. 

 

I believe marriage is given to man to be between a man and woman.  I believe homosexuality is a sin and gay marriage is wrong, so I will fight against it.  It is not an issue of validating my relationship or being a bigot.  I won't compromise moral values just because society is pressuring me.  Again, it comes down to an issue of morals - I posted in more detail on this in a previous post.

121140[/snapback]

 

Do you fight against your neighbors? By not, are you compromising your moral values? Given your views, how can you co-exist?

 

What are the consequences?

 

Have you suffered any adverse life consequences that determine your position?

[Arondale]

Do you fight against your neighbors?  By not, are you compromising your moral values?  Given your views, how can you co-exist?

 

What are the consequences?

 

Have you suffered any adverse life consequences that determine your position?

121153[/snapback]

 

Why does it compromise my moral values if I don't fight against my neighbors? Why can't we co-exist? Just because I believe their lifestyle is wrong does not mean I should hate them. It doesn't mean we can't talk to each other and be friends. When you disagree with someone on something, do you stop talking to them and fight with them? In fact, my wife and I try to keep an open dialogue about their gay lifestyle so perhaps we can share our views more in depth - if we fight with them and refuse to co-exist with them then that opportunity would be wasted.

 

The consequences are as I just stated. We are all good friends. They know where we stand on the issue and we are always looking for opportunities to talk to them if they are willing. Otherwise, it is the same as any other friendship I have.

 

What does what happened in my life have anything to do with the subject? I have lived a very blessed life, with very little problems. I don't know if you are trying to find some reason why I am against gay marriage or if you are trying to find a reason why I believe in God, but you aren't going to find any hidden secrets or anything. What exactly are you getting at?

[MichFan]

First of all, one can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  I always interpretted the 'lib' label as an all encompassing ideological label.  If I am in favor of gay marriage, why can't you just label me as a "Gay Marriage Supporter" as opposed to a "liberal".  It would be a lot more descriptive.  AD brings up a good point by saying why even label people?  I wasn't offended by the "liberal" label, I was just pointing out that by using it as an insult it greatly decreases your clout as a debater.  Name calling doesn't win arguments or sway opinions, it only pleases people that already agree with you.  Obviously these labels are generalizations anyway. 

121114[/snapback]

I use the word "lib" to describe being on the left side of an issue. I don't use it as an insult, but others obviously take it that way. The problem with being on the left side of an issue is that all too often there is no substantive case to support the position. The best I can tell from this thread, gay marriage should be allowed because it isn't hurting anyone, it involves consenting adults, and gays are becoming more socially acceptable. Not a very compelling argument for changing something that has been fundamental to our society for hundreds of years. If that is the new standard for setting public policy, I don't think you'll like the results when fully employed by other niche constituencies. In your case, your "more skillful" debating techniques have offered no red meat as to why gay marriage should be legalized, rather you have critiqued others who actually offer grounds for their position on why their methodology is not appropriate.

 

With regards to the second quote from Arondale -- if being a Christian means whatever you say is rooted in the bible, then you really must not like the writings of our founding fathers.

[MichFan]

Michfan...please look at the definition of sodomy...how much oral sex do you think goes on in the homes of Americans....i have read that in middle schools around this country young girls compete to see who can give the most oral sex.. Homosexual anal sex is not the only form of sodomy....sdrry it runs rampant in hetersexual households...sodomy laws..thats a laugh...sodomy is NOT used as a form of abuse in heterosexuals...

There are multiple forms of the definition of sodomy. Some include any form of unnatural intercourse, some are specific to anal sex be it humans or animals. I think I have been specific enough in my postings to make it clear I am talking about the latter form of the definition. You are fooling yourself if you think that all men who sodomize women do it out of great loving respect for their partner, and that their "willing" women partners like it. Don't you think a man pressuring a woman for anal sex when she is menstrating just to get his rocks off is abusive, regardless of the context?

[JoeFerguson]

I use the word "lib" to describe being on the left side of an issue.  I don't use it as an insult, but others obviously take it that way.  The problem with being on the left side of an issue is that all too often there is no substantive case to support the position.  The best I can tell from this thread, gay marriage should be allowed because it isn't hurting anyone, it involves consenting adults, and gays are becoming more socially acceptable.  Not a very compelling argument for changing something that has been fundamental to our society for hundreds of years.  If that is the new standard for setting public policy, I don't think you'll like the results when fully employed by other niche constituencies.  In your case, your "more skillful" debating techniques have offered no red meat as to why gay marriage should be legalized, rather you have critiqued others who actually offer grounds for their position on why their methodology is not appropriate.

 

With regards to the second quote from Arondale -- if being a Christian means whatever you say is rooted in the bible, then you really must not like the writings of our founding fathers.

121346[/snapback]

 

If you are not using 'lib' as an insult, then why did you use the term 'stupid lib' in this quote?

 

Because when it comes to liberal positions it implies something deeper.  Come on, AD, you took me to the ropes over my opinion on assault guns and I admitted I was a stupid lib on that position.  If I can accept the label when it suits me surely I should be able to use it with others.

121090[/snapback]

[RuntheDamnBall]

I do not believe we can go around changing moral values based on what society thinks is okay.

121140[/snapback]

People in this country used to:

- morally rationalize owning slaves

- morally rationalize the wrongness of interracial coupling and marriage

- morally rationalize that women had no right to participate in our democracy

 

They don't anymore. Society thinks differently now. I'm sure you would not have drawn the line at any of these.

 

The Bible was written by men, translated to your language by men, books were selected and rejected for inclusion in it by men, and you as a person are interpreting it the way you wish.

 

Prove to me there is no subjectivity going on in this process and I will agree with you that morals are ironclad and unchanging.

[MichFan]

If you are not using 'lib' as an insult, then why did you use the term 'stupid lib' in this quote?

Oooooh, you really got me on that one. I referred to myself as a stupid lib on the issue of assualt gun bans. Seems to me "stupid" is the insulting part, and I used it in regards to myself. You and your superior debating skills . Too bad you weren't around for the debate I was referring to when AD and others systematically hauled me out behind the woodshed and made me feel pretty stupid for supporting limitations on assualt weapons. But certainly you know better than I the context in which I use the word. Maybe you can intepret next what I would mean if I called someone a Democrat? A Republican? A Libertarian? A Conservative? Can't wait to learn more about my dark inner thoughts.

 

If you're so concerned about the tone of words used in this discussion, why don't you focus your energy on those who are really throwing out accusations such as those calling people bigots? Typical lib, I guess (hmmm, whose definition of the word was meant by that statement ).

 

BTW -- you're not really making any case for why gay marriage should be legalized. That's what this thread is about, isn't it?

[MichFan]

People in this country used to:

- morally rationalize owning slaves

- morally rationalize the wrongness of interracial coupling and marriage

- morally rationalize that women had no right to participate in our democracy

You have every right to place gay's access to marriage on the same level as these issues. Most people, including a majority of those in each of the demographics you cited, disagree and are offended by the reference. I wasn't aware that there were ever laws that prohibited interracial couples from marrying, thanks for the knowledge.

[RuntheDamnBall]

You have every right to place gay's access to marriage on the same level as these issues.  Most people, including a majority of those in each of the demographics you cited, disagree and are offended by the reference.  I wasn't aware that there were ever laws that prohibited interracial couples from marrying, thanks for the knowledge.

121503[/snapback]

I hope you're not trying to be sarcastic (and if you aren't, please accept my apologies).

 

Interracial couples throughout history

 

Loving Decision, Supreme Court 1967

 

In any case, I'm not "lumping" these in. These are good examples of morals in our society changing, to challenge Arondale -- that was my only point.

[GG]

I wasn't aware that there were ever laws that prohibited interracial couples from marrying, thanks for the knowledge.

121503[/snapback]

 

I believe the law is still on the books in Alabama. I could be wrong.

[MichFan]

I hope you're not trying to be sarcastic (and if you aren't, please accept my apologies).

No sarcasm and no apologies needed. I seriously didn't know that there were such laws.

 

These are good examples of morals in our society changing

I agree, I just don't equate gay marriage with those issues.

[Campy]

The best I can tell from this thread, gay marriage should be allowed because it isn't hurting anyone, it involves consenting adults, and gays are becoming more socially acceptable.  Not a very compelling argument for changing something that has been fundamental to our society for hundreds of years. 

121346[/snapback]

 

You must have missed an awful lot of posts.

 

Gay marriage should be allowed because homosexuals are a recognized minority group (hence their inclusion in hate-crime legislation), and therefore should be afforded all of the rights and privildges of heterosexual people. Period, end of debate.

 

You don't have to agree, that's OK. There were plenty of people who agreed with a judge's ruling that God put blacks, whites, and Asians on seperate continents, and had man not intervened, the races would never have co-mingled. Since man interfered with God's master plan, he decided to right the wrong by making inter-racial marriages illegal in Virginia - in 1967!

 

All of the arguments I've seen against gay marriage are eerily familiar to that court decision. It's really not a case of whether or not inter-racial relationships OR homosexuality is "hurting anyone" or that society has become more tolerant of inter-racial relationships OR homosexuality. It is a case of discrimination against a specific group of fellow citizens, and that simply should not be acceptable to any American.