>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Being someones brother isn't a legal status first, nor is marriage. How the law deals with peoples relationships will, of course, be defined someway. The problem is, because the law has decided to be first in relationships instead of second, the law is denying contacts between people. A man and 20 women decide to entire into a relationship of sorts. The government will not allow this contact because it has decided to play the moral authority on enforcing certain contracts.
I mostly agree with what you are saying, don't get me wrong. I, too, would like to see "marriage" as just an agreement between people recognized by the state...but it isn't such. Right now, the state defines what marriage can be, and who can and can't enter into that relationship instead of people making that choice for themselves. The point is, gay people cannot enjoy the same legal status as heterosexuals, the law is denied to them. Gay people can, indeed, enjoy each other as per anyone can...but can't see their loved on in certain hospitals because they, in fact, are not equal under the law.
So marriage is kind of both, in a sense, still private and public. Someone can SAY they are married, they just might not get all the protections afforded other people because the state does regulate it. My problem is that the STATE has defined the rules as to what marriage can and will be, not individuals. The state will not recognize the love I share with my mouse pad. The state on such matters has to have the last word, of course, my problem is they also have the first word.
(btw, I am confused by the statement not personal AND no private, certainly it has to be one, or both...and certainly, it has to be one first.)


I think we both have the same basic idea about how this should ultimately be handled. But since the devil is in the detail, I'll still nitpick a bit. I still say that the state needs to have some control over how they define marriage, and that it can't be a private matter because of the benefits afforded to married couples. I do think the government should recognize "non-standard" family units, and should allow you to assign visitation rights / tax benefits / property sharing / etc. as you see fit for the most part.

However, there are limits. Marrying your mousepad, for example, is right out. Even if you have an undying love for your mousepad, it can't consent (being inanimate), so that's a problem right there. A mousepad doesn't pay taxes, so there's no reason to give it tax benefits. And if you divorce it later on, does it get half of your possessions? Who would represent it in divorce court? No, I would say someone marrying their mousepad is trying to game the system by getting married tax benefits while still single.

You seem to imply that the state shouldn't recognize the marriage between yourself and your mousepad, but that they shouldn't define what marraige is... I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making.

(You are correct regarding the personal / private thing -- I misspoke. It is personal, but isn't private.)

>> ^KnivesOut:

QM, do you actually stop beating off while online?>> ^quantumushroom:
What's the cutoff? Republicans are less than 18% of the population. Can we take away some of their rights?
I assume you support taxing people that make more money at a higher rate, punishing their success in the name of a "fair share" which is then distributed unfairly and wastefully, don't you? I assume you support preventing people in high crime areas from owning firearms, infringing on their right to self-defense with the best possible tools?

What it comes down to is gays and lesbians aren't hurting anyone by their nature.
Then do you support polygamy?



Fixed it for ya!

QM, when did you stop beating your wife?>> ^quantumushroom:

What's the cutoff? Republicans are less than 18% of the population. Can we take away some of their rights?
I assume you support taxing people that make more money at a higher rate, punishing their success in the name of a "fair share" which is then distributed unfairly and wastefully, don't you? I assume you support preventing people in high crime areas from owning firearms, infringing on their right to self-defense with the best possible tools?

What it comes down to is gays and lesbians aren't hurting anyone by their nature.
Then do you support polygamy?

>> ^bareboards2:

I capisce. I just don't agree.
Look, you have to talk to folks in ways they will hear.
<oddly manipulative text>You arguing about this completely proves my point.</oddly manipulative text>
You are arguing that there is a perfect way to discuss this. Because of your mindset.
I absolutely agree with you about the reason why government should stay out of bedrooms and houses. But I can also see, very clearly, that this argument will hold no water with religious types. Why can't you?
Which proves my point that religious people need to hear it in their language.
I would also caution about you believing the lawmaker "implied" god's wants this. That is NOT what he said. In fact, I would be surprised if he is religious at all.
<patronizing>Might I suggest that you listen to the vid again?</patronizing> He chose his words very carefully. He is looking to change deep held beliefs -- all that stuff about "think about it later", he wants these folks to be reflective within their own logic system and he understands, as you clearly do not, that letting go of a long held belief system is hard.
<oddly manipulative text> You can prove me wrong by agreeing with me now. Or you can continue to prove my point by repeating endless variations on how this should only be discussed through the prism of government interference.</oddly manipulative text>

I see, it's simple! In your view:

1> make concessions to undeserving benefactors, legitimizing their craziness.
2> win(?; see below) the battle but loose the war
3> Profit!

We can win the this battle and win the war. This vid is fine to represent solely a religious view of this issue, but the correct way to attack this issue and assert the integrity of government is to keep them out of our pants as a principal.

And to the point, and this argument didn't work in one of the more liberal states in the nation. Not one repub was swayed. I guess the water spilled eh?

>> ^quantumushroom:

What's the cutoff? Republicans are less than 18% of the population. Can we take away some of their rights?
I assume you support taxing people that make more money at a higher rate, punishing their success in the name of a "fair share" which is then distributed unfairly and wastefully, don't you? I assume you support preventing people in high crime areas from owning firearms, infringing on their right to self-defense with the best possible tools?

What it comes down to is gays and lesbians aren't hurting anyone by their nature.
Then do you support polygamy?


I assume you are afraid of the president because he's black. And that you think Jews are the cause of society's problems.

Don't you in fact believe that rape victims were asking for it?

>> ^davidraine:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Nahhh, it does miss the point. He ends up supporting the course of action you and I would support, but he never addresses the 500 pound gorilla in the room, what business just government have to decide what marriage even is? Isn't that completely personal and private. The only reason we really have it is to stop Mormons from practicing their religion, and for money...always the money.

I don't think this is the 500-pound gorilla in the room, because the answer is clear. Marriage is not personal and not private by any means. Marriage is written into tax laws, health laws, death laws, etc. Government creates and maintains the law, so government is intimately tied to marriage.
Put another way, if you want to have a personal and private connection with another human being and live with them, love them, and cherish them forever, no-one is stopping you. You don't need a ceremony or a contract or even recognition to have a deep bond to another human being. Ironically, homosexuals probably know this best, as they have been denied that recognition for so long. As a result, some do share personal and private connections with others, regardless of the state's position. Yet, many of them want their state to recognize those bonds.
If marriage were personal and private, the state's recognition wouldn't matter. However, marriage isn't personal -- It's a contract between two people and the state. With it comes a host of new benefits, mostly in the form of tax breaks. As a result, the government's view of marriage suddenly becomes very relevant.


Being someones brother isn't a legal status first, nor is marriage. How the law deals with peoples relationships will, of course, be defined someway. The problem is, because the law has decided to be first in relationships instead of second, the law is denying contacts between people. A man and 20 women decide to entire into a relationship of sorts. The government will not allow this contact because it has decided to play the moral authority on enforcing certain contracts.

I mostly agree with what you are saying, don't get me wrong. I, too, would like to see "marriage" as just an agreement between people recognized by the state...but it isn't such. Right now, the state defines what marriage can be, and who can and can't enter into that relationship instead of people making that choice for themselves. The point is, gay people cannot enjoy the same legal status as heterosexuals, the law is denied to them. Gay people can, indeed, enjoy each other as per anyone can...but can't see their loved on in certain hospitals because they, in fact, are not equal under the law.

So marriage is kind of both, in a sense, still private and public. Someone can SAY they are married, they just might not get all the protections afforded other people because the state does regulate it. My problem is that the STATE has defined the rules as to what marriage can and will be, not individuals. The state will not recognize the love I share with my mouse pad. The state on such matters has to have the last word, of course, my problem is they also have the first word.


(btw, I am confused by the statement not personal AND no private, certainly it has to be one, or both...and certainly, it has to be one first.)

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Nahhh, it does miss the point. He ends up supporting the course of action you and I would support, but he never addresses the 500 pound gorilla in the room, what business just government have to decide what marriage even is? Isn't that completely personal and private. The only reason we really have it is to stop Mormons from practicing their religion, and for money...always the money.


I don't think this is the 500-pound gorilla in the room, because the answer is clear. Marriage is *not* personal and not private by any means. Marriage is written into tax laws, health laws, death laws, etc. Government creates and maintains the law, so government is intimately tied to marriage.

Put another way, if you want to have a personal and private connection with another human being and live with them, love them, and cherish them forever, no-one is stopping you. You don't need a ceremony or a contract or even recognition to have a deep bond to another human being. Ironically, homosexuals probably know this best, as they have been denied that recognition for so long. As a result, some do share personal and private connections with others, regardless of the state's position. Yet, many of them want their state to recognize those bonds.

If marriage were personal and private, the state's recognition wouldn't matter. However, marriage isn't personal -- It's a contract between two people and the state. With it comes a host of new benefits, mostly in the form of tax breaks. As a result, the government's view of marriage suddenly becomes very relevant.

>> ^silvercord:

The argument completely flies in the face of evolution.


Which one? The one where evolution tries everything, even things that can't procreate? Or evolution made them, so it must be right? Or it doesn't matter if it is natural or not, I can't masturbate to it (or only half of it)?

QM, he was making the point that just because someone is not part of a majority, it doesn't make their nature wrong. He wasn't slamming conservative political ideology with that remark. You can calm down your automatic conservative reflux condition coughing up the virtues of conservatism.

Pedophilia is not wrong because it's abnormal. It's wrong because it turns those who are not mature enough to handle sex into sexual objects and unwitting participants, which does cause a degradation in them as a person, it's been psychologically proven to be detrimental to minors, etc. There's nothing in that that is religious, or is justified because of any person or group's moral code.

If you can't make a reasoned argument against homosexuality that doesn't involve religion, then there shouldn't be a law against it. Homosexuality doesn't cause society any ill effects, nor does it cause the moral degradation of any of its participants in and of itself. It doesn't infringe upon anyone's basic inalienable rights. If you personally think it's immoral, fine, don't engage in homosexuality, speak up about how people shouldn't be gay in church, etc. But you should also support people's right to be gay if they choose, just as I support a racist's right to publish an essay favoring racism. I find their ideas reprehensible, but I would never fight to take away their right to free speech.

Discussions about if polygamy should be legal should be framed in the same regards. Polygamy shouldn't be illegal simply because you or even a majority of Americans thinks its wrong. A majority of Americans at one point thought blacks and whites drinking from the same water fountain was wrong, too.

>> ^quantumushroom:

What's the cutoff? Republicans are less than 18% of the population. Can we take away some of their rights?
I assume you support taxing people that make more money at a higher rate, punishing their success in the name of a "fair share" which is then distributed unfairly and wastefully, don't you? I assume you support preventing people in high crime areas from owning firearms, infringing on their right to self-defense with the best possible tools?

What it comes down to is gays and lesbians aren't hurting anyone by their nature.
Then do you support polygamy?

Like this? M.I.A, Born Free from ROMAIN-GAVRAS>> ^bareboards2:

Red hair is a genetic anomaly. Should we legislate against them, too?

>> ^quantumushroom:
If the odds of being born gay were 50%, perhaps it would be less viewed as a genetic anomaly.
How many more serial killers and pedophiles does 'God' have to create before we let them run amok as well?

>> ^quantumushroom:

If the odds of being born gay were 50%, perhaps it would be less viewed as a genetic anomaly.
How many more serial killers and pedophiles does 'God' have to create before we let them run amok as well?


What's the cutoff? Republicans are less than 18% of the population. Can we take away some of their rights?

What it comes down to is gays and lesbians aren't hurting anyone by their nature. Hell, even a pedophile can be attracted to children without hurting anyone.

>> ^MonkeySpank:

I don't see why religion has anything to do with this, although I applaud this man for his take on religion. Homosexuality is natural - everything occurring on this planet is natural. Nature makes no mistakes, it dictates and changes trends. In this case, we are overpopulating the planet, our sperm count is dropping, and more developed nations are becoming asexual or homosexual. Look at Japan, it's a very populated nation, but they can't get their kids to marry, let alone have children - The Japanese youth is addicted to sex toys. It's all natural trend which may or may not revert, and only the feeble minded would bring religion and a 3000 year old book written totally out of context to an argument like this.
On a side note, my wife went to church about 6 months ago while she was visiting PA, and the main topic of the sermon was about how church men don't have sex with their women because they are addicted to porn.
Talk about hypocrisy...
In short, I know my homosexual neighbor is real and has feelings; I don't know if God exists, let alone worry about how God feels.


While I agree with your sentiment, cyanide is also natural as is violence and the need to eat other living creatures to sustain yourself. Natural and moral aren't equal. I am not attesting that Homosexuality is immoral, just that it being natural is not a moral argument in the least.

Thanks for the promote.

I love this vid.

In reply to this comment by notarobot:
*promote a well-phrased argument.

http://videosift.com/video/When-Did-You-Choose-To-Be-Straight

Made it to Number One on the Sift.

>> ^ryanbennitt:

Best question I ever heard was, did you freely choose one day to become heterosexual, having previously had no or equal attraction to both sexes? And I think back to my childhood, even at a young age I found girls attractive without even having any concept of sex at the time, so the answer was no, there was no choice for me. If that's the case, why would I imagine it to be any different for a homosexual?

I see banking and divorce on the rise, yet both usury and divorce are sins. Then again, bringing logic to the religious table is mental suicide.

>> ^shinyblurry:

This argument is invalid from a Christian standpoint. God doesn't create gay people, he creates people. What Christians believe is that everyone is born with a sin nature, because creation is in a fallen state due to the sin of Adam. This sin nature can manifest any number of ways. Some people are challenged by excessive addiction, others by their vanity and pride, and yes some are challenged by their sexuality. Though this is a hot-button issue in the Christian world, Christ never taught we should single out anyone for a particular sin..sin is sin is sin.. The bible says there is no one good, not one. So, any Christian who is constantly railing against homosexuality is a hypocrite at best.