Hopefully Something We Can All Agree On

[Jmarjhah]

The gay marriage issue is quite a divisive one: either you you are for or against, there isn't much middle ground there.

Although I do stand firmly on one side of the issue, I see both sides have valid points:
The opposed say, " If you give it to gays, then you have to give it to polygamists and everyone else too."
But the for say, "Gay people have been bullied their entire lives, they deserve parity, they aren't different from everyone else."

However, hopefully here is something we can all agree on: discrimination against gay people is not ok.
For example, today "gay" is not a word used just to designate sexual preference, it is a derogatory word that takes the place of normal negative words like bad and stupid. Lawrence King, for example, was a secondary school student shot just for being gay. Now, I think we can all agree that conduct such as this is unacceptable. Regardless of your stance on gay marriage, you have to see that if you're gay and you're a kid, you're going to have a rough time. It's just the bottom line. I hope we can all join in condemning the bullying of homosexuals .

[Iwerddon]

with a word like "discriminate" it all depends on context. Should they be shot or bullied? nah. Should they be allowed to force their way into being accepted into any/every religion based on "it's not fair"? nah. Should we discriminate against gay people where marriage is concerned? Go to the other thread =P

[Shelter From The Storm]

Dec 5, 2008 20:17:58 GMT -5 Jmarjhah said:

The opposed say, " If you give it to gays, then you have to give it to polygamists and everyone else too."

I have what I hope is not a stupid question. While I am married to only one woman, and have no desire to expand the relationship, why shouldn't we allow polygamy? As long as all the participants are adults and consenting, where is the harm? Who are we to define what 'family' means to anyone else?

[Anime Daisuki]

Because it does more harm than good to society.

There will be more crimes arising from passion, and the courts will hear greater disputes on things like inheritance, child abandonment, etc. There is basically no benefit to society because we are no longer in an agricultural or feudal age where you need lots of children to farm or defend the land.

[Estayland]

I would not hire a "flaming" gay person. I don't want to hire someone who is unprofessional about their sexuality. I also will not hire a babysitter that is gay for the safety of my baby. I also don't think gays should adopt because I believe a child needs a father and a mother.

However, if you go to say "bullying" that's something different. But to continue, I don't think that should be "hate crime" level. Actually, I don't like the idea of "hate crime" in any context... because what crime is done out of love?

Yet, it's the homosexuals who are doing the bullying right now because of Prop 8. They are the ones who are bullying Christians. Where is the condemnation of that?

[Iwerddon]

Dec 6, 2008 16:35:46 GMT -5 Estayland said:

Yet, it's the homosexuals who are doing the bullying right now because of Prop 8. They are the ones who are bullying Christians. Where is the condemnation of that?

Good point. They are running around where I live acting like jack asses.

[TheSensitiveNewAge]

I think we need to do a slight overhaul of marriage law in this country. How about to married in the eyes of the state, only a judge, mayor, etc can be the only person officiating. If you go to a minister, priest, etc you are married in the eyese of your fellow believers and God but not the eyes of the state. To be married in both cases you need two services, after all, religion and the state are supposed to be separate.

In any case, allowing judges to oversee the marriage of two people of the same sex, how is that bullying any religions group? Said religious group can recognize the service or not based on its beliefs, it's not as if Catholic priests now have to conduct services for two guys to get married because Massachusetts says so.

[Shanks Bend]

why shouldn't we allow polygamy? As long as all the participants are adults and consenting, where is the harm? Who are we to define what 'family' means to anyone else?

Because any man stupid enough to want to be married to more than one woman isn't sane enough to make a rational decision, and therefor cannot consent. What person in their right mind would want an additional honey-do list, and more in-laws?

[Estayland]

Why a man wants a wife is a mystery to some.

Why a man wants more than one wife is a "bigamystery".

allowing judges to oversee the marriage of two people of the same sex, how is that bullying any religions group?

TSNA: Have you not heard about the things these gay protestors are doing to churches around the nation?

[Iwerddon]

Dec 8, 2008 11:00:01 GMT -5 TheSensitiveNewAge said:

I think we need to do a slight overhaul of marriage law in this country. How about to married in the eyes of the state, only a judge, mayor, etc can be the only person officiating. If you go to a minister, priest, etc you are married in the eyese of your fellow believers and God but not the eyes of the state. To be married in both cases you need two services, after all, religion and the state are supposed to be separate.

Isn't it already that way??? I am married by the state, and by my church. I can get a divorce from one w/o getting a divorce from the other. they are seperate. Some churches may just recognize a state marriage as their church marriage... but that's their choice.

In any case, allowing judges to oversee the marriage of two people of the same sex, how is that bullying any religions group?

Like shooting out windows around where I live and physically bullying and intimidating anyone who opposes them? Like... little old ladies holding signs? But thats 'enlightenment' for you. When the left loses anything they flip out and rampage.

[TheSensitiveNewAge]

I didn't hear about the vandalism of churches. That's different from just trying to get equal legal rights. Yeah, that's crap.

Not to condone the attacks on churches or those who voted against Prop 8, but I 'm not sure any church had the right to organize against Prop 8. Even if you feel homosexuality is a sin, it' not as if people are forcing others to be gay. Though not justifying the attacks, I can see where the violence might come from.

[Estayland]

So what does the church have the right to organize against? Why is this not protected under the first amendment? Why can't a church organize but any other organization can?

[Shanks Bend]

Dec 9, 2008 13:47:10 GMT -5 TheSensitiveNewAge said:

Though not justifying the attacks, I can see where the violence might come from.

Could you then understand the attacks on gays from non-gays? Not condoning it, of course.

If you can see where the violence might come from one direction, then you should be able to see it the other way, too.

The churches made their voices heard in a non-violent way. They have their beliefs and every right to them. The physical attacks against the churches are not going to win any support for the gay's position. It may, in fact, lead to violence against them by those trying to defend their beliefs.

[TheSensitiveNewAge]

I would say a church has a right to organize against things that harms innocents, e.g. Jim Crow laws, not the matters that people choose for themselves. I'm pro-choice but I understand why some religious groups are organizing against abortion (provided you believe a fetus is a human). As for the basis of religion-based political involvement, the problem is a religion's followers are approaching things from a combination of faith and/or tradition, and those are not help by all people. (Granted, debates on ethics tend to boil down to humans have a "certain dignity" or some such, but it provides a broader framework to work within.)

As for people attacking gays, I always figured it came from fear, but I don't understand the source of the fear. So two guys are making out down the block, how can that hurt me? Of my family? Data a pedophiles says the most common perpetrators are heterosexual men (and I think they are more likely to be white than not).

[Shelter From The Storm]

I think a church should have the same rights as any other organization, including the right to pay its fair share of taxes. Especially that right.

[Twobagger]

Dec 11, 2008 0:15:37 GMT -5 Shelter From The Storm said:

I think a church should have the same rights as any other organization, including the right to pay its fair share of taxes. Especially that right.

Many churches use the money they get to fund charity operations. The church itself usually exists not to make a profit (although the people running it usually get paid), but to help those around them in some way.
So, what's the fair share of taxes for a non-profit charitable organization?

[Estayland]

AaronMoshe... you have no idea how many organizations are tax exempt. Churches are prohibited from certain political activity, but other non-profits are able to.

Did you know the NFL is a non-profit? §501(c)(6) Business leagues, chambers of commerce, real-estate boards, boards of trade, or professional football leagues (whether or not administering a pension fund for football players), not organized for profit and no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.

Have you heard of REITS? What about fraternities and sororities? Credit unions?

Don't argue with a tax man about taxes.

[Shelter From The Storm]

I would never argue about taxes with a tax man. The NFL doesn't pay taxes? Outrageous!

[TheSensitiveNewAge]

Whoa, um, Estay is there some list of non-profits? Hopefully with their (at least supposed) justifications?

[Estayland]

TSNA: Sure. Check out Internal Revenue Code Sections 501-530. As far as justifications... because some lobbyist wanted it lol.

[Shelter From The Storm]

I'm so glad that there was something we could all agree on! :-)