Same Sex Marriage, Religion and Politics

I was tempted to put this in the rant thread but its far to big a rant for me to burden rainshadow with, so I thought I'd make a new thread........

So here's the back story. We have an election going on here in Oz. I do not like either candidates but one (the coalition) is a complete sexist, narcissistic, bigoted prat, who I really don't want running our country. The other is our PM now. He's not a bad guy but I haven't really liked what he has done in the past (he was our PM years ago... Long story). Anyway. So I have a newfound respect for Kevin Rudd (PM) because of one issue that has cropped up over election Q & A time. Same Sex Marriage.

I will be blunt and say I am an advocate for it, as I don't feel I have the right to take away someone's true happiness, just because I either don't practice their same lifestyle, or I don't understand it. I mean, it is hard enough, as a heterosexual, to find a loving, supportive relationship so how can I judge someone else who has found exactly what I seek (just using a different formula). And here is where the second issue comes in: the Bible.

Kevin was an avid advocate against same sex marriage and he justified this through his high position in Christian communities and his strong beliefs. The man was brave enough to get up, in front of the country he runs and say that after years of soul searching, years of being blinded by indoctrined ideas, he has come to the conclusion that he agrees with same sex marriage. He will seek to change the way the country views it (YAY!! Bloody YAY!!).

The coalition, of course then fired a number of arguments in retort.
1) What kind of man is running this country, that he backpedals so easily, on such a massive topic.
2) What kind of Christian would defy the teachings of the Bible, which implies that homosexuality is wrong, WHILE he is in a position of power within that community.
etc etc.

The smart arse KRudd came back with this: “Well if I was going to have that view, the Bible also says that slavery is a natural condition.”

OH the backlash that has ensued as a result! Our PM is misrepresenting the Bible, blasphemer! Our PM is not a true Christian. Blah blah blah!! It is ridiculous. I get what he means. In some way, he is trying to demonstrate how some ideas in the Bible are mistaught, misconstrued, misused or misinterpreted. It is not exactly the most contemporary portrayal of how one should live (I have yet to understand why homosexuality is such a wrong thing, in the eyes of a Christian, to be likened to atrocities such as murder and rape??).... Not only that, he is not saying the Bible condones slavery but merely stating that it is considered natural, and that some opinions (evolved from the teachings) may not apply so well to a contemporary context.

Here is an example of the kinds of sensationalised arguments that came (this is the one that infuriated me):

http://matthiasmedia.com/briefing/2013/09/pm-verbals-the-bible/

The writer of this article missed a vital idea, through their own anger, I guess. In proving that the Bible doesn't, in fact, condone slavery (Which Mr Rudd never said it did), it states in  1 Timothy 1:8-11 that

"We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. (NIV11)"

This establishes the idea that homosexuality is wrong. Then, to insist that the teachings, in fact do not encourage slavery, the author uses this quote from 1 Corinthians 7:21 - 22:

"Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord’s freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ’s slave."

If you can gain your freedom, do so. Isn't being homosexual, in a society that doesn't accept it and doesn't allow you to live out the love you have found, like being a slave? A societal slave, bound by religious undertones for chains? Oh I am so angry about this whole debate.

Then I think to myself, why am I so angry? And I am guessing it boils down to a few things.
1) I can't understand how homosexuality is wrong, in the eyes of a "true" Christian.
2) I am furious that homosexuality, something that I believe is not chosen (although I am not gay so I don't understand how it works), can be likened to sinful behaviours like murder, adultery and rape which are chosen.
3) That something that can potentially be so good, like faith and doing the right thing, can be mutilated and twisted to allow self righteous (and obviously hypocritical) people to deny another true love, spurn hatred and teach children the right ideas in the wrong context. (I did say "can", it is not always twisted in this way).

Which brings me to my final rant. There was a moment, when I decided I'd never read the Bible. Yes, granted, this is why my rant here is not very well constructed and I am not well versed or educated in this field. I don't pretend to be, this whole argument of mine is based on emotion and thus hugely flawed but I do have a reason for my anger.

First year out in the teaching profession (this was 8 years ago). I attended a Christian Christmas Scripture Ceremony with the majority of all the kids in the school (many differing religions were present and of course we got permission for the non Christians to attend). The speaker brings out a gold coin, tells the kids (5-13 years old) that all the good in them is the gold coin. He then gets a puppet to throw all sorts of disgusting things on the gold coin, like mud, dog food, dirt, slime, and what he called poop (who knows what it really was). Then he held up the vile concoction, with the gold coin buried in it, and told the children that we are born like this bucket. We have to spend life, wading through the gross bits (the sin) to find the gold coin. The only way we can do that is if we belong to Jesus. That was the moment when I realised I would endeavor to teach children the right way to act, the kind way, the righteous way, without using any such thing as God or Jesus. Try to teach that the reason we don't do wrong things is because we are born good , and we will feel terrible if we wrong another person or living creature. Oh the looks on those poor kids faces when he told them they were innately evil!!! I wanted to hit him. Hard.

Now, I know many of you may disagree with me, may want to come in and debate with me. You may even get angry at me. I am merely expressing my opinion because if I don't, I may explode. I don't expect agreement but I am happy to read about positive religious instruction or even read your views on how homosexuality is, indeed, wrong.

*End rant.

Furthermore.... Politics and religion seem to mix like water and oil! Why do we continue to stir that pot?

Because Passion rules reason for good or for ill.

I don't want to get into a heated debate over same sex marriage but I will concisely list my views.

1. I oppose it primarily because of my religious beliefs. (Its a very complicated thing to explain but it boils down to the central idea that the family,a mother and a father, is central to God's plan for man.)

2 I believe that in spite of being predisposed to unhealthy attractions/desires we develop the most when we consciously choose our path in life. This includes who we love.

3 I believe man is free to make his own choices for good or for ill.

4. I believe that persecution and ridicule of another person regardless of the choices they make is wrong. (Coming back to the religious beliefs if the standard is that no unclean thing can enter into God's presence then it doesnt matter how much or which kind of dirt you are wearing, dirty is still dirty) So to persecute homosexual behavior over any other "sin" is simply stupid.

5. From a purely secular view as long as my freedom to disagree with the popular opinion is maintained and to worship to the dictates of my on conscience then what the law says "marriage" is of little consequence to me. (However I will state that many who advocate for same sex marriage want to limit my freedom in much the same manner as they say I do theirs)

Finally I will state that its my firm belief that my church's stance on family (here: The family), not hate of homosexuality is what drives opposition to codifying same sex marriage into law.

How is my advocating same sex marriage limiting your freedom? Also, I know same sex parents who bring up children, a family, as good as and sometimes better than their heterosexual conterparts.

To answer your points
1 Did not say you were but there are many who would like to use my difference of opinion to limit my rights.
2 I never said every traditional family was good or that any homosexual couple couldn't provide good loving homes for children. Only that its my understanding that God's plan and design for the family is designed around the a mother and a father raising their own children in a healthy environment and that its an ideal to strive for. Homosexual couples, by definition, cannot have their "own" children. I make no judgments as to a couples ability to love and care for children.

Fair but I still don't understand how one's rights can be limited simply because of their opinion. I also think it is a pretty big statement to make, considering homosexuals are the ones who are limited. You are free to fall in love and marry any single female who reciprocates her feelings yet there are same sex couples that have no such freedom, simply based on their anatomy not being family friendly.

True, people in a same sex relationship cannot actually have children but my point is they can provide love to children who are not wanted, are from broken homes or even abused by heterosexual families where something went wrong. If there was a God, wouldn't he encourage love, love for children who had not received it before, love between two people who are kind and honorable people? Love should be what defines a family, not abiility to reproduce. And what about families where the heterosexual couple cannot fall pregnant? Are they as unacceptable as a homosexual couple because they cannot create a family? No, they are perfectly accepted because they are man and woman. So. It is not merely about ability to create family, is it? Again, i say, whose freedom is being stifled?

Ckyle7 wrote: Love should be what defines a family

I think this is also a very narrow viewpoint at least from God's point of view. I think its a very necessary component but there are others (procreative status isnt everything either)

Like I said earlier I dont want to get into to a heated debate and many of the things Im saying could be expounded upon a great deal. While Im opposed to gay (its easier to repeatedly type than homosexual) marriage I still think that people who are gay should not be treated differently before the law. I think much of the laws which touch on marriage do so with a default understanding of the definition to be traditional marriage. I think that to start changing that definition and start trying to apply those laws under new definitions will have unintended consequences. Please understand I completely get your viewpoint about how hypocritical it sounds. My stance is grounded more in lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. Its a complex issue in many facets and just saying you endorse or oppose same sex marriage in such simple terms does a disservice to both sides of the issue. I don't want to limit peoples happiness but we need to find a way in which to proceed that doesn't open Pandora's box either.

ckyle7 wrote:Fair but I still don't understand how one's rights can be limited simply because of their opinion.

It's been happening since the dawn of society. Consider mob rule. At it's very base, if the mob sees fit to remove your rights (whether it be freedom or simply life itself) because you have a different set of standards, they can and far too often get there way.

A very basic way to look at it, but also profoundly important in the grand scheme of things.

rainshadow wrote:

ckyle7 wrote:Fair but I still don't understand how one's rights can be limited simply because of their opinion.

It's been happening since the dawn of society. Consider mob rule. At it's very base, if the mob sees fit to remove your rights (whether it be freedom or simply life itself) because you have a different set of standards, they can and far too often get there way.

A very basic way to look at it, but also profoundly important in the grand scheme of things.

Yes okay, maybe i should rephrase in a more specific way. How does me saying "I really hope we pass the bill that allows same sex marriage in Australia" going to take away an individual's freedom?

aammondd wrote:Like I said earlier I dont want to get into to a heated debate.

Of course you don't. I wouldn't either if my position was as tenuous and unfounded.

aammondd wrote:I still think that people who are gay should not be treated differently before the law.

Keeping clear, of course, that you don't think the law should change. Meaning you think a gay persons ability to marry a member of the opposite sex makes the law equal and fair. Granted, I'm putting words in your mouth, but it's from the same tired and reasonable arguments I've heard before.

aammondd wrote:I think much of the laws which touch on marriage do so with a default understanding of the definition to be traditional marriage.

Traditional for which culture and which religion? There are more than one, you know.

aammondd wrote:I think that to start changing that definition and start trying  to apply those laws under new definitions will have unintended consequences.

Please, enumerate them.

aammondd wrote:My stance is grounded more in lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak.

You're really gonna have to throw me a bone here man. I'm having a difficult time imagining what you consider to be the baby.

aammonddbyMusika wrote:Its a complex issue in many facets and just saying you endorse or oppose slavery in such simple terms does a disservice to both sides of the issue.

aammondd wrote:I don't want to limit peoples happiness but we need to find a way in which to proceed that doesn't open Pandora's box either.

aammondd wrote:There are many who would like to use my difference of opinion to limit my rights.

Please dude, please. I need something more to work with here than your hollow portents of doom. You've continuously brought up the terrible and tragic potential for erosion of our lives and moral standing, but you refuse to list any of them. Which frankly, I think goes back to my very first remark. Either list these things so that we can pick them apart like the red herrings and strawmen I'm almost positive they are, or cease and desist in this thread.

Edit:

Ckyle7 wrote:I am furious that homosexuality, something that I believe is not chosen (although I am not gay so I don't understand how it works), can be likened to sinful behaviours like murder, adultery and rape which are chosen.

It's not chosen, C. It's also very simple to understand: When did you decide to be attracted to men? When did you chose not to be attracted to women? See how that works?  

My reasons are my reasons you can either accept or reject them that is your right.
As I have stated I dont want a heated debate. But you somehow want to interject such heat by baiting me to respond. By saying either explain your self of leave as if you have some right or authority to say discussion is over just because you reject what you think im saying. (As you say putting words in my mouth)

I remember you from before and this style of yours remains unchanged. It wouldn't matter what I say because you are neither going to accept or even attempt to understand my viewpoint. But for others benefit I will answer one point.

Everyone who rejects a religious point of view on the issue has made up their mind already that they can't see a reason for God's rejection of gay marriage or homosexual behavior. And in general its made by those who reject God outright in the first place. However for those of us who place more value on what we have experienced than proving it to others know and understand that God's laws encompass more than this transitory existence here on Earth. That regardless of your ability to comprehend a larger picture or not the reality of its existence is clear for us.

That is not to say that all religious individual behave in a manner consistent with their religions professed beliefs either but the consideration a higher purpose or different perspective on why we are alive is central to their decision making.

To put it into a better and full context from my beliefs, our lives here on earth are the result of decisions made previously to being born while still in the presence of God. Those decisions were made individually and were agreed upon. God knew and told us that the challenges we would face here in mortality would result in the possibility that we would never be able to return to his presence. We agreed to take the risk and agreed to his conditions. There were among us those who chose not to go or rebelled against the plan. Those are the "fallen angels" the bible speaks about. Spirits cast out. Much like the rebellious teenager unwilling to live by their parents rules.
To make a long theological statement shorter the net result of our experiences here on earth/in mortality will be carried with us into eternity where we will have to face consequences of the character we have become. In short God laid out a plan and with the risks presented we were given the choices. We chose to take the risks God presented.

I don't have all the answers to every detail of the "plan" and why things happen but my experiences with God tell me He does. If I trust in Him then in the end I will be better off. I can see inklings of what He has in mind from time to time as I see things play out. And one of those important items is that for as much "love" as I have for someone else it is only the relationship between a man and a woman that can bring fulfillment on an eternal scale. I don't know the eternal mechanics of why that is. I just know that God knows it is so and I trust my Father in this. In this I am a child being instructed to accept wisdom for my benefit. For me to deny this is to deny reality.

Now before you think me crazier than you already do I am only telling you this so you can get a better understanding of me. If you don't believe as I do then I cannot expect to hold you to a standard I set for myself but if you ask me for my vote and my opinion I will give you the same again and again. I oppose gay marriage on the grounds that redefining marriage in this way fundamentally changes the basic unit of society, the family, in ways which I find disturbing considering my theological background. When I am asked for my vote or opinion I will give it but that is the extent to which I am going to attempt to impose my will on someone else. I have as much right to my view as you do to reject it. you can view my opinions as outdated and antiquated and I can view yours as shortsighted and reckless but don't ever take the position that if I cant "justify" myself to you in the manner you require I must be silent.

Dude, I get it. You think god is against it therefore you're against it. I get the concept.

And obviously, I have no power here to keep you from posting. We both know this. What I do have though is the power to call you out on your ineffectual posts and ridicule your lack of sound argument. I will do these things every chance you give me when I know you're being openly obtuse, and especially when your comments add nothing to the conversation. Your arguments can quite literally be summed up as:

1. You're against it because god is against it.
2. You think bad things will happen if it becomes normalized.
3. In some way legalization limits your rights.

You provided nothing else. Paragraphs of words, which boil down to those three items. Further, the first point I'll largely withhold judgement on in this thread, but the second two you provided absolutely nothing to back them up. I mean, if you think the second point is going to bring about judgement day, sure fine, I largely won't touch that, but you have said at least four times that bad things will happen. I call that fear mongering.

And really, the final point that it will somehow limit your rights. I mean, I can maybe see where you're going with that argument. Maybe. You'd just need to explain the difference between how it applies and preventing you from killing people if it were part of your religious views.

Further, I remember you as well, but my memory seems to be faulty. I seem to remember you trying to actually substantiate your ideas outside of purely religious sources.

Finally, I'll take whatever position I wish. Be silent or provide a sound argument. Otherwise all you're doing is being effectually silent.

aammondd- here is part of a quote from your church that they made after the recent prop 8 ruling in California. "Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children. Notably, the court decision does not change the definition of marriage in nearly three fourths of the states."

Your church practiced polygamy for years (allegedly under your gods direct order.) So was your church purposefully raising children that they would fail to nurture? Why is 'traditional marriage' so important, when your church didn't adhere to only that view, for years?! Also, did they forget they practiced it? Because this is a really silly thing to say honestly. Especially if you know the churches history. The person who started your church had over 30 wives. Some of whom were married to other men when he married them. Where's the 'traditional' in that?

Also considering the bible is full of 'non traditional' relationships. Your god is finicky as a cat. Funny how the church's views changed when they wanted to become a state.

What's next? Maybe we should bring up how your church was racist? Then years after blacks got equal rights your god finally got off his but and changed his mind?

Look Im not trying to change your opinion only explain mine. As I stated my opposition is primarily religious and its not because I think God hates gays its because God has a more eternal view of what family means and what is ultimately best for his children. You don't have to believe it. Its what I believe. For me to go into a very lengthy discussion about why I believe what I believe would take this thread in a very different direction. I don't want to derail it.

Nor Talonnolan, do I want to get into issues over the Mormon church's history that serve only to distract from the topic at hand. Suffice it to say that yes there are many things in the church's past that viewed from a non-believers perspective seem wrong, irrational and down right hypocritical. I don't intend to explain them away but I will only say that the limited interpretation you give of things is not the only one. As many have learned things are often not as simple as some would like us to believe. If you are going to reject the whole premise of God there is little that I can say that will "justify" my position. My only intent was to show that there are reasons to oppose that are not simply hateful. Many see this as a simple cut and dry issue because they are willing to believe that there is no harm. For those who have a different standard to judge by we are concerned about a number of things but the desire to limit a person's happiness is not one of them

Many have been able to find happiness in themselves even in the worst of circumstances. If you are looking for a change in law or definition or something else that "allows" you happiness then I would say you are looking in the wrong place. Happiness is chosen. We have experienced a degradation of society through Incrementalism. Those who push for such things only concern themselves with the immediate perceived injustice.(real or not) and are little concerned with the unintended consequences. Its my opinion that when we are talking about such a fundamental building block of society someone should say hey lets slow down and find the right way to deal with this. Lets not only look at what the "afflicted" seek to gain but by making this change who is the next "victim" and how and when do we stop "victimizing" people. The right way to do things isn't always the way the petulant child wants it to be. (Don't read into that more than the statement deserves It was only to serve as a reminder that we can all be petulant children when our passions are inflamed) We have a difference of opinion on what is the reality of the issue.

I fully recognize there are those with religious beliefs less willing to entertain solutions to the conflict this issue creates. I am not one of those. But I cannot and will not stand by and be told that because I have concerns that you don't agree with that my opinion is somehow invalid.

If you cant tell from the many posts I'll state it plainly.

I oppose gay marriage but my opposition is not a rejection of the fact that there are problems in the law. I just don't think this is necessarily the heart of the problem (though for some it may seem that way) nor the bests way to go about solving it.

aammondd wrote: My only intent was to show that there are reasons to oppose that are not simply hateful.

If you say so. I'm still having having trouble finding anything your diatribe which is an actual reason aside from the cause-god-said-so argument. Including any harm you believe may occur. For which you haven't provided any examples, statistics, etc. You can claim people are rushing this all you desire, that won't make it so. Reasons are the building blocks to these discussions. You bring none to the table. You just talk about it wanting to bring it to the table.

aammondd wrote:If you are looking for a change in law or definition or something else that "allows" you happiness then I would say you are looking in the wrong place. Happiness is chosen.

Gawd, this is just so ignorant and hateful that I almost want to throw your computer against the well. There are still countries where gay people are killed because of the law. Even in the US aspects of homosexuality could land you in jail. We're talking about the freedom to express that happiness and be treated equally under the law in a secular government (removed namecalling).

aammondd wrote:But I cannot and will not stand by and be told that because I have concerns that you don't agree with that my opinion is somehow invalid.

It's invalid. It's old. It's dying out. Do you know what the major roadblock is to legalization in the US? Old people. And your opinions and arguments are nothing that hasn't been spouted about interracial marriage. It's hateful and makes you a bigot. Your pedestal of faith makes you look disgusting to reasonable people, not enlightened.

aammondd wrote:I oppose gay marriage but my opposition is not a rejection of the fact that there are problems in the law. I just don't think this is necessarily the heart of the problem (though for some it may seem that way) nor the bests way to go about solving it.

Are you going to say anything new? You've yet to list even ONE potentially detrimental effect which isn't strictly faith based. Not one, Mr. Almond.

aammondd wrote:
Nor Talonnolan, do I want to get into issues over the Mormon church's history that serve only to distract from the topic at hand. Suffice it to say that yes there are many things in the church's past that viewed from a non-believers perspective seem wrong, irrational and down right hypocritical. I don't intend to explain them away but  I will only say that the limited interpretation you give of things is not the only one. As many have learned things are often not as simple as some would like us to believe. If you are going to reject the whole premise of God there is little that I can say that will "justify" my position. My only intent was to show that there are reasons to oppose that are not simply hateful. Many see this as a simple cut and dry issue because they are willing to believe that there is no harm. For those who have a different standard to judge by we are concerned about a number of things but the desire to limit a person's happiness is not one of them

Remember, I was mormon for years. Nothing from the mormons perspective explains away the hypocritical nonsense that I quoted. They were practicing non traditional marriage from nearly the beginning. Again, did god just happen to want kids to be raised in poor environments?

Your church fails, its simple. I'm sure in another 50 years they'll get a 'message from god' to finally allow gays to be married. Just like they did when god told them to stop polygamy. Or to allows blacks to hold the priesthood. Or maybe 50 years from now your church will be gone. Numbers are dwindling. That will be a great day.

Musikaman wrote:

aammondd wrote: My only intent was to show that there are reasons to oppose that are not simply hateful.

If you say so. I'm still having having trouble finding anything your diatribe which is an actual reason aside from the cause-god-said-so argument. Including any harm you believe may occur. For which you haven't provided any examples, statistics, etc. You can claim people are rushing this all you desire, that won't make it so. Reasons are the building blocks to these discussions. You bring none to the table. You just talk about it wanting to bring it to the table.

Im only going to list one because you insist but I'm not going to make this a detailed exercise answering the proverbial "why"
In California the state legislature is preparing bills that will remove tax exempt status from any organization that offers a contrary opinion to same sex marriage. Further legislation is being considered that will allow the state to seize property from organizations deemed discriminatory. (The standard for discrimination is not defined). Other legislation is also considered that would ban the use of public lands to those same entities.

Musikaman wrote:

aammondd wrote:If you are looking for a change in law or definition or something else that "allows" you happiness then I would say you are looking in the wrong place. Happiness is chosen.

Gawd, this is just so ignorant and hateful that I almost want to throw your computer against the well. There are still countries where gay people are killed because of the fucking law. Even in the US aspects of homosexuality could land you in jail. We're talking about the freedom to express that happiness and be treated equally under the law in a secular government (Removed namecalling).

If you were not so insistent on thinking the worst of me you would understand that this is a philisophical statement not referring to any one particular issue.

Musikaman wrote:

aammondd wrote:But I cannot and will not stand by and be told that because I have concerns that you don't agree with that my opinion is somehow invalid.

It's invalid. It's old. It's dying out. Do you know what the major roadblock is to legalization in the US? Old people. And your opinions and arguments are nothing that hasn't been spouted about interracial marriage. It's hateful and makes you a bigot. Your pedestal of faith makes you look disgusting to reasonable people, not enlightened.

I thought better of responding to such taunts.

Musikaman wrote:

aammondd wrote:I oppose gay marriage but my opposition is not a rejection of the fact that there are problems in the law. I just don't think this is necessarily the heart of the problem (though for some it may seem that way) nor the bests way to go about solving it.

Are you going to say anything new? You've yet to list even ONE potentially detrimental effect which isn't strictly faith based. Not one, Mr. Almond.

I have no response because to you my faith is invalid.

talonnolan wrote:
Remember, I was mormon for years. Nothing from the mormons perspective explains away the hypocritical nonsense that I quoted. They were practicing non traditional marriage from nearly the beginning. Again, did god just happen to want kids to be raised in poor environments?

Your church fails, its simple. I'm sure in another 50 years they'll get a 'message from god' to finally allow gays to be married. Just like they did when god told them to stop polygamy. Or to allows blacks to hold the priesthood.  Or maybe 50 years from now your church will be gone. Numbers are dwindling. That will be a great day.

I remember however your interpretation of events is still over simplified.
As to the claim of non-traditional I can only state that the relationships were still between man and woman which is the "traditional" context of any law involving marriage to which I was referring.

aammondd wrote:In California the state legislature is preparing bills that will remove tax exempt status from any organization that offers a contrary opinion to same sex marriage. Further legislation is being considered that will allow the state to seize property from organizations deemed discriminatory. (The standard for discrimination is not defined). Other legislation is also considered that would ban the use of public lands to those same entities.

Gonna need a link or two here man. My gut says the first point is likely meant to curb the political reach of the church, which is a condition of said tax exemption, and one the FFRF is currently suing the IRS for not maintaining. They were just recently granted standing to do so.

The second I'm going to toss up as FUD.

The third is probably SB 232 which "ensures nonprofit youth organizations that receive special state tax privileges comply with California’s nondiscrimination laws. Specifically, this bill revokes the special tax status rewarded to nonprofit youth organizations should they violate our state’s nondiscrimination laws." I've never seen anything which would outright ban the use of said facilities, just remove any special price breaks and such.

Again, source?

And regardless, I'm not seeing anything here that's largely detrimental and will cause the very foundation of society to crumble away like so much dross.  

aammondd wrote:If you were not so insistent on thinking the worst of me you would understand that this is a philisophical statement not referring to any one particular issue.

I reject it as a philosophical statement too. It's awfully difficult, and completely unreasonable, to expect a rape victim, a starving person, a bullied person, etc., to simply choose happiness. Sure, there is something to be said for gathering ones resolve and soldiering on, but to act as if outside influences can't have a meaningful and chaotic impact on ones ability to be happy is just pure foolishness.

aammondd wrote:I thought better of responding to such taunts.

You should give it a try. It's quite relaxing.

Musikaman wrote:I have no response because to you my faith is invalid.

To me and many others. Are you just now understanding that you're surrounded by a group of individuals who considers it such?

We can take elements of this into their own threads if you like but I'm done chasing moving goal posts here.

Dude, you dodge outright answering anything you raise as a concern like a greased pig trying to be caught. The goal posts haven't been moved at all. You are the one who stated consistently that you had concerns about an outright allowance and law change concerning gay marriage. You have also consistently refused to state what those concerns might be or how such changes would infringe upon any of your many enumerated rights. No one has moved the goal posts, we've simply asked you explain those specific concerns, pointedly for the ones which are potentially more secular than religious. You've provided nothing.

Aammondd, I don't call you out on these things to deride your faith so much as to show others how empty such trappings are. I usually at least get a little more of a logic battle than those, foxnewsesque though it might be. I mean, even back when I was religious, I feel like I made more of an effort to provide evidence than you have. Probably why I'm not now.  

First, let me say that I am completely, irrevocably supportive of gay marriage. The idea that two people who are in love and attracted to each other should not be given the same rights merely because they are of the same sex is preposterous. HOWEVER, I do wish to address some of the issues that have arisen in this conversation and propose some consequences to same sex marriage that may, possibly, arise in a theoretical sense.

On the issue that gay marriage would take away rights: Firstly, it is clearly not gay marriage that would take away anyone elses rights, it is rather laws that are subsidiaries or connected in some way that are attempts to oppose prejudices that would cause the detrimental effects. If there was merely a change in law which allows gay persons to marry, then there would be no effect on any other aspect. It is the ways that other laws are being changed which affects heterosexual-supportive persons and groups. To say "If you think gays shouldn't marry we will take away your ability to practice or have this land" is just as ridiculous as limiting the right to marry. However "We won't give you special tax breaks if you exclude someone just because of who they are sexually attracted to" seems fair to me if it is only regarding THAT - merely because I am against exclusion and tax breaks should be fair.
On this subject of discrimination, I have a bit of anger towards organizations that exclude a person because of their sexuality, like the Boy Scouts of America excluding homosexuals. However, just as the boy scouts and girl scouts are separated to prevent issues of members becoming intimate (mainly for the fear of pregnancy and, pertinent to this issue, STDs), I can see the worry behind that decision. It STILL is unfair and should be resolved so that homosexual boys can go through the scouting program if they wish (though this is, of course, a side issue to the original one).

On the issue of the LDS religion's standards against homosexuality: I grew up in the church and have researched it extensively. I've come to the conclusion that while it has many positive qualities, I, personally, cannot follow it for the reasons talonnolan listed and many more. There are many inconsistencies that are often excused as being "the mysteries of god" and I call bullshit. Yes, there are many things I cannot understand, but it is very true that there is NOT any possibility that every living being on this earth (*until the hypothesized second coming at the least) will be LDS or converted to Mormonism, and just as much as members of the church wish to be allowed to believe as they will without prejudice or their rights being taken away, so, too, do others. It is in the very foundation of the church to allow others to live and believe as they will and to not condemn them for it, yet I still find so many of the church (and no, I am NOT singling out aammonndd who I have high respect for) stand on their own version of the Ramiumptum (don't remember spelling, it's been years since I read the BoM) to say "yea, we are grateful, o god, that thou hast chosen us" while condemning others. The LDS church, like any other organization, has flaws and most importantly, it is full of humans. Humans have their own prejudices and beliefs, and that ALWAYS affects whatever they are a part of and how they portray it.
Does God, if He exists, have a plan that involves a perfect family unit of the Father and Mother at the head? I don't know. How is it then that it is perfectly acceptable for women to choose to never marry if a suitable mate is not found, or if one is divorced or widowed that they are accepted as a single parent? And again, the argument of polygamy. I do not know the answers to these questions. No one does. And that is my problem with it, because honestly, I am not the sort of person who can "have faith" in principles or lifestyle choices, nor do I believe I should.
I strongly believe that whatever a person's beliefs, if it makes them happy and does not come at the detriment to others, it is perfectly fine. And I mean actual detriment, not perceived, not offense, or whatever. Two consentual adults having intimate relations in the privacy of their own home does not affect another living creature in any way. On the other hand, if a person receives the most satisfaction from raping another, then that is detrimental and therefore not good nor should it be allowed.

I, personally, am friends with and have dated many types of people: men, women, transgender, transqueer, those wishing no sexual distinction, etc. And the only thing that made them good or bad was their personalities, not their sexual preferences. They never harmed another person through their sexuality unless using it as an emotional weapon, but let's be honest, that happens at least as much in heterosexual couplings.

I would also like to address another potential consequence of homosexuality being embraced and accepted and therefore becoming more prevalent: The unknown affect on our gene pool. As those of us who are for homosexual fairness have stated, homosexuality is not a choice. That brings up a hypothesis that it is very likely a genetic factor of some sort (unless it has to do with a person's spiritual make up, solely, which can neither be proven nor does it seem logical). Let us then take a scenario I have witnessed between friends as an experiment: there is a group of homosexual friends including lesbians and gays, and two are women in a relationship and two are men in a relationship. Let's say that each of these four persons contain a mutated gene which causes a disposition toward not only sexual attraction to the same sex, but also other attributes in the very earliest stages of evolution. They marry (or become life partners, since marriage is illegal, but they basically are living the same life without the benefits. Sounds shitty, eh?) woman to woman, and man to man, and as a pact of friends decide to go the medical route and use artificial insemination to use the gay men's sperm to impregnate the lesbian couple so each couple can have a family with a child. This then passes the genetic mutation of homosexuality on to the following generation (in this hypothesis the gene does not skip nor become inert when both parents are carriers). As this, and similar scenarios, spreads throughout the human race the gene proliferates, strengthens, and begins affecting millions of different minutae. The first few generations this isn't very noticeable. However, through more generations this gene slowly takes over - finding heterosexual mates becomes increasingly difficult for those not affected by the gene or with a latent variation of it; the sexual organs begin changing, possibly decreasing in size and the need for artificial insemination grows along with the risk of miscarriage (yay pandas); hormone levels change in males and females creating change in physicality and development; and eventually leading to difficulties in continuing the human race. Dun-dun-dunnn....
This is, however, unlikely because even with a number of homosexuals, there are still billions of humans who are heterosexual and it would probably take at least few thousand years for these effects to begin to affect us as a race.

When it comes down to it - homosexuals are going to have sex and have children. The are going to partner up and spend their lives together. That IS going to continue happening. It is most likely going to become more and more socially acceptable until it is just as normal as it now is for members of any race to coexist, and moreso. The only real issue is to find ways for people of disparaging practices to coexist peacefully and for laws to be free of prejudices so that they are redesigned to be fair across the board - not by punishing unfairness in select groups, but by encouraging acceptance or a choice to coexist peacefully but separately. If a group does not want homosexuals involved in it - fine - but that should have no bearing on whether or not homosexuals can gain the same benefits other life partners that are opposite sexes receive nor should it affect the rights of those groups or organizations who do not believe in practicing homosexuality.

I don't find much to disagree with. I agree as well that the Church is populated with humans and as a result often cause more harm than the good that they can do. I stay away from the Ramiumptum (cant spell it either) its far too high and Id probably fall off if I tried.

I can appreciate the difficulties many find with the Church (and religion in general). If it weren't for the experiences in my own life that have taught me otherwise I would more than likely agree with many of you.

I was actually wondering what you guys thing of this:

I agree with him, and was amused at the religious questioner's fumbling.