Discussion: Gay Rights II

[The Senator]

Also, may I just mention that the demonization of evolutionists by religious people for various reasons always makes me shake my head. Evolutionists would not want to execute homosexuals because they do not contribute to the advancement of the human race. Evolutionists tend to be rational, fair-minded people who don't allow their personal convictions to control how they view others over their own lifestyles. They view humanity as a whole, and that's it.

There is no pretense to judge others on. Of course, religious people are often subtly taught to judge and demonize others in their various congregations, so it only makes sense that they would apply those teachings to those who do not share their views, even though that analysis is dead wrong.

 

[wiegeabo]

If there is no God, then the question of equality for gays is moot. Why give equality to a group that cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity?

That's an even more horrible street to go walking down IMO. Start down that slope and next thing you know you starting getting ideas like why even let them live? That is far worse than anything I or anyone else is proposing. Only psychos like Fred Phelps would endorse that level of wrong.

Priests and nuns don't have offspring. Therefore they shouldn't have equality because they cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity?


Evolution considers a species as a whole. Yes, there can be 'dead-ends' with certain individuals within a species. Like offspring being born infertile. All it means is that those individuals will not pass their genes to the next generation. Should a man or woman who is born infertile not get equal rights?

Evolution may argue that homosexuality might eventually be bred out of the population because those genes can't easily be passed on. But it doesn't argue that homosexuals can't contribute to the species in other ways, nor that they should be excluded from having the same rights as everyone else.

 

[Marx]

Then why did you just argue that they shouldn't be treated equally because they "cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity"?

As for the question of God, God should not be included in the state. Separation of the two is imperative. Meanwhile, you might want to stop focusing so much on the Old Testament and read Jesus' teachings. He would not treat gays the way his so-called followers treat them in today's time. Christ was the most compassionate person to ever walk the earth (IMHO). Why don't Christians actually follow his lead?

P.S: I say this as a Christian. I follow Christ first and foremost.

It's also been said that if Jesus Christ were alive today, he would be appalled by the twisting of his beliefs.

 

[Nitehawk013]

I'm starting to wonder if you read either.

Regardless of whether evolution would work or not, once you start debating who should be equal from an evolution/humanist only standpoint it gets ugly and just plain scary IMO. Just because I feel Homosexuality is a choice and that marriage should be preserved in society to a man and a woman does not mean I don't think gays are humans and should be treated as less than equal.

I am amazed that some peopel seem otherwise intelligent cannot discuss this without trying to paint anyone who doesn't support gay marriage as a homophobe, religious fanatic, or nazi.

 

[Nitehawk013]

I'm out for the day. I'll look back in on this tomorrow.

 

[Marx]

I'm starting to wonder if you read either.

Regardless of whether evolution would work or not, once you start debating who should be equal from an evolution/humanist only standpoint it gets ugly and just plain scary IMO. Just because I feel Homosexuality is a choice and that marriage should be preserved in society to a man and a woman does not mean I don't think gays are humans and should be treated as less than equal.

I assume you mean the same way that marriage has been preserved throughout the course of history? I'm sure you are aware that it was once considered normal and acceptable for a man to have many wives. I'm sure that you are aware that mutli-racial marriage was once illegal.

The definition of marriage has changed throughout history Nitehawk.

I am amazed that some peopel seem otherwise intelligent cannot discuss this without trying to paint anyone who doesn't support gay marriage as a homophobe, religious fanatic, or nazi.

No one is calling you a Nazi.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I'm starting to wonder if you read either.

Regardless of whether evolution would work or not, once you start debating who should be equal from an evolution/humanist only standpoint it gets ugly and just plain scary IMO. Just because I feel Homosexuality is a choice and that marriage should be preserved in society to a man and a woman does not mean I don't think gays are humans and should be treated as less than equal.

I am amazed that some peopel seem otherwise intelligent cannot discuss this without trying to paint anyone who doesn't support gay marriage as a homophobe, religious fanatic, or nazi.

50 years from now, your line of thinking will be a pariah in society just like racists are a pariah today. This is a matter of civil rights. There is no "gray" area on it. Either you support civil rights or you don't. Don't hide behind religion as an excuse to deny others their civil rights. Your argument sounds a lot like the old "separate but equal" garbage from racists.

 

[The Senator]

I'm starting to wonder if you read either.

Regardless of whether evolution would work or not, once you start debating who should be equal from an evolution/humanist only standpoint it gets ugly and just plain scary IMO. Just because I feel Homosexuality is a choice and that marriage should be preserved in society to a man and a woman does not mean I don't think gays are humans and should be treated as less than equal.

Except that evolutionists don't spend their time trying to demonize groups of people while trying to legislate morality. Basically, it becomes scary because you have concocted a backwards piece of fiction in your head which inadequately characterizes the evolutionist and humanist standpoint. In fact, you completely refute the humanist standpoint altogether with your above analysis, considering humanists believe that we are all equal and that there isn't grounds for societal injustice.

So... you don't really know what you're talking about... and should consider discussing something else before you dig yourself an even deeper hole...

I am amazed that some peopel seem otherwise intelligent cannot discuss this without trying to paint anyone who doesn't support gay marriage as a homophobe, religious fanatic, or nazi.

If you believe that gay marriage should be illegal because of your religious beliefs, then yes, you are a religious fanatic who is unaware that our government was founded on secular thought and not meant to be governed by anyone's religious convictions.

 

[redfirebird2008]

No one is doing that.

I just did in my post above. And he deserves to have the cold hard truth told to him.

 

[The Senator]

"I love gay people... I just don't think they're as worthy of God's love as straight people are."

How compassionate.

 

[Marx]

I just did in my post above. And he deserves to have the cold hard truth told to him.

Noted. I think I'll edit my post.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Noted. I think I'll edit my post.

Your edit isn't accurate. I AM calling him a homophobe. t: So that leaves, "No one here is calling you a Nazi," which is true. No one here is calling him that. Homophobes and religious zealots can exist without Nazism.

 

[Marx]

Your edit isn't accurate. I AM calling him a homophobe. t: So that leaves, "No one here is calling you a Nazi," which is true. No one here is calling him that. Homophobes and religious zealots can exist without Nazism.

Noted. AGAIN.

 

[The Senator]

This may seem completely out of the blue, but wasn't Nighthawk banned a while ago?

 

[redfirebird2008]

Noted. AGAIN.

 

[Marx]

This may seem completely out of the blue, but wasn't Nighthawk banned a while ago?

Hello, Mr. Random.

Spoiler

I have no clue.

 

[The Senator]

Not on "probationary ban," either, but flat-out banned...

 

[Holiday]

I thought he was banned after the "I like calling our future president Barak Hussein, it's my own personal way of disrespecting him..." thing.

 

[wiegeabo]

If you believe that gay marriage should be illegal because of your religious beliefs, then yes, you are a religious fanatic who is unaware that our government was founded on secular thought and not meant to be governed by anyone's religious convictions.

If a church wants to not marry someone for whatever reason, they have the right to do so. And if that church also wants to deny them other things if they get married somewhere else, they also have the right to do that. My friend's church refused to marry him and his wife because they lived together. Suffice it to say, they got married somewhere else and found themselves another church.

Similarly, if a church wants to marry any two people, they should have the right to do so.


And that's why the State needs to stay out of it. The State can't grant one church certain powers/privileges, yet deny those same things to other churches. That violates Freedom of Religion.


Similarly, the State can't deny marriage (secular and otherwise) to a class of people because that violates equal protection under the law. It's discrimination, plain and simple.

 

[Marx]

If a church wants to not marry someone for whatever reason, they have the right to do so. And if that church also wants to deny them other things if they get married somewhere else, they also have the right to do that. My friend's church refused to marry him and his wife because they lived together. Suffice it to say, they got married somewhere else and found themselves another church.

Similarly, if a church wants to marry any two people, they should have the right to do so.


And that's why the State needs to stay out of it. The State can't grant one church certain powers/privileges, yet deny those same things to other churches. That violates Freedom of Religion.


Similarly, the State can't deny marriage (secular and otherwise) to a class of people because that violates equal protection under the law. It's discrimination, plain and simple.

I don't believe that anyone here is saying that churches should be made to recognize gays and gay marriage. Churches should have the choice.

 

[redfirebird2008]

If a church wants to not marry someone for whatever reason, they have the right to do so. And if that church also wants to deny them other things if they get married somewhere else, they also have the right to do that. My friend's church refused to marry him and his wife because they lived together. Suffice it to say, they got married somewhere else and found themselves another church.

Similarly, if a church wants to marry any two people, they should have the right to do so.


And that's why the State needs to stay out of it. The State can't grant one church certain powers/privileges, yet deny those same things to other churches. That violates Freedom of Religion.


Similarly, the State can't deny marriage (secular and otherwise) to a class of people because that violates equal protection under the law. It's discrimination, plain and simple.

The church has nothing to do with this. The issue is getting a marriage license at the county courthouse. Churches don't give people any legal rights. A marriage license from the county courthouse does.

 

[wiegeabo]

As for the question of God, God should not be included in the state. Separation of the two is imperative. Meanwhile, you might want to stop focusing so much on the Old Testament and read Jesus' teachings. He would not treat gays the way his so-called followers treat them in today's time. Christ was the most compassionate person to ever walk the earth (IMHO). Why don't Christians actually follow his lead?

Agreed. I live under the philosophy that, if you're not doing me harm, live however you want to live.

Basically, if it really is bad, let God sort it all out in the end. The last thing I want to do is tick off God fighting against something 'bad' when it turns out God's actually ok with it.


I also firmly believe in the idea, "I may hate what you say, but I'll defend with my life your right to say it." Which is why I'm trying to be purely logical in my arguments and not attack.

 

[wiegeabo]

The church has nothing to do with this. The issue is getting a marriage license at the county courthouse. Churches don't give people any legal rights. A marriage license from the county courthouse does.

I was just making the logical argument about why the State should guarantee equal rights to marriage for homosexuals.

Freedom of religion says the States should treat all churches equally, which in this case is letting them decide who they want to marry. And equal protection under the law says the same thing about non-religious marriages.

Essentially, the State should recognize and treat all marriages equally. Religious beliefs should have no bearing on the State's view.

 

[Ion Kenshin]

WOAHHHH, Runt outta nowhere. I swear I heart you.

 

[CaptainClown]

I don't mind "mutilating" my body because I do enjoy it and don't care what religious people think. I like to dress "radical" because then I have surprising these conservative people that I am really a nice person and intelligent. It makes them think twice before judging a book by its cover.