I cannot accuse others on this board of being a bigot without being one myself. If a bigot is a person who is intolerant of other's viewpoints, well, that has defined my posting style for the last couple of days.
I apologize, to Kat, Geoff, Amka, Belle, and many others for offending them and dismissing their attempts to explain their positions. As a non-religious person, I viewed your objections as irrational. But your views are perfectly rational, of course, from your point of view. So this conflict is not just about gay marriage, it is a conflict of belief systems.
For this thread, I would like people to post arguments they recognize as valid concerns from the other side. I promise we won't use it against you in the other threads. I'll start.
If I were religious and my religion told me homosexuality is a sin, I would probably vote against homosexual marriages. I know the supposedly "enlightened" thing to do is to keep this moral judgment to myself and not let it affect me in the political realm. But if my religion defines my moral beliefs, how can I not vote my conscience?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
If I were an atheist, it would chap my hide to have "religious" people trying to make decisions for me.
By the way, I kinda thought this thread would be about DragonBall Z.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
If I did not believe that marriage is meant to be eternal and can only be sealed eternally between a man and a woman, then I would support gay marriage.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
What Amka said.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
This could get oogly.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
No ugliness allowed.
If Vegeta can marry a earth woman, why can't we all get along? Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
quote:If I were religious and my religion told me homosexuality is a sin, I would probably vote against homosexual marriages. I know the supposedly "enlightened" thing to do is to keep this moral judgment to myself and not let it affect me in the political realm. But if my religion defines my moral beliefs, how can I not vote my conscience?
This is the exact reason why I am in such a personal quandry about homosexual marriage. I am torn between my religious beliefs (those who I believe speak for God have said that homosexuality is a sin and that marriage is between a man and a woman) and my hesitancy to apply my personal (religiously-based) morality to those that do not share my beliefs and my basic sense of fairness/equality.
[ March 02, 2004, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:If I did not believe that marriage is meant to be eternal and can only be sealed eternally between a man and a woman, then I would support gay marriage.
And I accept that Amka's objection to gay marriage is based on her desire to protect the institution of marriage and not out of a desire to oppress homosexuals. Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Beren One Hand:"For this thread, I would like people to post arguments they recognize as valid concerns from the other side."
I had actually been hoping someone would try this. I'm game to join in. I actually have several things I could say, because I've spent the last couple of weeks composing an essay laying out my arguments against gay marriage. I tried to be honest, so I made a point of picking out all the best objections that could be made to my argument.
One of the most valid objections I thought of was a challenge to my ideas of what an "ideal" family is. That is, my argument was ultimately based on what I see as an "ideal" family, from society's point of view. I have no proof that it is, in fact, ideal. I see no way of proving it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If I believed that marriage is merely a social convention/tradition, then I would probably not mind homosexual marriage.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
If I were to construct an ideal family for my kids, and holding all other factors as constant, I would prefer that family to be headed by a heterosexual couple. Heterosexuality is not a requirement, or even a major concern, but I still have a preference for it.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
If I were not religious, or did not hold to any particular religious set of beliefs regarding the morality of mankind; then I would probably be opposed to the government's intrusion into a person's private choice of their lifestyle.
FG
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:If I did not believe that marriage is meant to be eternal and can only be sealed eternally between a man and a woman, then I would support gay marriage.
I wish I were enlightened enough to recognize that the love between a homosexual couple can't be as eternal as the love between a heterosexual couple. Dare I dream for an epiphany explaining why heterosexuals are more entitled to marriage than homosexuals?
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Uhm, Lalo, did you get the point of this thread? Common ground, understanding the other side.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Maybe I'm being unclear, Amka. I only wish I did understand what you're saying -- unfortunately, your declaration of what qualifies as eternal love has some bizarrely arbitrary qualifiers. Would you mind explaining to me why you think marriage can be sealed eternally only between heterosexuals? It seems 50% of heterosexual (ex)married couples disagree with you.
I'd love to understand your position, and I pray to god that it isn't what I see it to be.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
*Ignoring Lalo*
This is a beautiful thread, it does my heart good to see it. I'm right there with you guys.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Please note that I said that marriages were _meant_ to be eternal. Not that all of them will turn out that way. It isn't the eros love that binds together the marriage.
Such a marriage is bound on earth by someone with the authority to, and by the covenants that both parties make not only to each other, but to God as well. It is kept together by the continual adherance to those covenants.
These eternal marriages are not merely the coupling of two people, but the beginning of celestial families. Procreation, creation, growth is part of it. Male and female are two parts of the one. We become an eternal unification that requires yin and yang. Yin and yin are beautiful, and so are yang and yang, but they can never be so fully unified into one being as yin and yang can.
In our religion, this is a universal concept that God must follow. God did not decree it, it is part of the metanatural laws of the universe. Our bodies are merely physical manifestations of who we are.
But this is mortality and things are corrupted and don't always work. Will the physically disabled person be disabled in their resurrected body? Does the disability truly reflect their spirit? No. And so will every other physical error be corrected.
We cannot allow ourself to be ruled by our bodily appetites, rather, we must rule our body.
I hope this explains things.
[ March 02, 2004, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I note that the President Hinckley (Mormon) once declared regarding homosexuals, "We love them as sons and daughters of God."
Mormons(as I interpret it) do not condemn homosexuals as inherently evil. Homsexuality is treated as an act of weakness, like adultery or other acts of fornication outside the sanctity of marriage.
I can therefore see why Mormons get so upset when we imply they are bigots. They are not bigots. They are more like nosy relatives who keep trying to tell you how to live your life... all done out of love, but a little annoying nontheless.
Edited in response to mr_porteiro_head
[ March 02, 2004, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Go Common Ground!
For now, I think I'll do what I often do with Big Issues - simultaneously hold both points of view and love adherents of both.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Of course he did. I hope this doesn't come as a surprise to anybody. What any further point implied, Beren?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Who are you and what have you done to Beren One Hand?
Actually, I applaud your post that started this thread. I have maintained several times in past threads that we are all bigots (as in biased). What we do about it is what matters. And I'm proud to say that Hatrackers in general are among the last apt to act based on their own biases than any group of people I've ever met.
I wish everyone would come to terms with their own bigotry as you have here.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
One man's bigotry is another man's moral conviction. If we cannot come to civil terms in a community as loving and as open minded as Hatrack, what chance does America have at resolving this conflict?
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Personally I have nothing that I can find wrong with homosexuals. In fact I enjoy being in their company. For some reason they have a better outlook on life than the average heterosexual.
I will never pin somebody down and tell them that they can't have what I have. That isn't for me to decide. I hope that homosexuals will have the right to marriage. And I mean the word 'marriage' as much as possible. If it isn't called marriage than it will be seen as a "seperate but equal" issue. Many times in the past, issues that have upheld that "seperate but equal" mentality have been torn down. So, until this barrier is broken down, I will continue to passively agree with the homosexuals on this issue.
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
What a cool idea. I think we can do this without fighting.
I was just thinking last night as I watched "Saturday's Warrior" on KBYU (I could only take about 5 minutes of it.
The family has, like seven kids. The father pretty much expressed the idea that it was noone's business if they wanted to have another child.
If I were married, and someone tried to tell us how many kids we could have, that would pretty much piss me off (just like it did the father in the play). They would be attempting to "foist" their personal environmental belief on my life.
Now if I were a gay man, who wanted to have a life-long legal and emotional committment to my beloved, and someone attempted to "foist" their belief on me and tell me I can't get married, then that would most likely really piss me off, too.
I think I kind of get that now. Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Oh, and it was Hatrack that made me see the other side of the issue so well that I went to it.
Hatrack worked for me! Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
A point I can see is that the children of a gay couple would always know that they were prayed- for and loved, whereas the children of a heterosexual couple might be a "surprise". I mean prayed-for in the sense that their parents desperately wanted to have them. I'm sure all parents who believe in God pray for the children they have.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
"Personally I have nothing that I can find wrong with homosexuals."
Marge: ummm... Homer, I think he prefers the company of men.
Homer: Who doesn't!?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Thanks, oh ye ancestor of Elrond and Isildur.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
This thread ROCKS. Here's my bit:
If any other nation or culture besides my own sanctioned gay marriage, I don't think I would find it particularly wrong or threatening. It would just be a curious feature of that society that made it very different from my own culture. I actually ENJOY noticing and studying things like that. It would probably actually be kind of fun.
I suspect that what I may not be enjoying about the potential of gay marriage becoming sanctioned in the US is the fact that, when it happens, my family and I will become foreigners in our own homeland.
[ March 02, 2004, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Common ground: We can all agree that Elf-Men marriages are strongly encouraged: exhibit 1.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
celebration, tolerance, abhorence.
PC dominates the secular religious viewpoint and the voices of this thread fall in line. tolerance and curiosity.
democratic protocol.
this is pause for concern in a civilized society. but, onward...
there are practical viewpoints for pragmatic benefits assigned to same-sex couples beyond the emotional or societal activist.
there are contrary arguments by those of the heterosexual regime who would claim a symbolic insult to the singular emotional "specialness" of the partnership they entered into.
this reminds me of the writer bemoaning the advent of the word-processor. the cinematographer bemoaning the advent of the digital.
curious.
fallow
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Dude. It's lowercase Thor.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
orson scott card, i challenge thee!
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Why should I apologize? I understand the belief that gay marriage is wrong, I just don't agree that a belief like that should dictate the rights and abilities of people who do not subscribe to the same system of beliefs. If someone wants to hold those beliefs, good for them. There are plenty of justifications for personal prejudice (not that I agree with them, just that there are rhetorical justifications). It's flat-out bigotry when those beliefs are imposed on others.
Believing things is just fine. Making others live according to those beliefs is not. We just attacked a whole country to depose a dictator who did just that? Is it only okay to fight against a government that denies rights when it's not the US?
It's not the belief I reject, it's the demand that people be forced to comply with that belief when they aren't part of that belief, when there is no criminal behavior going on.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
John please, this thread isn't about the rights and wrong of gay marriage, it's about finding common ground. No one in this thread called you out specifically to apolgize. I understand that you have no desire to comprimise, just as I would have no desire to comprimise my morals, that's fine. It just has nothing to do with this thread.
Hobbes Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
I have no desire to compromise my morals, either. However, you'll have to forgive me for taking it rather personally that my morals are utterly disregarded on this matter. I know more about how the "other side" feels about the matter than most think.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'm not doubting John, nor am I saying anything you said in this thread is wrong, just that this is the wrong thread to say it in. You know (or if you don't, I'm telling you now ) I have great respect for you as a person and as someone of reason. All I'm saying is that this thread is not about debate.
Hobbes Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Okay, Hobbes, I apologize for my outburst, then. Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Good thread, Beren - and I second Jenny.
Understand and love both sides -
Jenny, are you Mother Theresa reborn?
(silly editing)
[ March 02, 2004, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: Shan ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
When I said "apologies" I was talking about my own apologies. I didn't expect anyone from either side to apologize for their personal views.
Nor am I calling an end to the debates. Although John has pretty much beaten me to the punch on all the good threads, maybe he should apologize for that.
Thanks Shan, for showing me the way. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I realize that my view, and my expression of my opinion on this subject may have been (probably was) hurtful to some people. I wish it weren't the case, as I never had any intention of hurting anyone, just of trying to defend my viewpoint.
Unfortunately, I felt trampled upon by others and it probably caused me to be a bit harsher than I normally would be. If that happened, if I came across as harsh and unforgiving, then I apologize. A perfect follower of Christ would always be respectful, and loving, and not lose her cool. Just another example of how far I have to go.
I can't apologize for my views, because I hold them in obedience to a higher power, but I can apologize for how I express those views. If I hurt anyone directly, I'm sorry.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
Belle,
I don't think you should apologize either for your beliefs or the expression of them. Toss 'em out. On a public forum, this is the fuel for discussion and the meat for digestion.
John L,
You raise an interesting point regarding the conflict of belief systems in a (hopefully) civilized society. Imposition of a particular belief system smacks of oppression.
In a democratic society, the letter of the law is that chosen by a majority through various means (vote count, $$$ interest, etc.) Some group has to be the minority based on sheer number and/or influence.
*pause*
Well, I really don't know where I'm going with this, but optimality for all and their self-perceived "specialness" seems like the making for a frustrated system. There are larger questions that loom in the background - how does the system/society persist despite these conflicts and changing scenarios of majority vs. minority?
fallow
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Not sure what I did, Beren - but glad it helped!
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
I'll settle for Bodhisattva status... Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Beren, this thread, more than any other, has helped me to define exactly how I've been feeling on the whole issue.
SweetWilliam, thanks for your post.
Thanks for this thread.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
**pulls out cute little magic-wand with a star at the end and streamers waiving in the wind**
**starts waiving it over Jenny**
There you go.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Amka, from another thread: That there is an agenda on the part of the homosexual community to teach young children that their lifestyle is normal and that no harm can come of it, against the wishes of these childrens' parents. I want to ask you folks honestly: how many of you are secretly thinking that is a good thing? If you can't shove your morality down my throat, then you'll just indocrinate my children instead.
My first instinct is to criticize Amka for overreacting. But then, when I read Belle's thread about that creepy guy in dance class, I changed my mind.
My response to Belle's thread was, "Hey, as a parent, you should be paranoid!" When it comes to protecting our children, a good parent always err on the side of caution.
Amka probably grew up in a happy family headed by traditional heterosexual role models. I can understand she hesitates in accepting any social change which, in her view, may deprive her children the greatest chance for happiness.
If I had kids, I probably would be a lot less enthusiastic about changing the status quo.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
And this is why I don't argue such things on other forums. The most heated, abusive arguments here would qualify as dignified discourse anywhere else.
That this thread exists at all is just more proof.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)