Anti-Gay Propoganda

[Alexandre]

Okay.  I figured this would be a tense subject, so I figured I'd put it here.

Friday, I walked into the GLBTA Services at Utah State University to find Maure Smith hunched over at her computer.  "It's days like this I wish I could just give up and go home," she said.  In front of her sat a stack of flyers.  The flyer with large words on the front saying "Shame on Utah Gays" was sent out to every fax machine on campus and states, "This is not about CIVIL RIGHTS.  Sexual Orientation is not a class!  You cannot equalize it!"

The whole flyer can be found on America Forever's webpage: http://www.americaforever.com/lds_gay_ord_endorsement.html (just click on the picture to see the exact fax we received)

Several of us sat down and discussed it.  There was some anger, some frustration, but mostly confusion.  I know people that have been kicked out of their appartments because they weren't straight; is it wrong that they can finally know they don't have to face eviction.  I know people that have lost jobs because of their orientation; is it wrong that they can work without fear of being fired?

Living in Logan, I still have to face these fears.  I suppose it all comes down to what people think is right and wrong.  I know that some people would think it'd be justified to fire me, evict me, leave me without any way to live.  If there weren't, that flyer would not have appeared.

I want to know: what can we do as individuals to work against things like this?

[Yip]

I was just reading some of that site.  Oh no they will be forced to not discriminate!  Do these people even listen to themselves?

Their message: "HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A RACE! This is not about CIVIL RIGHTS." This is completely untrue. Civil Rights is not about race or class or any thing like that. It's about equality under the law. Not that I'm surprised they'd stoop to deception and flat out lies.  People do crazy things when blinded by dogma.

Wish I could knew what to do about it.  The problem is that when dealing with people driven by dogma, they are not using reason. Which is why much of what such people say is nonsensical crap. It baffles me how they can get anyone to take them seriously. But they can, which is exactly what makes this kind of propaganda so dangerous.

[Nicholai]

 People do crazy things when blinded by dogma.

Wish I could knew what to do about it.  The problem is that when dealing with people driven by dogma, they are not using reason. Which is why much of what such people say is nonsensical crap. It baffles me how they can get anyone to take them seriously. But they can, which is exactly what makes this kind of propaganda so dangerous.

You couldn't have said it better. I'm part of my high school's Gay-strait alliance, we talk about this quite a bit. (Granted, this is California, so we are all a bit bitter.)
Fear is so much of an easier emotion to exploit than love, or empathy. A great deal of the yes on one/yes on eight campaigns where based on fear.  Gay want to destroy marriage! They will recruit your children!
It's dirty business, and difficult to defeat. We can't use reason, because, as you said, this is driven by dogma. You can't have a reasonable debate with a crazy person who has a bible.
Because of that, this is not a debate that can be won overnight. It takes years; years to show that no, strait marriage is not destroyed in Massachusetts. Years to show that yes, gay people are relatively normal and are not out to get you.
No matter how much money you have, no matter how many protests you hold, this issue will still play itself out in a time line of decades.

[Avan]

You can't have a reasonable debate with anyone endorsing any form of dogma.

Fixed to make a broader statement. It's not only the fundies who embrace senseless dogmas, but plenty of others as well. I mean, the average bigot has some form of dogma that the bigotry is based off of in the first place! In this case, most of the problems arise from those who are fundies, but its not only fundies who are causing all of these problems.

[Sskessa]

I want to know: what can we do as individuals to work against things like this?

Probably the best thing we can do is continue to be sensible, respectable people. While America Forever is foaming at the mouth with hate, they're also destroying their credibility to anyone outside their own group.

[Narei Mooncatt]

While I support gay rights and am not religious, I think the first thing that needs to be done is to stop calling those against you "crazy" or insulting their religion (or whatever their moral background is). You ask for reasonable debate, but then you use language that insults the person you want the debate with. I'm sure in their mind, they are justified in their feelings, just as any non-straight person feels they are justified in their feelings. To say either one is crazy, idiotic, insane, etc, is like debating two religions. There is no real right or wrong, only difference of beliefs and oppinions IMHO. Sskessa put it best, just be sensible about your actions, but I add don't insult. Doing that only stoops to your opposition's level and you loose your own credibility.

If a group against you is being crazy and acting up, let them destroy their own credibility and show that you can be the bigger person about the debate with a level head.

[Yip]

@Narie: Who or what are you referring to? Your statements here seem out of place.
No one here has "asked for reasonable debate, but then used language that insults the person they want the debate with."

Also, when some group is "being crazy and acting up", there is nothing wrong with pointing out that what they are doing is being crazy and acting up.  Refusing to address a problem for fear of offending someone will get nowhere.

[Narei Mooncatt]

@Narie: Who or what are you referring to? Your statements here seem out of place.
No one here has "asked for reasonable debate, but then used language that insults the person they want the debate with."

I was refering to Nicholai's post and the attitude I was seeing in the other posts. I'm not saying we should be afraid to offending them. The whole idea behind not insulting the other party is as I said: They will harm their own position without your help and it's not likely calling them out will help you. If someone is bible thumping their view on you, you should use your own logic and reasoning to counter them. Not call them and their idea's crazy. Actions maybe, like resorting to violence, but not their ideals.

[Yip]

They will harm their own position without your help and it's not likely calling them out will help you.

I disagree. Unless dogma is challenged it will never go away. One of the biggest problems with dogma of any kind is that you are suppose to follow it unquestioningly. By calling it out, it's providing an example that yes, it is okay to question these things. It's only through getting people to critically examine these things that the problem will go away. As I said, it baffles me that they can get people to listen to them. If they couldn't there wouldn't be a problem But they can, and that's what makes it dangerous. Therefore it's important to call this stuff out.

If someone is bible thumping their view on you, you should use your own logic and reasoning to counter them. Not call them and their idea's crazy. Actions maybe, like resorting to violence, but not their ideals.

I disagree, at least partially. If an idea is crazy, we should be perfectly free to call it so as long as we are able to back it up.   We should avoid ad hominem attacks, yes. But attacking someone's ideas is not the same thing as attacking them. I agree that you should use logic and reasoning to counter them. But as I was pointing out earlier, followers of dogma tend to be blind to reason. So the best bet is to point out to others that this propaganda is crazy so as to spread the word and hopefully make people think more critically about these things.

About Nicholai's post, I could see how someone could take it wrong. And if Avan didn't correct him I would have.

[Acton]

Where do I start, It fine example of a red herring, argument ad hominem  and a few others including discrediting the person rather than answering the argument  Homosexuality is not a race.

Let us start with the phrase “they'd stoop to deception and flat out lies.  People do crazy things when blinded by dogma.” You attacked the person, and then deflected by going to an unrelated very weak argument.  A dogma is simply a belief or tenant; all religions have one form of dogma or another, in my case the Nicene Creed. Have a dogma or position alone dose not making one point wrong or right.


The argument, poorly made, seems to be more against the LDS church, the writer also engages in a red herring argument.

[Avan]

Well, if someone made an absurd statement, like 1 + 1 = twentyleven and the earth is round, and therefore your tie is ugly, I don't think that argument needs to really be seriously addressed, because it's not even a valid argument, and therefore can be left at that.

If you want their general argument to get addressed, I'll break it down then:
1 + 1 = twentyleven : nonsense incorrect statement : civil rights is all about race (no it's not, it's not all about race; it's just that america's most well known and popularized one happened to be about race, but that was only a particular movement; for example, there was the women's rights movement in that very country in the 19th century (1800's) which was a form of civil rights movement)
the earth is round : correct but rather irrelevant statement : homosexuality isn't a race (yeah, so what if it isn't? what's that got to do with anything?)
and therefore your tie is ugly : opinion : gays shouldn't be given equal rights (Even if the above two were proper premises for a syllogism, you can't have an opinion for a conclusion! That's not even a conclusion then!)

Invalid logic is invalid by the reflexive theorem of equality. Seriously now, how can you take invalid logic seriously? You can't. (because its invalid in the first place and thus makes no sense).

//ok, I read that site just now... it had even less logic than I initially granted. It had none. (well, not any valid logic, but then again, invalid logic can't be counted as logic because it is nonsense and not logic). Besides the explanation of the law (which was biased in itself, but still a more-or-less recounting of it), it was just a bunch of opinions and logical fallacies. There's nothing to debate there. It's just flawed thought process to begin with, and I'll leave it at that//

[Yip]

Let us start with the phrase “they'd stoop to deception and flat out lies.  People do crazy things when blinded by dogma.” You attacked the person, and then deflected by going to an unrelated very weak argument.  A dogma is simply a belief or tenant; all religions have one form of dogma or another, in my case the Nicene Creed. Have a dogma or position alone dose not making one point wrong or right.

You appear to be using a different definition of "dogma" than I am. If you are taking it to be just a belief or position, then of course it's not inherently right or wrong. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm using "dogma" in the sense much like this description taken from wikipedia:

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.

It's this form of dogma that I'm speaking out against here. The kind of beliefs you are expected to hold unquestioningly. And unquestioningly holding a false belief not only blocks the person from ever discovering the truth, but also can be problematic because a person's actions are based on their beliefs. So while in some cases it may be relatively benign. In other cases it can be downright dangerous.

You may notice I specifically said "false belief". It is possible for someone to have a belief that is true that they hold unquestioningly.  However, if a belief is never questioned, then there is no way to verify whether it's actually correct. And if they are not willing to question it, it still leads to them being unreasonable on that issue. Not only that, but there is nothing to fear from questioning a true belief: if it's really true, it'll stand up to scrutiny.

As for the so called ad hominem, an ad hominem fallacy is an argument that attacks the person in order to discredit them rather than attacking the argument. I did not do this. After all, I did provide an example of the kind of nonsensical "arguments" they use there. (I put "arguments" in quotes since much of the stuff there barely qualifies as argumentation.) What I was doing was more of a short hand since it would take far too much time and effort to tackle all the problems there (not to mention make a horribly long and boring post.)

[CiceroKit]

In a way, this brochure being distributed in such a way on a Utah campus doesn't surprise me. There are still a lot of people there who are upset about the hate crimes legislation in the state (and I am sure at the national level as well). Sadly, when a piece of legislation is brought forth to expand equality the way the bill had, it also helps to organize the very faction of people who make such legislation a necessity. Would we need to try a case any differently (in regards to hate crimes) if prejudice against a certain group was not widespread? It is sad that this sort of thing still happens.

Hang in there and take comfort in knowing that there is a larger number of people who support you.

[Alsek]

Well,  there's already anti discrimination laws in place for things like jobs and housing.  (at least where i live... i don't know if that's federal or not)

but, why does the state/government regulate relationships anyways?   Why is there a tax deduction for,  "married couples?"

It's not really marriage in the most traditional sense of the word anyways...  it's actually a "civil union"


Christians often fail to see the difference... (and i am one so i can say this from a rather unbiased standpoint)  A marriage is a religious thing... a civil union is a government thing...   All though the two are often done at the same time,  they are actually unrelated and independent of one another.

Why is there such a thing as a "Civil union," in the first place?


It has no reason for existence apart from a tax deduction that doesn't make even make sense in my opinion...  

I mean...  of all the things to give someone a tax break for...   

But once you get past the laws,  it just comes down to people's opinions and such...  People have the right to free speech,  whether or not they are correct.  No amount of laws will ever prevent people from thinking a certain way.

of course,  this is just my libertarian way of thinking i suppose...  >.>

[Alexandre]

Just to put a little more information into recent events:

America Forever once again has sent out flyers across Utah, this time attacking Sundance Film Festival for the film "8: the Mormon Proposition."  Once again, we filed a report with the police.  Once again, I have no clue what's gonna happen with them.  From what I've seen, though, local news isn't tolerating their actions; I've read a few stories that have attacked that group rather harshly.  It's nice to see people fight against intolerance.

To go with what Alsek is saying, the debate about marriages and civil unions is something really important right now.  During the Prop. 8 trial, the judge has often asked if the state should even handle marriages any more.  Oddly, both sides want marriage to be a governmental institution (though a marriage in a church couldn't be forced by the government).  Simply put, the word "marriage" is so important to people that taking it away from either or both parties would hurt them considerably.

Remember: right now, you don't have to be religious to be married.

[Alsek]

(though a marriage in a church couldn't be forced by the government).  Simply put, the word "marriage" is so important to people that taking it away from either or both parties would hurt them considerably.

Remember: right now, you don't have to be religious to be married.

See,  that's just the thing.   I don't believe that they are one in the same...   I have a /really/ hard time understanding why Christians would want them to be...   unless it were just about the money...  which,  i guess is possible.     

[Yip]

Marriage has two parts. There is the ceremonial/ritual side, and there is the legal contract side. The law has no business messing with the ceremonial side. And it should treat the contract side like any other legal contract. Meaning that if person A is legally able to enter such a contract, and person B is legal able to enter such a contract, then the law has no business telling person A and B that they cannot enter the contract with each other. And that's exactly what they are doing when they disallow gay marriage.

If you want to call the ceremonial side "marriage" and the contractual side "civil union" to help keep the two from getting confused, that's fine with me. In fact, I fully support that idea.

I have a /really/ hard time understanding why Christians would want them to be...

I think it's a case of ignorance, intolerance, and absolute stubbornness. You see, many Christians believe homosexuality to be something horrible that should be fought at every turn. Like how you would resist if there were a group promoting murder as something that should be acceptable. It's a mindset that this thing cannot be allowed to be seen as acceptable, and therefore they do not want it recognised by the law in any way that isn't negative. Despite the fact that they have no actual evidence of it being harmful in any way. Many Christians don't seem to get that "the Bible says" should have no baring and our laws. (the odd thing is they don't seem to see what atrocities would come from allowing the bible to dictate law. Slavery? Stoning unruly children? Treating woman as little more than property?  Most Christians would agree that these things are horrible, and yet these ideas are fully supported by biblical law.)

[Alsek]

It's a mindset that this thing cannot be allowed to be seen as acceptable, and therefore they do not want it recognised by the law in any way that isn't negative. Despite the fact that they have no actual evidence of it being harmful in any way. Many Christians don't seem to get that "the Bible says" should have no baring and our laws. (the odd thing is they don't seem to see what atrocities would come from allowing the bible to dictate law. Slavery? Stoning unruly children? Treating woman as little more than property?  Most Christians would agree that these things are horrible, and yet these ideas are fully supported by biblical law.)

Whoa,  Hold on there.

Despite the fact that they have no actual evidence of it being harmful in any way. Many Christians don't seem to get that "the Bible says" should have no baring and our laws.

Christians are citizens same as everyone else.  What they base their beliefs on is irrelevant...  Yes they may base their actions and their vote on their beleif and moral system... same as everyone else.

Slavery?

Bible tells /Christians/ to be obedient to the laws of the land so that they aren't specifically gone after as a group.  Slavery was apart of the culture then,  so the Christians were specifically instructed this way to keep them from standing out as lawbreakers.  It /has/ been misused sense to justify horrible things,  yes,  but that's not why it's in the Bible.  It doesn't apply to non-Christians anyhow.

Stoning unruly children?

"And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him."   - John 8:7-9   (typical of Jesus to make his point very clear very fast... though this doesn't apply specifically to children...   kind of gives you a good idea of the general attitude of the one we (christians) are supposed to mirror our lives after)

Treating woman as little more than property?

Christians have been rather active in human's rights movements left and right.  Martin Luther King, Jr for example,  was a Christian. A large amount of abolitionists were Christians Look into a lot of the civil rights movement's and you'll usually find that Christians had something to do with it.  I've not studied into the Woman's rights specifically,  but what i've seen in the bible,  Jesus was always extremely respectful to women.  I myself tend towards distinctly different but equal.


Let's not turn go topic here.  The point is the rights to civil union not the intolerance of Christians,  right?

There is the ceremonial/ritual side, and there is the legal contract side. The law has no business messing with the ceremonial side. And it should treat the contract side like any other legal contract. Meaning that if person A is legally able to enter such a contract, and person B is legal able to enter such a contract, then the law has no business telling person A and B that they cannot enter the contract with each other. And that's exactly what they are doing when they disallow gay marriage.

If you want to call the ceremonial side "marriage" and the contractual side "civil union" to help keep the two from getting confused, that's fine with me. In fact, I fully support that idea.

exactly!  

but still,  the question needs to be asked.  Why is there such as thing as a "civil union?"  What is the point?  Why does the government need to acknowledge such relationships legally?  Homosexual or heterosexual?   I think it originally was based off the biblical concept...  to be a tax break for biblicaly married couples which would explain the confusion...  but if that's the case...  then why do we need it at all?

(now i'm actually wondering,  so help me understand)

Is it as simple as the property of two people becoming one to make everything easier to manage and such?  In that case it's simply a system of grouping to help people keep themselves organized,  and how it is used would not even have to be specific to any sort of relationship.  now the argument becomes,  "well then everyone could do it and get a tax break"  (one i've heard)

Get rid of the tax break involved with civil union and i guarantee that most of the problems goes away.

Maybe i'm going in circles now...?

[Yip]

I got to thinking about my post, and realized that someone might take it wrong. Unfortunately, I was away from home for the weekend and unable to do anything about it. And what do you know... someone has gone and taken it wrong.

I was not meaning what I said to bash Christians. I was attempting to answer your question. You see, I grew up in a very religious household, and I used to be a Christian, so I have a good understanding of the typical mindset. I know that not all Christians hold this mindset, but a damn lot of them do.  This idea that homosexuality is something that just cannot be tolerated in any way. And without any real reason other than what they think the bible says about it. And all too often this is without actually reading it themselves.

Unfortunately, many of the words I used are considered "loaded", even though I didn't mean them that way. Ignorant for example, means to lack proper knowledge of something. And the anti-gay crowd in general has little real understanding of homosexuality, or often sexual orientation in general. And since they refuse to learn about it to correct this lack of understanding, I don't know of a better word to describe that but ignorance. Since they have this ignorance and yet still vehemently stand firm in their convictions, there is no better way to describe that then stubborn intolerance.

Again, I'm not saying this to attack Christians. And I realize it doesn't apply to all of them. But it does apply to a good deal of them, and that's why I was bringing it up to answer your question. I was just trying to give insight into the kind of mindset that is so against gay marriage, and pretty much gay anything else.

Christians are citizens same as everyone else.  What they base their beliefs on is irrelevant...  Yes they may base their actions and their vote on their beleif and moral system... same as everyone else.

You're missing the point. Here's a question: (assuming US law) if a vote was called to ban say... blue clothing, and it passed, should that law stand?   The answer is no, unless some actual harm can be shown from wearing blue.  My point was that it doesn't matter why they oppose homosexuality. They can oppose it as individuals just fine. But if they want the law to oppose it, then they need to show some secular reason why this should be so. Otherwise such things have no place in the law.

...[a bunch of stuff about the bible]...

First, as you said we shouldn't go off topic. Though I wonder why you say this only after going on and on.  Yes you can interpret the bible in a more "nicey nice" kind of way (mostly by ignoring the parts you don't like). You can try to make excuses for it, but there are some pretty horrendous things in that book, but I won't go into that since I don't want to go off topic. My point is that many Christians oppose homosexuality with no good non-religious reason, and they don't seem to get that religious reasons are not enough that we should have laws based on them.
 

... Why is there such as thing as a "civil union?"  What is the point?  Why does the government need to acknowledge such relationships legally?  Homosexual or heterosexual?   I think it originally was based off the biblical concept...  to be a tax break for biblicaly married couples which would explain the confusion...  but if that's the case...  then why do we need it at all?

A marriage contract, "civil union" if you prefer, does a LOT of things. It's a whole host of rights and benefits in a convenient package.  Personally I don't see why tax breaks should be associated with it, but there are plenty of other things it does.
 
Here's a list I found of many of the benefits common to this contract:  http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30190.html

[Alsek]

I got to thinking about my post, and realized that someone might take it wrong. Unfortunately, I was away from home for the weekend and unable to do anything about it. And what do you know... someone has gone and taken it wrong.

Simply addressing the things you brought up.  Not taking it personally,  believe me.  I'm a Texan libertarian living in California.  If i were offended every time someone disagreed with me,  I'd have a heart attack walking out my front door.  

You're missing the point. Here's a question: (assuming US law) if a vote was called to ban say... blue clothing, and it passed, should that law stand?   The answer is no, unless some actual harm can be shown from wearing blue.  My point was that it doesn't matter why they oppose homosexuality. They can oppose it as individuals just fine. But if they want the law to oppose it, then they need to show some secular reason why this should be so. Otherwise such things have no place in the law.

Erm...  O.o

Understand that i believe in the least possible federal government control over almost everything.  However, you're now implying that the government ignore a majority vote and act independently of the population.  That's a bit scary,  and realize that as soon as you allow something like that to happen,  it can go both ways...  And it's not always going to be what you agree with either.

If it ever got to that point...  Not good.    

...[a bunch of stuff about the bible]...

First, as you said we shouldn't go off topic. Though I wonder why you say this only after going on and on.  Yes you can interpret the bible in a more "nicey nice" kind of way (mostly by ignoring the parts you don't like). You can try to make excuses for it, but there are some pretty horrendous things in that book, but I won't go into that since I don't want to go off topic. My point is that many Christians oppose homosexuality with no good non-religious reason, and they don't seem to get that religious reasons are not enough that we should have laws based on them.

Simply wanted to address what you brought up.

Hehe,  We should probably make a whole thread on this alone if you want to continue this topic,  or we could go PM  (if you're actually interested in continuing.)

Nothing i said was simply and "excuse" it was a valid explanation based with a historical background and actual meanings of the verses you referenced in their proper context.  Yes there are things in the Bible that by today's standards (and in western culture) are no longer acceptable or even understandable.  To add further confusion,  Biblical greek was extremely complex and could give a meaning of a word in absolutely amazing detail.  When translated into English,  it looses a lot of it's meaning or even changes to mean the exact opposite.  Meanwhile, you have a lot of Christians who don't actually bother to read the bible or study the context or words who will go around misquoting it left and right.

Here's a list I found of many of the benefits common to this contract:  http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30190.html

Indeed,  most of these,  as i mentioned have to do with the simple grouping of two as one.  If the concept of covenant were alive in western culture this might be acceptable in a lot more people's eyes...

But if you made it a simple way of grouping two as one there would be a lot more uses for it.  Very good friends who don't actually /love/ each other could do it,  brothers... ect.

what you're talking about is moreso simply opening this up and lifting most restriction on what is required to do it which,  again,  is perfectly fine by me so long as the tax break is removed and redistributed to the population as a whole.  (to prevent room mates from doing it for the extra money and such)

[Mazin]

Get rid of the tax break involved with civil union and i guarantee that most of the problems goes away.

Not that it has much to do with the topic, but it's not always a tax break. Sometimes married couples actually pay more.

You're missing the point. Here's a question: (assuming US law) if a vote was called to ban say... blue clothing, and it passed, should that law stand?   The answer is no, unless some actual harm can be shown from wearing blue.  My point was that it doesn't matter why they oppose homosexuality. They can oppose it as individuals just fine. But if they want the law to oppose it, then they need to show some secular reason why this should be so. Otherwise such things have no place in the law.

Erm...  O.o

Understand that i believe in the least possible federal government control over almost everything.  However, you're now implying that the government ignore a majority vote and act independently of the population.  That's a bit scary,  and realize that as soon as you allow something like that to happen,  it can go both ways...  And it's not always going to be what you agree with either.

If it ever got to that point...  Not good.   

The U.S. has been at that point since the end of the 18th century. The bill of rights, other amendments and Supreme Court all exist so that the majority cannot oppress the minority, and I believe that's the crux of the GLBT rights movement: "You shouldn't be able to stop us from getting married just because you don't like it and there are more of you."

[NovaMetatail]

They will harm their own position without your help and it's not likely calling them out will help you.

I disagree. Unless dogma is challenged it will never go away. One of the biggest problems with dogma of any kind is that you are suppose to follow it unquestioningly. By calling it out, it's providing an example that yes, it is okay to question these things. It's only through getting people to critically examine these things that the problem will go away. As I said, it baffles me that they can get people to listen to them. If they couldn't there wouldn't be a problem But they can, and that's what makes it dangerous. Therefore it's important to call this stuff out.

Questioning is indeed very important. So few people in this world question what they are told. I think this is because we are social animals. and we go along with what we are told by our leaders. Too often, I've seen people respect the president just because the president (whomever they are at the time) is the president...not because of what he (or eventually she) does. This is a very unhealthy attitude in my humble opinion.

Along the same lines, few ever question religious leaders. If it's what you're raised to do, why question? I guess what I'm saying is that it's both nature and nurture. Thus, it doesn't really baffle me that some people wouldn't question, given that humans are social animals, and that a lot of what we're taught, especially at an early age when our brains are still maturing, influences us because of this. We may follow those who seem our "superiors".

Nevertheless, I definitely believe that we should question. We should think for ourselves when we can. I  think that there are just enough people in this world that do question, however, to (hopefully) help others be more accepting of others differences.

[Yip]

The U.S. has been at that point since the end of the 18th century. The bill of rights, other amendments and Supreme Court all exist so that the majority cannot oppress the minority, and I believe that's the crux of the GLBT rights movement: "You shouldn't be able to stop us from getting married just because you don't like it and there are more of you."

Thinking about it I probably didn't use the best example, but that was basically what my point was: that in this country it's not just a simple majority rule. There are a lot of checks and balances in place that are primarily to keep things fair for everyone. So that the majority cannot oppress the minority. 

But if you made it a simple way of grouping two as one there would be a lot more uses for it.  Very good friends who don't actually /love/ each other could do it,  brothers... ect.

what you're talking about is moreso simply opening this up and lifting most restriction on what is required to do it which,  again,  is perfectly fine by me so long as the tax break is removed and redistributed to the population as a whole.  (to prevent room mates from doing it for the extra money and such)

Yes, I think that the legal side of marriage should be looked at completely as the legal contract that it is. And as such I see no reason why any two people should be denied access to this contract so long as each individual is legally capable of enter such a contract. (so like, children can't enter such a contract and stuff like that.)  If two friends that have a really close but non-sexual relationship want to enter the contract together, I say let 'em.  If a brother and sister want to enter the contract together, let 'em. The contract has nothing to do with whether they have sex or not. And as long as they are consenting adults, the government has no business in their sex lives anyway.

It's true this removes a lot of the "mystique" of marriage, but so what. That part belongs to the cerimonial side of marriage anyway. If that's really an issue, then the law shouldn't be involved in marriage at all.


The issue of gay marriage is actually very similar to interracial marriage. The essential question is: should the government have the right to deny two consenting adults from entering into a marriage contract together based on properties of the individuals. The biggest difference I see is that with interracial marriage, the issue is a property that the two people have different, whereas with gay-marriage it's a property that the two people have in common.

I think one of the problems with anti-gay groups on the issue of gay marriage, is that they tend to mix up the ceremonial and contractual sides of marriage. However, I also suspect that they often do this simply as a cover for their complete intolerance to homosexuals in general. That's why you'll find the same anti-gay propaganda over laws that don't give gays the right to marry, but do give them access to the same rights and protections that marriage does. Or on other issues like gays in the military and so forth.