Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against? (Page 8)

Mark, you remind me of another huge piece: doing our taxes each year. It is a royal pain to figure out who should be taking which deductions, and whose name goes on the receipts for donations etc.  This may seem petty, but someone asked for a reason FOR gay marriage, this is another.

But the DOMA we are discussing here is NOT even about legalizng gay marriage! I'm not even asking for that (yet ) It's about making it illegal at the NATIONAL level!   

Thank you, John. Did I tell you you're looking very handsome today?

I took the time to read all of that. 

Thank you for the reply.  I think I understand the gist of your constructing an argument based on the previous definitions of family and such in prior rulings of the courts.  I would still disagree very much that those would be sufficient to support the amendment, as there are likewise other compelling defitions and rulings that would not support the amendment.

I certainly don't expect for you to name names of anyone that's contacted you.  I was asking that if any of them chose to do so, and sent their reasoning to you for specific inclusion here, whether you would be willing to do that.  I didn't want to invite them contact you, before asking you.    I'd ask them to contact me, but I don't think I can quite play the neutral party. 

1 - Civil discourse is the rule here. We're serious about it. If someone is attacked for respectfully stating a point of view, I'm one PM away.

2 - If someone is worried that you're not articulate enough to clearly state your point of view on a subject: we're triathletes. Overcoming our fears and doing the best with what we have is what we do. It's our raison d'etre. Give it a shot. Get in the game. Just do it respectfully.

On the whole, BT really is an anomaly as far as web forums go, particularly considering that we're here because of a shared interest in a competitive sport. Relatively, we're a very civil bunch. Even at the height of the 2004 Presidential election, while other, otherwise low key online communities were literally being destroyed by political squabbling, we kept things to a pretty low boil.

A lady I work with just told me she has a nephew who is gay and she wouldn't want him to come to her house (no other reason given).

Rather un-christ like for a christian (Mormon)...

Anyone catch Bill Bennet on the Daily Show?  A lot of food for thought in this very short exchange.

Bennet:  This is an issue of whether you believe marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Stewart:  No, this is an issue of whether you think being gay is a human condition or whether you think it is a random fetish.

You can watch the Bill Bennett interview here:

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/celebrity_interviews/index.jhtml

I cannot understand how anyone can say that homosexuality is wrong??? 

If one believes that some sort of divine power is behind the creation of all life, then by that definition did not this so-called divine power also create whatever desires, sexual or otherwise, each person is born with.  I say "born with" because sexual preference is not a choice, it is a part of what a person is. 

The argument based on the premise that marriage should be relegated to two members of diferent sexes and that the marriage cannot change is also suspect.  The original family unit consisted of a male who went out to hunt while the female stayed in the cave with the children for protection.  Women have long ago left the cave to get jobs of their own effectively changing that definition. If we can allow one change, why can we not allow another? Who decides?  Me?  You?  Why not allow each individual decide for him/herself what is right or wrong ... within the context of the law.

This is what I suspected...and herein lies the problem with the debate.  Like the exchange hangloose cited on the Daily Show, the problem stems from a fundamental understanding of what the debate is....christians (from my experience) tend to think that homosexuality is a "fetish", or a "lifestyle choice."  I think that perspective generally stems from ignorance.  Those that hold that belief generally don't know, speak to, learn about, homosexuals, and homosexuality.

So that's why the debate can never really start between two people like, say, you and I Brad...we're at a different understanding of what the debate is.  I sincerely hope that you'll come to understand that homosexuality is not a choice...it will make a debate from that point much more useful.  As a step to getting there, ask yourself if you could turn off your heterosexual tendancies...you may get an idea of what you're asking of homosexuals.

Very, very broad brush there.  Kinda ironic too.

Note the caveat Derek:  "from my experience"

And, ironic how?

Lots of stereotypes are presented because it's things the person has noted "in his/her experience".  Again, very ironic considering the discussion at hand.

OK derek...let's see if I can't spell it out more clearly...when I refer to these "christians (from my experience)" what I mean is those christians who I've discussed the issue of homosexuality with, and who's views of homosexuality are based in some part on their christianity.  Better?

Oh, and again, ironic how?

No, it's not better.  You're stereotyping a group based on your own personal experiences.  Substitute "gay" or "black" for Christian and give those same reasons for perpetuating a particular stereotype and see what kind of reaction you get.  But it's ok to bash Christians because it's not a sensitive topic.

The irony is very apparent.

Ironic as in gays are generalized, ...and now so are christians...

OK...I see where the misfire is.  what I was trying to clarify was that I'm NOT saying that ALL christians believe these things...what I'm saying is the group of christians with whom I've had discusssions about this top believe these things...sorry if that offended, but that's, again, been MY experience.

and I guess that's how I missed the irony too...didn't think i was "stereotyping".