Mormons are homophobes?

[tweetjj]

Frankly I was offended that Cheapy in the most recent podcast labeled Mormons, specifically Orson Scott Card, as homophobes. I would like to know if Cheapy has such stereotypical opinions toward all religions. I would also like to know if Cheapy bases this negative opinion on an actual conversation with a real life Mormon.

I think that we should all be entitled to have any opinion we want without fear of being labeled homophobic because our opinions differ. But according to Cheapy, since I am against gay marriage, but in support of partner rights I must be a homophobe as well. This hateful speech toward me and the religion I cherish really turned my stomach.



I consider the CAG cast to be one of my top three favorite podcasts. In spite of my disagreement of Cheapy's opinion of Mormons I will continue to download and listen because I can respect that his opinions differ from mine. I just hope that Cheapy will agree that all groups, religions and people should be allowed to live, think, act and vote as their conscience dictates.

Tom in Vegas

[m0rningbreakfast]

They might be, I think they, as a collective, chipped in a huge contribution $1 million+ to help pass Proposition 8 - the banning of gay marriages last November election

[lilboo]

Mormon is just a typo for Moron.
/truth

[CoffeeEdge]

Okay, I didn't listen to the podcast, but FYI, Card is absolutely a homophobe. Severely so, and very open about it. He'd be the first to tell you.

People that are "against gay marriage, but in support of partner rights" are ignorant fools who have stupid hangups about particular bits of vocabulary, like the word "marriage," like that word is reserved for them only.

People who believe this ARE still homophobes. You're afraid that they'll taint your term or institution, or something. Supporting unions instead of marriages (SAME FUCKING THING, JUST A DIFFERENT FUCKING WORD) is still homophobic, and completely stupid.

[neocisco]

Applying the term "homophobe" to anyone who isn't in complete lockstep with the, for lack of a better phrase at the moment, homosexual agenda is a misnomer. People who use that term need to understand what defines a phobia and then realize they shouldnt just apply it to anyone who disagrees with their opinion. Regardless of my opinion (whatever it may be) on certain matters, that term is a strong overstatement much of the time it is used and tends to be a lazy crutch that many lean on.

[lilboo]

It stems from ignorance and fear, so no, "homophobes" is a perfect term. I'd say let's call them retards but I wouldn't want to classify those people in the same category as the mentally ill. Those people don't deserve it :(

[neocisco]

You can't know for a fact that every person who disagrees with you is motivated by "ignorance and fear" so you shouldn't apply a generalized term to said people. That would be stereotyping, which is hardly the act of an open-minded person. You are open-minded, aren't you?

[thwak]

Let me put it this way, Orson Scott Card is a homophobe and has written about his views plenty of times.

It also just so happens that he's a mormon. Now I'm sure not all mormons are homophobic, or racist, but when you have a representative of the mormon church talking about his homophobic views it makes the entire church seem homophobic to an outsiders view.

[blaked569]

Applying the term "homophobe" to anyone who isn't in complete lockstep with the, for lack of a better phrase at the moment, homosexual agenda is a misnomer.

What is this homosexual agenda of which you speak? Please enlighten me.

[sanderdaniels81]

Now I'm sure not all mormons are homophobic, or racist, but when you have a representative of the mormon church talking about his homophobic views it makes the entire church seem homophobic to an outsiders view.


Actually, Card isn't a representative of the mormon church at all. If a catholic person says "homosexuality is a sin" would an outsider immediately assume catholics are homophobes? You're making a gross generalization when you speak for ALL of the "outsiders" in the world.

The only reason there was a dispute to begin with is over the civil obligations and privileges provided by the government to married couples. The government allows a husband or wife visitation rights in the hospital. The government allows a married couple certain tax benefits, and benefits for having children. The government provides provisions for a married couple's property inheritances in the event of the death of one of the partners.

Do I believe that gay couples should be entitled to these benefits? Yes. Which is why I support civil unions that provide these provisions for gay couples. However, as a religious person myself, I believe marriage is a union created by God to be between a man and a woman - and the fact that such a union, when carried out properly (with proper treatment of spouse and children) creates a safe environment for the continuance of the human species tells me that it's a good thing.

That's how I feel, and that's how I'm going to vote, and I encourage you to do the same, whether you agree or not. Cause, ya know, democracy and all.


Mormon is just a typo for Moron.


This was just so insightful and full of well-thought-out literary device.
You're such a winner.
You should pat yourself on the back.
Now perhaps you could enlighten us with a derogatory comment about Blacks, Jews, Muslims, or Gays.

Yeah, generalizations pretty much make you look like a total ass.

[thwak]

Actually, Card isn't a representative of the mormon church at all. If a catholic person says "homosexuality is a sin" would an outsider immediately assume catholics are homophobes? You're making a gross generalization when you speak for ALL of the "outsiders" in the world.
Mormons are not the same as Catholics.

Mormonism is a very small religion, and is more akin to Scientology then it is Catholicism. Therefore it is completely valid to say that Orson Scott Card counts as a representative of the mormon church when he speaks. I also think that the Osmonds count as representatives of the mormon church as well as Mitt Romney. While they may not hold any official positions with in the church itself, they are famous and they do speak about their beliefs in public, so they do count as representatives of their religion.

This is different from a famous catholic person talking about their views because Catholicism is a much bigger religion. Is this fair? No but that's just how it is.

[sanderdaniels81]

Mormonism is a very small religion


Not according to a little something I like to call "facts".

13.5 million members worldwide (found on the right side panel)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

Compare to Judaism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html


Mormonism is in the same ballpark as Judaism when it comes to numbers. I wouldn't exactly call that "very small". Smaller than the Catholic church, yes. But not "very small."



This is different from a famous catholic person talking about their views because Catholicism is a much bigger religion. Is this fair? No but that's just how it is.


I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but your saying so does not make it fact. Sorry to be the one to break the bad news.

[yesiamaplant]

Generalizations are certainly not the way to go, sure. Without a doubt you can't say something like "All ____ are ____" without incurring the wrath of the vocal minority, or righteous majority. However, some of my best friends are mormons, and I have met many a mormon in my life time, and I can tell you that I have never met a practicing mormon who isn't against homosexuality. You yourself have admitted to an anti-gay bias (separate but equal is not equal), further illustrating the point. Getting offended because someone calls it a phobia instead of a widely held belief is a pointless semantic argument.

Let's have a quick lesson in self-incrimination, while we're at it.

"...for lack of a better phrase at the moment, homosexual agenda..."

Right there. Homosexual Agenda. The idea that you could type that phrase in a non-ironic way is what would make me think of you as homophobic. Don't hide behind the supposed lack of a better phrase, because there's any number of other things you could have said. The idea that people of the same sexual orientation have a mass agenda is reactionary and absurd. Swap out "Homosexual" with "Jew" or "Colored" and try not to feel like a jerk. I dare you.

Yeah, right wing jargon pretty much makes you look like a total ass.

[thwak]

Not according to a little something I like to call "facts".

13.5 million members worldwide (found on the right side panel)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

Compare to Judaism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html


Mormonism is in the same ballpark as Judaism when it comes to numbers. I wouldn't exactly call that "very small". Smaller than the Catholic church, yes. But not "very small."

It's more comparable to Judaism in the united states, but world wide there's a difference of 5 million to 12 million in favor of Judaism based on the sources your provided. I'm going by the numbers on wikipedia and the most recent numbers on adherents.






I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but your saying so does not make it fact. Sorry to be the one to break the bad news.
I never said that was fact, I just said that's the way it is based on how I have seen people who look at the mormon religion. I should've made that more clear and I'm sorry for the confusion.

But hey, when I see people talk about members of the mormon church they don't talk about Thomas S. Monson, they talk about Orson Scott Card and Donny Osmond.

[TLPRIME]

Okay, I didn't listen to the podcast, but FYI, Card is absolutely a homophobe. Severely so, and very open about it. He'd be the first to tell you.

People that are "against gay marriage, but in support of partner rights" are ignorant fools who have stupid hangups about particular bits of vocabulary, like the word "marriage," like that word is reserved for them only.

People who believe this ARE still homophobes. You're afraid that they'll taint your term or institution, or something. Supporting unions instead of marriages (SAME FUCKING THING, JUST A DIFFERENT FUCKING WORD) is still homophobic, and completely stupid.

This.

[mietha]

My wife has interacted with dozens of Mormons at her job and every single one of them was a big, fat homophobe. Some were more vocal than others, but they all opposed it. The religion, as a whole, STRONGLY opposes gays period, not just gay marriage. Many of them stopped talking to her and two even requested transfers, which they were granted, after she told them she supported gay marriage. Are all mormons homophones? No, probably not. Are most of them? Most likely. Are they, as a religion, opposed to gay sex? Ab-so-fucking-lutely. OSC is a big flaming homophobe. Read, oh, basically any opinion piece he has ever written. For the record, most homophobes are closet homosexuals, so take that for what you will...

"I just hope that Cheapy will agree that all groups, religions and people should be allowed to live, think, act and vote as their conscience dictates."

Wow, this is just about the dumbest fucking statement ever. Hitler's conscience certainly fucking dictated that it was ok to exterminate all jews. Does that make it ok?

And you're right, being opposed to gay marriage doesn't make you a homophobe. -phobe implies fear. That means you simply discriminate against them and think you are better than they are and should be given rights that should be denied to them, without even the excuse of fear to motivate you. Yep, that's so much better...

And one more comment (maybe) then I'll shut the fuck up: Most stereotypes exist because they are usually true. People just don't want to admit that. For example: it's kind of hard to argue that jews don't highly value money when, among many other things, the Blazing Saddles commentary is basically 45 minutes (he couldn't be bothered to talk through the whole movie apparently) of Mel Brooks saying how important the movie is to him because it still makes him money. I kid you not, and he certainly wasn't joking. Are stereostypes always true? Of course not, but if they weren't often true, they wouldn't exist. Seriously, can you name a single stereotype that is never true? Ok, I lied, one more: While I certainly don't agree with "Mormon is just a typo for Moron.", I did find it pretty funny. To each his own, I suppose.

Ok, one more. I mean it this time. Okie, Mr. "I'm opposed to gay marriages" what, exactly, do you base that belief on? If it is a religious basis, and it is because, according to your little book, marrige is only a same sex institution, and thus this implies you believe that marriage is a religious joining, why are you only opposed to gay marriage? Why should hindus be allowed to marry? They don't acknowledge your god. Or buddists? Or shintos? etc etc. Anyone else of the opinion that anyone opposed to gay marriage probably isn't married? I'm all for gay marriage. They should have to suffer too... :)

[mykevermin]

Frankly I was offended that Cheapy in the most recent podcast labeled Mormons, specifically Orson Scott Card, as homophobes. I would like to know if Cheapy has such stereotypical opinions toward all religions. I would also like to know if Cheapy bases this negative opinion on an actual conversation with a real life Mormon.

I'd like to know if you base your ideology as a Mormon with the teachings of the LDS church itself:
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/same-sex-marriage-and-proposition-8

CoffeeEdge has already covered Card.

Are you even a Mormon of just pretending to be one? I may be an "Easter and Christmas Catholic" but I at least understand the tenets of my faith. Wondering if the LDS Church is homophobic is akin to wondering if they wear funny underwear, convert the dead to LDS, abstain from alcohol, or spend two years on mission as young adults. OF COURSE THEY DO WHAT KIND OF WEIRD JUJU MORMON CHURCH ARE YOU ATTENDING THAT DOESN'T DO THIS

I think that we should all be entitled to have any opinion we want without fear of being labeled homophobic because our opinions differ. But according to Cheapy, since I am against gay marriage, but in support of partner rights I must be a homophobe as well. This hateful speech toward me and the religion I cherish really turned my stomach.

Wait wait wait. You're entitled to your opinion, this is true. But if you opinion is homophobic (i.e., you're against gay marriage and therefore support treating an entire group of Americans as second-class citizens and depriving them of the rights that you possess), then you're going to be called a homophobe.

You get to have the opinions, but you also take the responsibility of the consequences of your actions. You don't get to have strong, bigoted opinions and then get upset that someone is upset that you're a bigot.

I consider the CAG cast to be one of my top three favorite podcasts. In spite of my disagreement of Cheapy's opinion of Mormons I will continue to download and listen because I can respect that his opinions differ from mine. I just hope that Cheapy will agree that all groups, religions and people should be allowed to live, think, act and vote as their conscience dictates.

It's not Cheapy's opinion, it's the official stance of the LDS church. Do you even know your own faith?

I would also recommend you do a little leg work and find out about how much money the LDS church shuffled into California in 2008 to defeat Proposition 8.

Here's a starter for you: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15marriage.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp&oref=slogin

Tom in Vegas

Get out of Vegas and get up to Temple Square, toots. You know shit about your faith.

[lilboo]

Actually, straight people, we get our our 2010 Homosexual Agenda books in November this year! I can't wait! I have so much to do next year.

[tweetjj]

Wow...I don't know my own religion. Wow...I am a homophobe because I want the definition of marriage to mean a man and a woman. Wow... I am a bigot because my opinion differs than yours. Wow... I never thought this post would turn into personal attacks.

I know my religion and I love my religion. I know what a marriage is. I am not a bigot, but I am not upset that some of you think I am. I can accept the fact that others think differently than me without resorting to personal attacks.


It is my opinion that this whole argument is about a word. A word that I feel does not apply to everyone. And because it does not apply to everyone there are cries of "foul" "homophobe" and "bigot" by those who do not fit within the definition of that word. But what if those who do not fit into the criteria of the word came up with a different word. A word that will give ALL members of society the same rights and privileges of the original word. Thereby allowing the meaning of the original word to stay the same, creating a word that can encompass everyone and ALL segments of society receiving the same rights and privileges.

This hatred lobbed at me and my religion is because of how we define a word: marriage. It is not about rights, privileges, equality, or freedom. Its about one segment of society forcing another segment of society to change its definition of a word. Why? Why is a word more important that rights? Why is time and energy being wasted on redefining a word?

Tom in Vegas, but I will be going to Temple Square this October.

[blaked569]

This hatred lobbed at me and my religion is because of how we define a word: marriage. It is not about rights, privileges, equality, or freedom. Its about one segment of society forcing another segment of society to change its definition of a word. Why? Why is a word more important that rights? Why is time and energy being wasted on redefining a word?

Realize that, to non-religious people (and a good portion of religious people as well), this sounds absolutely absurd. Like, so absurd that it is almost unfathomable what mental processes you undergo to come to your conclusion.

Mietha brings up a good point. If you feel that marriage is something that your god instituted as a special union between a man and a woman exclusively, that's fine. But what about those who don't get married under a religious context? As Mietha pointed out, what about Hindus and Buddhists and athiests? Catholics and Mormons (and others opposed to gay marriage) don't OWN marriage, so it's rather offensive that they feel obligated to bar others from marriage, especially when it is on semantic grounds. SEMANTIC GROUNDS!!!

[Richard Kain]

Mormons aren't homophobes, exactly. It is true that Mormon...ism does not endorse homosexuality. But this shouldn't really be surprising. Neither do Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.

I know this will probably piss off any Mormons around here, but most of the major religions don't recognize Mormon...ism as an actual religion. We consider it to be a cult. This is a matter of semantics, but it gives some insight into the attitude most other religions adopt to the Mormon "faith." The biggest difference for us between Mormons and the Church of Scientology is the abscence of any Science-fiction writers.

[mykevermin]

Who gets dibs over the word "marriage?" Even if some Abrahamic faith could lay claim to saying it was "theirs first," under no circumstances could LDS be that faith.

If you can't figure out that differential treatment is bigoted, that's not my problem, dude, that's yours.

[Richard Kain]

The squabble over the term "marriage" is just a legal issue, it isn't actually pertinent to the discussion at hand. After all, people who don't follow any defined faith are still able to get "married." Whether a particular religion endorses their marriage or not is immaterial to your average citizen. In terms of modern relevance, the institution of marriage is defined and regulated by the government. And this isn't due to any moralistic consideration, it is a matter of civic regulation, and an attempt to support the traditional family structure.

Married couples gain certain financial advantages that single individuals don't enjoy. This is an attempt on the government's part to support couples who are attempting to raise children. Raising children has always been an expensive proposition, and giving married couples a leg up in this department supports the development of stable families.

Of course, if this is the primary reason for the government to endorse and regulate the institution of marriage, it stands to reason that the government would object to homosexual marriage. Why? Homosexuals can't naturally reproduce on their own. This isn't rocket science. The entire reason for having two genders is reproduction. Homosexuality by its very nature prevents the growth of a stable family structure. The use of medical science or the adoption of children produced by a heterosexual relationship are the only possibilities for a homosexual couple to have a family.

So homosexual marriages can be seen as an institution that would be parasitic for society as a whole.

[mykevermin]

That argument falls apart because "marriage" is the proxy for social benefits, not "parenthood."

childless heterosexual marriages are as parasitic, then, but still permissible legally.

[Wombat]

The squabble over the term "marriage" is just a legal issue, it isn't actually pertinent to the discussion at hand. After all, people who don't follow any defined faith are still able to get "married." Whether a particular religion endorses their marriage or not is immaterial to your average citizen. In terms of modern relevance, the institution of marriage is defined and regulated by the government. And this isn't due to any moralistic consideration, it is a matter of civic regulation, and an attempt to support the traditional family structure.

Married couples gain certain financial advantages that single individuals don't enjoy. This is an attempt on the government's part to support couples who are attempting to raise children. Raising children has always been an expensive proposition, and giving married couples a leg up in this department supports the development of stable families.

Of course, if this is the primary reason for the government to endorse and regulate the institution of marriage, it stands to reason that the government would object to homosexual marriage. Why? Homosexuals can't naturally reproduce on their own. This isn't rocket science. The entire reason for having two genders is reproduction. Homosexuality by its very nature prevents the growth of a stable family structure. The use of medical science or the adoption of children produced by a heterosexual relationship are the only possibilities for a homosexual couple to have a family.

So homosexual marriages can be seen as an institution that would be parasitic for society as a whole.

so your saying that married couples without children should have those rights removed. What about women and men who medically can not have children, should they not be allowed to marry? How many married couples in the US currently do not have children vs the amount of Gay couples that want to marry? What about Lesbian couples who use a sperm bank? Or Gay couples that want to adopt?

[CoffeeEdge]

I'm glad that you understand the difference between "marriage" the private social construct and "marriage" the legal/state institution, Richard. Few opponents seem to.

But your argument about parenthood is still no less barbaric than the idiots who oppose gay legal marriage because they think that it would force their church to perform gay wedding ceremonies. It falls apart as soon as you introduce the millions who can't, refuse to, or don't plan on having children.

So, do you oppose all the countless other "parasitic" institutions, as well? Please don't tell me that you are a Randian or something.

Also interesting that you seem to more or less claim that adoption precludes the possibility of "a stable family structure." Or is that just adoption by homosexuals?

[Richard Kain]

so your saying that married couples without children should have those rights removed. What about women and men who medically can not have children, should they not be allowed to marry? How many married couples in the US currently do not have children vs the amount of Gay couples that want to marry? What about Lesbian couples who use a sperm bank? Or Gay couples that want to adopt?


(shrug) You're bringing up examples that are the exception to the rule. And there are exceptions to every rule, especially when dealing with people. For instance, there are some homosexual couples where one of the pair will "bite the bullet" and get it on with a member of the opposite sex for reasons of reproduction.

If the government wanted to, they could remove benefits from married couples who don't have children. You would have to inquire of your congressman about that. Preventing people who are not medically able to reproduce from marrying is a slippery slope, because most of them don't find out about that condition until they actively attempt to have kids.

At the moment, the people who have it the easiest are married couples who do not have children. They reap all of the social and financial benefits of marriage, and yet are under no obligation to raise or nurture offspring.

Please note that I am not actually bringing up my personal opinion on this, I'm just pointing out the legal ramifications as specified by the U.S. government. Any and all of these laws can be changed through public outcry. If you object to the way things are, write your congressmen. (I understand written letters usually get the most attention)

[Wombat]

(shrug) You're bringing up examples that are the exception to the rule. And there are exceptions to every rule, especially when dealing with people. For instance, there are some homosexual couples where one of the pair will "bite the bullet" and get it on with a member of the opposite sex for reasons of reproduction.

If the government wanted to, they could remove benefits from married couples who don't have children. You would have to inquire of your congressman about that. Preventing people who are not medically able to reproduce from marrying is a slippery slope, because most of them don't find out about that condition until they actively attempt to have kids.

At the moment, the people who have it the easiest are married couples who do not have children. They reap all of the social and financial benefits of marriage, and yet are under no obligation to raise or nurture offspring.

Please note that I am not actually bringing up my personal opinion on this, I'm just pointing out the legal ramifications as specified by the U.S. government. Any and all of these laws can be changed through public outcry. If you object to the way things are, write your congressmen. (I understand written letters usually get the most attention)

Gay couples can start families, and many gay couples want to get married for that very reason. If was shown that the majority of Gay couples planned on having children, either through adoption or surrogates, would you agree that they should be covered under the law?

[Richard Kain]

Gay couples can start families, and many gay couples want to get married for that very reason. If was shown that the majority of Gay couples planned on having children, either through adoption or surrogates, would you agree that they should be covered under the law?


Who demonstrated this? What was their sample size? In what locations did they make these inquiries? You can't just throw around statements like "It was shown." Who did the showing, how did they do the showing, and exactly what was "it?"

I instinctively distrust all statistics.

How easy is it for homosexual couples to adopt a child? How stable do homosexual families tend to be? What if their adopted offspring turns out straight? How will being raised in an openly homosexual household affect their development?

I can't answer most of those questions any better than you, or anyone else on this forum. There are two many factors, the most important being the individuality of the people involved in the equation. For all we know, a particular homosexual couple will be wise and understanding, and will raise their adopted child well despite any difficulties that may arise. Or it could all absolutely go to pot. You can draw whatever generalities you like, but the ultimate outcome is based on individual people, not trends.

But a democratic government is not based on individuals, but on large groups comprised of individuals. And it doesn't make much sense for a large number of exceptions to be made in favor of a minority group whose approach to gender is self-destructive to their own species.

[chakan]

The biggest difference for us between Mormons and the Church of Scientology is the abscence of any Science-fiction writers.

ummm Orson Scott Card?

[lilboo]

How easy is it for homosexual couples to adopt a child? How stable do homosexual families tend to be? What if their adopted offspring turns out straight? How will being raised in an openly homosexual household affect their development?

I can't answer most of those questions any better than you, or anyone else on this forum. There are two many factors, the most important being the individuality of the people involved in the equation. For all we know, a particular homosexual couple will be wise and understanding, and will raise their adopted child well despite any difficulties that may arise. Or it could all absolutely go to pot. You can draw whatever generalities you like, but the ultimate outcome is based on individual people, not trends.



:rofl:

I am gay.
My parents are straight.
So, how did this happen???

[mykevermin]

Who demonstrated this? What was their sample size? In what locations did they make these inquiries? You can't just throw around statements like "It was shown." Who did the showing, how did they do the showing, and exactly what was "it?"

he said "if," and phrased the rest of the sentence in terms of a question seeking your opinion. it's a hypothetical.

I instinctively distrust all statistics.

Two things:
1) he didn't list any statistics.
2) only lazy people "instinctively" distrust stats. i instinctively distrust people who ignore statistics, lacking the methodological or mathematical know-how to discuss or dispute them.

[RAMSTORIA]

:rofl:

I am gay.
My parents are straight.
So, how did this happen???

obviously one of your parents is hiding something

[blaked569]

But a democratic government is not based on individuals, but on large groups comprised of individuals. And it doesn't make much sense for a large number of exceptions to be made in favor of a minority group whose approach to gender is self-destructive to their own species.

If you want to start alluding to biological selection, you should know that selection happens on the level of the individual, not the species. That's why biological organisms have selfish tendencies. In fact, you would stand to benefit from homosexuals in that, by not reproducing, more resources are left in the environment for your own offspring. I know this statement in itself is ridiculous, but I'm just trying to show that your biological approach is pretty flawed. I can get more into this if you want.

Also, this is a site about video games - an entertainment product. You know, for leisure. If you're gonna call out gays for being detrimental on the basis of not being productive for society, you might as well call out all the people on this site who play video games in their spare time as opposed to volunteering or helping orphans.

[lilboo]

obviously one of your parents is hiding something

:shock:

[TLPRIME]

If there are exceptions to every rule, then why does all hell break loose when a gay couple wants to get married? It's just another exception to the "rule".

And implying children raised by a gay couple will be impaired because of it, for lack of a better word, is crazy ignorant. Have you ever drove through a trailer park?..or watched an episode of COPS?..or attended a NASCAR event?? Lots of people there raised by herterosexual parents.

Ok I kid..I kid.

well..not really ;)

[flameofdoom666]

What if their adopted offspring turns out straight? How will being raised in an openly homosexual household affect their development?

What about gay and lesbian individuals who grew up in a heterosexual household? Fair is fair.

Honestly- a homosexual couple who want to adapt, probally make far better parents then the sleezy 17 year old who got knocked up.

Homosexual's should have the same rights as anyone else, no matter what your fucked up logic tells you.

[Richard Kain]

Ahhhhh...hot topics. I'm always amazed by the ire they inspire. I can't help but feel that most of you didn't even bother reading the posts you quoted. Most of you are attempting to argue points that I made.

I never said that homosexuals would make bad parents. I just asked if there was any sort of evidence that they would inherently make good parents. Obviously, on a case-by-case basis, no evidence exists for either position. So there is only one thing we can be sure of, and that is...

Homesexuals can't be heterosexual parents.

The traditional family structure is to have male and female caregivers. The significance of this is not limited to reproduction. Males and females are fundamentally different. If you have a family unit with only male, or only female parents, the child is denied the experience of having a parent of the gender that is left out of the equation. For better or worse, they are forever denied the experience of having a parent of the absent gender. Given that human anatomy is geared toward heterosexual reproduction, this is a significant omission.

If a child is raised in a homosexual family, and grows up to be straight, will he/she have the necessary example of how a heterosexual couple ought to behave with each other? Or will their only examples be dictated by the mass media. (a very poor teacher on the subject, if modern society is any example)

[flameofdoom666]

I never said that homosexuals would make bad parents. I just asked if there was any sort of evidence that they would inherently make good parents.

The same can be said about a stright couple. Also, think about this: if a homosexual couple has to jump through hoops to raise a child, I feel like they will be great parents. I won't say better, because who am I to judge- but compared to the 17 year old who got knocked up in high school... yeah I am sure they will be significantly better parents. I also think it will be more stable of an environment, than something like a single parent.

If a child is raised in a homosexual family, and grows up to be straight, will he/she have the necessary example of how a heterosexual couple ought to behave with each other? Or will their only examples be dictated by the mass media. (a very poor teacher on the subject, if modern society is any example)

Flip the situation. What about the homosexual who grows in in a stright household? How do they learn to behave? Friends, family (the parents are not the only ones that are family), media, and whatnot.

Your view of things is veryyyy close minded.

[dubbfoolio]

Mormon...ism as an actual religion. We consider it to be a cult.

I can't believe you're singling out mormonism as a cult. All religions are cults, some cults are just more profitable than others. All people are people regardless of where they do with their genatalia, some people just like to be pretend they're sheep.

[kube00]

myke and coffee nailed it for me

Isn't it true that Mormons shy away from letting Africa-Americans into their church?

To some Mormonism is truly explained by South Park. Now if someone was to do research on Joesph Smith...

I've had good and bad interactions with Mormons, if you preach to me or push your religion on me it usually reflects badly as whole...

[CoffeeEdge]

I never said that homosexuals would make bad parents. I just asked if there was any sort of evidence that they would inherently make good parents.
Of course not, but what the fuck sort of question is that? You know that, and you also know damn well that there is no such guarantee for heterosexual parents, either. Since when have proving that a couple would make guaranteed good parents been a requirement for state/legal marriage?

Be honest with me: are you intentionally trying to pointlessly obfuscate the issue here by bringing up pointless bullshit arguments and questions that you already know the answer to?

The traditional family structure is to have male and female caregivers.
Traditional =/= only valid.

I doubt I'll live to see it, but I really look forward to a time when people stop using "tradition" as a shallow argument to stall progression.

The significance of this is not limited to reproduction. Males and females are fundamentally different. If you have a family unit with only male, or only female parents, the child is denied the experience of having a parent of the gender that is left out of the equation. For better or worse, they are forever denied the experience of having a parent of the absent gender.
So are millions of children with single parents.

If a child is raised in a homosexual family, and grows up to be straight, will he/she have the necessary example of how a heterosexual couple ought to behave with each other? Or will their only examples be dictated by the mass media. (a very poor teacher on the subject, if modern society is any example)
Believe it or not, children DO learn things from places other than their parents and the mass media. Like, ya know, personal experience. Seriously dude, how do you explain any behaviors or qualities that a child has, that their parents don't?

I also didn't have to read into this much to see that you seem to have a belief that heterosexual couples and homosexual couples always behave with each other in inherently different ways, and that children would need to be taught to treat an opposite-sex partner fundamentally differently from a same-sex one.

Seriously, man, I can hardly quote a single sentence from you where I can't read bigotry and homophobia just beneath the surface.



ummm Orson Scott Card?
:rofl:
Oh man this post was hilarious, high five, dude.

[dubbfoolio]

It all comes down to equality and you my mormon friend are not better than anyone else because of their sexual preference. Apparently you find it convenient to stand against other people receiving government issued rights that are currently afforded to yourself. Some of us find it convenient to think that you're kind of an asshole.

[Richard Kain]

I also didn't have to read into this much to see that you seem to have a belief that heterosexual couples and homosexual couples always behave with each other in inherently different ways, and that children would need to be taught to treat an opposite-sex partner fundamentally differently from a same-sex one.


Ah, thank you for highlighting the crux of my argument. A homosexual relationship IS inherently different from a heterosexual relationship. In order to invalidate that argument, you would have to prove that men and women are analagous, and that they behave exactly the same way with each other.

Frankly, I don't think you're up to it.

[bdb2m]

First a quick note, in order for a religion to be considered a cult, it must have few followers, that is what technically makes it a "cult." LDS has a lot of followers and churches all over the place, so its a bit large to be called a cult.

Second, I understand this is a heated topic, but I have to ask all those against gay marriage: What difference does it make to you if a same-sex couple wants to get married? If gay marriage was passed tomorrow, how does that affect you in any way? Why do you care if someone else gets married? If you say its against God's will, I'm sure you can name several other things you did this week personally that were against God's will too. Why worry about someone else?

If its the fact that you don't want equal rights, you are a bigot.

Seriously, think about it this way..if gay marriage passed tomorrow and you are not gay or thinking about getting married, how does your life change in any way? I just think its funny that there are so many that argue against this when it has no direct effect on them.

[frombrknwings]

Wow just wow im glad im not religious

[CoffeeEdge]

Okay, Rich, I'll humor you on that. In the context of accepting your statement, I will reply with:

Sure, it's "inherently different." So are interracial marriages, and partners of different faiths, ages, et cetera.

Are you telling me that this "difference" inherently precludes the validity of same-sex marriages, to the point where you can use it as the crux of your argument to deny them rights offered to opposite-sex couples?

Try to make this not sound bigoted. Frankly, I don't think you're up to it.

Any relationship and family can turn out a billion different ways, based on a billion different factors, influences, conditions, situations, personalities, et cetera. There are never guarantees. But you are using the single factor of the parents being same-sex to preclude even the opportunity for same-sex parents having the same opportunities to try, and either succeed or fail or achieve any degree of the two to raise families, that opposite-sex couples do.

I find the fact that you only chose to reply to a tiny snippet of my post fairly telling that you don't have a leg to stand on. Look, you can be bigoted, that is your right and prerogative. Just don't pretend that you aren't.

[Magus8472]

The amount of unintentional irony in this thread is amazing.

[flameofdoom666]

Okay, Rich, I'll humor you on that. In the context of accepting your statement, I will reply with:

Sure, it's "inherently different." So are interracial marriages, and partners of different faiths, ages, et cetera.

Are you telling me that this "difference" inherently precludes the validity of same-sex marriages, to the point where you can use it as the crux of your argument to deny them rights offered to opposite-sex couples?

Try to make this not sound bigoted. Frankly, I don't think you're up to it.

Any relationship and family can turn out a billion different ways, based on a billion different factors, influences, conditions, situations, personalities, et cetera. There are never guarantees. But you are using the single factor of the parents being same-sex to preclude even the opportunity for same-sex parents having the same opportunities to try, and either succeed or fail or achieve any degree of the two to raise families, that opposite-sex couples do.

I find the fact that you only chose to reply to a tiny snippet of my post fairly telling that you don't have a leg to stand on. Look, you can be bigoted, that is your right and prerogative. Just don't pretend that you aren't.

^
^
^
This.

Well said.

[Cheapass24]

Am i the only one that clicked this because I thought it said Morons are homophobic?

[sanderdaniels81]

only lazy people "instinctively" distrust stats. i instinctively distrust people who ignore statistics, lacking the methodological or mathematical know-how to discuss or dispute them.


This is a bit of a tangent, but it was dripping so thoroughly with ignorance that I couldn't ignore it.

If you don't inherently distrust statistics, you've either never taken a course in statistics, or you slept through it.

Statistics can be and ARE used to support just about ANY position. This is why so many statistically-based studies reach completely opposite conclusions.

Statistics are essentially the "generalizations" of the data world. The data BEHIND the statistics (the metadata) is what is ACTUALLY of interest (when used in conjunction with the data, obviously). If you aren't looking at the demographics, sample size, personal biases of the statistician, etc... then you're not going to learn ANYTHING from the study. The statistics themselves are almost completely useless without the metadata.

i instinctively distrust people who ignore statistics, lacking the methodological or mathematical know-how to discuss or dispute them.


This part in particular is what I find most ironic, because you CLEARLY lack the methodological and mathematical know-how to discuss statistics. Please, please, take a statistics course before you continue pretending that you're an expert. And if you plan to respond with "I already have", then PLEASE go take it again and pay some attention this time.

[Richard Kain]

Sure, it's "inherently different." So are interracial marriages, and partners of different faiths, ages, et cetera.

Yes, but then dogs are different from cats, grass is different from the sky, and a snow-globe is not the same thing as an alarm clock. Throwing out obvious "differences" is not a compelling rebuttal. And all of the examples you offer don't even come close to the obvious disparity between "male" and "female."

Are you telling me that this "difference" inherently precludes the validity of same-sex marriages, to the point where you can use it as the crux of your argument to deny them rights offered to opposite-sex couples?

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. And since I already said it, I'm mildly annoyed that you asked me to repeat myself.

Try to make this not sound bigoted. Frankly, I don't think you're up to it.

You would be wrong. I am always up to the challenge. And I'm amused that in all of that you still failed to address my question. Turning a question around on the person who asked it is only effective if they have no response.

Women and men are different from each other, on a fundamental level. If this is true, then it stands to reason that a relationship between two members of the same sex, will be different from two members of the opposite sex. A heterosexual relationship will not be the same as a homosexual relationship.

The institution of marriage was established to address heterosexual relationships. It is intended to support stable families. Why should it be applied to homosexual relationships, when they are fundamentally different from heterosexual relationships? You don't just blindly apply the same rules to different circumstances. That's a bit short-sighted.

People like to bandy around the term "equal." But few stop to think about what it really encompasses. Men don't actually treat women equally, and vice versa. I don't treat children equally to adults, for very obvious reasons. Generally speaking, such standards are understood on a social level. People learn through experience what society accepts and what it doesn't, even if it isn't written down.

Homosexual marriage is an example of an extreme minority group attempting to buck that trend. Given the nature of the U.S. government, there is nothing wrong with their attempt. But they do face an uphill battle against the majority of their fellow citizens. If homosexuals weren't in the minority, than these sorts of laws would have already been passed, and the argument would be moot.

Any relationship and family can turn out a billion different ways, based on a billion different factors, influences, conditions, situations, personalities, et cetera. There are never guarantees. But you are using the single factor of the parents being same-sex to preclude even the opportunity for same-sex parents having the same opportunities to try, and either succeed or fail or achieve any degree of the two to raise families, that opposite-sex couples do.

And here you are simply repeating something I already pointed out.

I find the fact that you only chose to reply to a tiny snippet of my post fairly telling that you don't have a leg to stand on. Look, you can be bigoted, that is your right and prerogative. Just don't pretend that you aren't.

I genuinely don't think I'm bigoted. I do object to homosexuality on a religious and personal basis, but I have never allowed that to affect how I treat homosexuals specifically. I have more real-life experience with homosexuals than most people. I've worked with them before, and even spent two years of college living in the same room as one. I found we were able to be quite friendly, despite the disparity in our lifestyles.

So I'm not a bigot, I just have no faith in humanity. Regrettably, the flagging quality of the arguments here haven't sparked any fresh hope. Claiming to be open-minded is useless if you don't actually put your mind to good use.

[CoffeeEdge]

Yes, but then dogs are different from cats, grass is different from the sky, and a snow-globe is not the same thing as an alarm clock. Throwing out obvious "differences" is not a compelling rebuttal. And all of the examples you offer don't even come close to the obvious disparity between "male" and "female."
And you don't even come close to offering an compelling explanation for why homosexual couples, different from heterosexuals they may be, are so fundamentally less capable of building stable families, than hetero couples, that they don't even deserve the same opportunities.

Yes, I fucking agree, homosexuals are different from heterosexuals. No shit. That is no longer the question. The question is how you can sit there and tell me that there is any justification for homosexuals not having access to the same institutions that supposedly "promote stable families," that hetero couples, in all their demonstrable degrees of failure and success, have. The world is up to it's neck in disastrous and dysfunctional families with hetero parents.

And no, I don't think that all homosexual unions would automatically be shining examples of perfect parents and all raise perfect families, so don't try to "gotcha" me with that. I don't give a shit if statistically they resulted in 20% more or 20% less stable, functional families. The bottom line, is that they deserve the same opportunity.

Women and men are different from each other, on a fundamental level. If this is true, then it stands to reason that a relationship between two members of the same sex, will be different from two members of the opposite sex. A heterosexual relationship will not be the same as a homosexual relationship.
As stated above, yes. As also stated above, this is no longer the question.

The institution of marriage was established to address heterosexual relationships. It is intended to support stable families. Why should it be applied to homosexual relationships, when they are fundamentally different from heterosexual relationships?
Women are fundamentally different from men, so why should we have applied to them the same voting rights as men? Because most certainly, there were plenty of explanations out there for why women being able to vote would be "unstable," 150 years ago.

Homosexual marriage is an example of an extreme minority group attempting to buck that trend.
Yeah, and black people in the United States used to be a minority who wanted to be able to "buck the trend" of not being able to vote.

I genuinely don't think I'm bigoted. I do object to homosexuality on a religious and personal basis, but I have never allowed that to affect how I treat homosexuals specifically. I have more real-life experience with homosexuals than most people. I've worked with them before, and even spent two years of college living in the same room as one. I found we were able to be quite friendly, despite the disparity in our lifestyles.
Hah! The old "some of my best friends are gay" cop-out. Mercy me.

[blaked569]

to Coffeeedge and others - i don't agree with Richard Kain, but he's probably been the most diplomatic one in this thread, despite the fact that his pov is largely offensive to those who believe otherwise.

in any case, responding with an undignified air of condescension really doesn't serve productively in the long run. yeah, he's being a bigot (from my definition of bigot, although he probably doesn't agree). but by saying "yeah try to talk yourself out of that one, BIGOT" etc. will serve to further polarize the two sides, rather than form any sort of conclusive agreement.

[sanderdaniels81]

If you believe in God, do you believe that he's a bigot?

Why did God design human bodies so that only a male and a female could procreate?

If you don't believe in God, why did evolution do so?

Medical science still hasn't come up with a way to let gay couples have a child that is genetically related to both partners. And it probably never will. Because God didn't design the system to work that way.

What would you call something in the human body that prevented cells from multiplying before they died?

If homosexuality were universally practiced, the earth would be de-populated in a single generation. It would be the societal and evolutionary equivalent of apoptosis.

(You can talk about how there are some heterosexual couples who are unable to have children, but they are unequivocally the exception, not the rule - which is why we still have plenty of people on earth).

While homosexuality is accepted by individuals, it cannot be embraced by societies as a whole without disastrous consequences. So it should come as no surprise when there is great societal resistance to the attempts to create equivalence between homosexual and heterosexual relationships.


Different people have all sorts of different inclinations. Does that make it good and healthy to indulge in them?

Often I hear people referring to homosexuality with a list of other sins, such as stealing, lying, cheating, etc... This is often objected to by gays on the basis that their behavior, between two consenting adults of the same sex, doesn't affect anyone but themselves.

How about obesity? It has been generally proven that obesity is a self-destructive behavior. It's symptoms typically manifest themselves quite obviously early on, but the harmful effects are often not seen for decades. Obesity has been shown to be the cause of NUMEROUS other disorders in the body, harmful to the individual.

Interestingly, society, and even the government, have seen obesity as significant enough to launch a campaign AGAINST it. Why? It's that individual's choice to be obese if they want to, right? They aren't hurting anyone else with their behavior.

Similarly, gays and lesbians have an increased risk for a host of diseases as a result of the lifestyle they've chosen to live (notice that I didn't say they chose their DESIRES, rather their LIFESTYLE).

The desires are not sinful, but the behaviors are. The person who craves food with an insatiable appetite isn't sinful until they choose to become obese through the act of gluttonous eating. The person who craves homosexual sex isn't sinful until they choose to actually engage in homosexual sex.

Does this mean I think less of people who have adopted a gay lifestyle? Absolutely not - neither would I think less of an overweight person who has decided there's no escape from being obese and stops trying. All of us give into our vices at times, and we should try to help each other overcome those vices rather than embracing them and making them a part of our lifestyle. It's when we EMBRACE our vices as normal that there's a serious problem, and that we need help to escape from them.

We should be universally concerned for those around us who have given in, and embraced these unhealthy vices - especially when it's to the point where their individual identity DEPENDS on it.

I have yet to meet a heterosexual person who is constantly identifying themselves as a "heterosexual" rather than just as a person. I have, however, met obese people who see their obesity as a part of their identity (as "a fat person"), and alcoholics who see their alcoholism as a part of their identity ("i'm an alcoholic"), and gay people who see their homosexuality as a part of their identity.

Feel free to disagree, or call me whatever you'd like, but I believe homosexuality is a sin. I believe that God created men and women for the purpose of having families together, and having joy as families. I understand that some people are born without the desire for sex with the opposite gender, and these individuals have a great struggle if they choose to fight their desires. But I believe that God expects them to do so.

Truth is not always easy to accept, but truth is true regardless of how many arguments are "won" against it.

Once again, these are my beliefs, and I'm entitled to them, just as you're entitled to yours. I have several gay friends who are quite aware of where I stand, and they respect my right to my beliefs just as I respect theirs, even though our views are at odds.

[dubbfoolio]

it all comes down to equality, and no matter how much you think your god loves you and hates homosexuals we're all people. And people can do whatever the fuck they want and we should all just live and let be. The crux of all these religious peoples' arguments is that 'I'm fucking better than these people cause my church told me so'. Well fuck your church, just because you have a little cult with lots of friends that tell you what you want to hear in exchange for money doesn't mean you are entitled to more rights than anyone else. Believe whatever you want to believe but don't stand in the way of other peoples' rights, that's the fucking line you crossed when you became a bigoted homophobic asshole.

[Magus8472]

it all comes down to equality, and no matter how much you think your god loves you and hates homosexuals we're all people. And people can do whatever the fuck they want and we should all just live and let be. The crux of all these religious peoples' arguments is that 'I'm fucking better than these people cause my church told me so'. Well fuck your church, just because you have a little cult with lots of friends that tell you what you want to hear in exchange for money doesn't mean you are entitled to more rights than anyone else. Believe whatever you want to believe but don't stand in the way of other peoples' rights, that's the fucking line you crossed when you became a bigoted homophobic asshole.

I see people do this sort of thing all the time, and I just have to ask.

Do you not understand the inherent rhetorical problem in combining mocking derision of religion with grand statements about universal rights? Whose mind do you think you're changing with a statement like this?

Moreover, do you realize how much easier it is to agree with your opposition when you sound like this?

[CoffeeEdge]

Yeah, sorry, dubbfoolio, but I don't agree with your methods, there.

No one is more opposed to people using beliefs derived from religion, or really, anything, as an excuse to justify anything but full-parity treatment for all people than I am, but I wouldn't say it the way you did.

[blaked569]

While homosexuality is accepted by individuals, it cannot be embraced by societies as a whole without disastrous consequences.

Can you elaborate a little on this? It's true that if everybody suddenly turned homosexual and stopped reproducing, human civilization would come to an abrupt end. But I can't really see how allowing gay marriage would lead to everybody turning gay overnight.

[CoffeeEdge]

Can you elaborate a little on this? It's true that if everybody suddenly turned homosexual and stopped reproducing, human civilization would come to an abrupt end. But I can't really see how allowing gay marriage would lead to everybody turning gay overnight.


I'm not even going to start with sanderdaniels81, myself. Wouldn't touch that shit with a 10 foot pole.

But since you asked, I suppose I would like to hear his homosexual apocalypse theory.

[SeanAmI]

Joseph Smith was called a prophet. Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

[mykevermin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubZQ5TgFRac

[CoffeeEdge]

Poor guy got muted. :(

[dubbfoolio]

What's the point of arguing with anyone who doesn't believe in the principle of equality. Anyone who believes their race, sex, religion, gender, sexuality is better is simply a terrible person.

[PhrostByte]

A phobia is actually an irrational and unexplainable fear of something. It's a type of anxiety..

[dubbfoolio]

I see people do this sort of thing all the time, and I just have to ask.

Do you not understand the inherent rhetorical problem in combining mocking derision of religion with grand statements about universal rights? Whose mind do you think you're changing with a statement like this?

Moreover, do you realize how much easier it is to agree with your opposition when you sound like this?


I think your a fucking bigot, and that there's probably no changing your mind. So I think a statement like this sort of doesn't matter.

[Magus8472]

I think your a fucking bigot, and that there's probably no changing your mind. So I think a statement like this sort of doesn't matter.

What have I said that was bigoted?

[dubbfoolio]

What have I said that was bigoted?

sorry, I apologize. let me restate that. I think anyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot, and you have not specified where you stand on this issue. I just get so pissed about this argument because there shouldn't be anything to argue about.

I see no difference in the question of should gay people be allowed to be married than should black people be allowed to be married. I think we should strive for a government that see us all as equals, and rights should be the same for all people who are doing no harm to others. And I wish people would vote accordingly regardless of their own personal moral decisions.

I respect religious people who choose to spread their moral code through their own example. I despise religious people that try to impose their will on others.

[Magus8472]

sorry, I apologize. let me restate that. I think anyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot, and you have not specified where you stand on this issue. I just get so pissed about this argument because there shouldn't be anything to argue about.

It's not a problem. I support gay marriage as well; I was trying to make a point about how adopting an insulting and/or sardonic tone makes you really, really easy to marginalize, particularly when your opposition doesn't. The point isn't to convince the person you're arguing against; they have their mind made up, so it's probably not going to happen. Rather, you need to think about the uncertain or indifferent members of the audience.

EDIT: And yeah, what Coffee said too. :)

[CoffeeEdge]

dubbfoolio, you need to calm the fuck down, brah.

[dubbfoolio]

dubbfoolio, you need to calm the fuck down, brah.
I'm not going to lie, this issue obviously infuriates me.

The intolerance and selfishness of people just completely appalls me. I don't think we need to tip toe around the issue, this is bigotry. I think we should be angry and I don't see the point in having debates with bigots. The whole argument that gay people are unfit parents is moot, because people, everyone, should be allowed to make their own decisions.

I wish all the rights and implications of marriage could be stripped from government completely, so the Christians could keep their "religious institution", but the fact of the matter is that married people are afforded many advantages, and you have to make these advantages available to everyone.

[Diosoth]

Religious people tend to be homophobic. Just as they tend to want to persecute anyone who doesn't share their views. Not making babies means you aren't creating more followers for your god of choice. Infertility and contraception are as equally bad as homosexuality in their eyes.

[naes]

However, as a religious person myself, I believe marriage is a union created by God to be between a man and a woman - and the fact that such a union, when carried out properly (with proper treatment of spouse and children) creates a safe environment for the continuance of the human species tells me that it's a good thing.
You and your religion have absolutely no right defining any terms whatsoever. Get your religion out of your politics. They have absolutely no place in politics (or anything). If a man and a man love each other, they have every right to be married. Get the fuck over yourself.

I'm not going to lie, this issue obviously infuriates me.

The intolerance and selfishness of people just completely appalls me. I don't think we need to tip toe around the issue, this is bigotry. I think we should be angry and I don't see the point in having debates with bigots. The whole argument that gay people are unfit parents is moot, because people, everyone, should be allowed to make their own decisions.

I wish all the rights and implications of marriage could be stripped from government completely, so the Christians could keep their "religious institution", but the fact of the matter is that married people are afforded many advantages, and you have to make these advantages available to everyone.
I agree 100%, only anything relating to religion infuriates me.

[blaked569]

to dubbfoolio - i understand that you might be infuriated by the apparent irrationality of certain people in the world, but stop for a moment and think. in regards to this thread, the Mormon community as a whole is opposed to gay marriage and homosexuality. do you think the entire Mormon community consists of nobody but idiots? i'm sure a good percentage of them are well meaning, intelligent people. so why do they hold steadfastly to their beliefs? to get to the crux of the matter and to form an agreeable solution requires careful consideration and diplomacy, not "you're a fucking idiot; fuck you."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verstehen

[dubbfoolio]

to dubbfoolio - i understand that you might be infuriated by the apparent irrationality of certain people in the world, but stop for a moment and think. in regards to this thread, the Mormon community as a whole is opposed to gay marriage and homosexuality. do you think the entire Mormon community consists of nobody but idiots? i'm sure a good percentage of them are well meaning, intelligent people. so why do they hold steadfastly to their beliefs? to get to the crux of the matter and to form an agreeable solution requires careful consideration and diplomacy, not "you're a fucking idiot; fuck you."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verstehen
I'm not trying to single out mormons. I've lived with a mormon who was one of the biggest pricks I've ever met in my entire life. I took a guitar class with a mormon guy who was one of the kindest, coolest people I've ever met. I think mormons are people, I think we are all people, but I find the mromon organization (and most western religion) in itself to be somewhat self serving to a degree of intolerance. And I don't like what it's done to the political landscape of the country.

[PhrostByte]

I wish church and state were ACTUALLY seperated. :lol:

[dubbfoolio]

I wish church and state were ACTUALLY seperated. :lol:
They're not because Christians throughout the history of our nation have implemented religion into government as it was convenient to them. And now that it's there I think they lose their rights to maintain that marriage is solely a religious institution. Churches don't need to recognize gay marriage. Government does.

[blaked569]

I'm not trying to single out mormons. I've lived with a mormon who was one of the biggest pricks I've ever met in my entire life. I took a guitar class with a mormon guy who was one of the kindest, coolest people I've ever met. I think mormons are people, I think we are all people, but I find the mromon organization (and most western religion) in itself to be somewhat self serving to a degree of intolerance. And I don't like what it's done to the political landscape of the country.

you didn't read anything i wrote. you don't take in anything that anyone tells you. you blindly plow forward with a blatant disregard of responsibility not only to yourself, but to others. and in that regard, you're no better than those you condemn.

[mykevermin]

blake brought Max Weber all up in this shit.

[CoffeeEdge]

Page 4 score so far: 2 out of 10.

[dubbfoolio]

you didn't read anything i wrote. you don't take in anything that anyone tells you. you blindly plow forward with a blatant disregard of responsibility not only to yourself, but to others. and in that regard, you're no better than those you condemn.
Like I said this really pisses me off. I suppose your right there is no point in blindly ranting about it.

[sanderdaniels81]

it all comes down to equality, and no matter how much you think your god loves you and hates homosexuals we're all people.


This is certainly putting words in my mouth. I never once said that God hates homosexuals. In fact, I believe quite the opposite. I do believe that homosexual acts are sinful, but I also believe that Jesus died for SINNERS (which includes *everyone*). His forgiveness comes as we give up our sins, not as we embrace them (forgiveness won't come until we let go of our sins).

I recognize that not everyone shares these beliefs. But the law entitles EVERYONE to vote according to *their own* beliefs.

Anger and hatred are definitely no way to go about resolving things, though. I don't have any bad feelings towards you, though it seems you do towards me.

Let me ask you this, is your hatred based on the fact that I believe what I do? Is it based on the fact that I have the right to freely speak what I believe? Is your anger based on the fact that you can't force me to agree with you, or vote the way you want me to?

Do you believe it would be better to force people to fall in line with your views and force them to enact laws that reflect your own personal views, or the views of groups that you sympathize with?

These are some pretty serious and important questions that you really ought to consider.


But since you asked, I suppose I would like to hear his homosexual apocalypse theory.


I have no homosexual apocalypse theory. My point was that IF the behavior was universally practiced (which it almost certainly won't be) it would bring disaster upon our species. Knowing this, it would logically introduce the idea that it's not a good thing, since at the individual level it results in the termination of the genetic line (unless reproductive genetic material is obtained from a willing third party, assuming that there is one).


I see no difference in the question of should gay people be allowed to be married than should black people be allowed to be married. I think we should strive for a government that see us all as equals, and rights should be the same for all people who are doing no harm to others. And I wish people would vote accordingly regardless of their own personal moral decisions.

I respect religious people who choose to spread their moral code through their own example. I despise religious people that try to impose their will on others.


First I'd like to respond to the second half of that. When a person goes to the polls and votes according to their conscience and beliefs, are they imposing their will on others? In other words, is voting a form of imposing your will? Have you yet, or do you plan to vote at any point in the future? Do you believe that by so doing you will be imposing your will upon society? Or do you believe that just by speaking their mind, a person is therefore imposing their will on others?

You are perfectly entitled to believe that you know better than the majority, and speak your mind as a result of that belief. But the moment you decide that it's okay to *force* everyone else to fall in line with your beliefs, or that it's okay to use violence to enact the laws you want, that's the moment that you become truly evil.

If gay marriage were voted in tomorrow, I wouldn't start a violent uprising to oppose it. I would continue speaking my mind in an attempt to help others see the merits of my beliefs, and I would seek legislation through the proper legal channels. Anger and violence against those who disagree with you, however, are not the answer, and are truly evil.

When you make statements like - "I wish people would vote accordingly regardless of their own personal moral decisions" - it leads people to wonder how badly you wish that you could enforce your personal will upon the rest of us.

Since you brought it up - black people don't have a choice in the matter of what color their skin is, and neither do white people, or asian people, or any other race of people on earth. Skin color is an inherited characteristic.

You might argue that sexual preference is also inherited. And I would likely even agree with that. However, when you have consensual sex with another person, you're making a choice (the very word "consensual" contains this fact, and if it wasn't a choice for EITHER party, it's called rape). So clearly, the act of engaging in consensual sex is a choice, NOT an inherited characteristic.

I believe that we are all equal. And I believe that God sees us as equals, too. But that doesn't mean that all behaviors are acceptable.

What is truth? Is truth dictated by the will of the people? Is truth dictated by equality? Are peoples' views of equality synchronized enough that they form the basis for a universal truth?

Is truth a self-existent tautology? Personally, I believe that it is. Do I believe that all of my views are in harmony with the tautology of truth? Of course not. To say that would imply that I believe I'm omniscient, which I don't. But like yourself, I feel strongly about my personal views, and I speak and vote accordingly.

But anger and violence are not the way. Open discussion and an attempt to understand one another are the only way we're ever going to reach an acceptable arrangement as a society.

[docvinh]

You sound kind of nuts. There really is no discussion to be had on this because your religion doesn't really allow you to change your mind. You couldn't be part of the religion if you did change your mind, correct?

[mykevermin]

Let me ask you this, is your hatred based on the fact that I believe what I do? Is it based on the fact that I have the right to freely speak what I believe? Is your anger based on the fact that you can't force me to agree with you, or vote the way you want me to?

sorry, hombre. genteel, polite bigotry that comes wrapped in a cross and bearing a toothy grin and a firm handshake is still bigotry and thus hatred.

I have no homosexual apocalypse theory. My point was that IF the behavior was universally practiced (which it almost certainly won't be) it would bring disaster upon our species. Knowing this, it would logically introduce the idea that it's not a good thing, since at the individual level it results in the termination of the genetic line (unless reproductive genetic material is obtained from a willing third party, assuming that there is one).

Two things:

1) You're talking about something that is as unlikely to occur as...well, as unlikely as the second coming of Christ. Or, if you take offense to that metaphor, as unlikely as a Chicago Cubs World Series. So what's the point of saying something is bad given everyone does it, if, in fact, everyone does not do it?
2) You're also assuming that a population of 6 close to 7 Billion people, who've been fucking and reproducing as long as we've been here, will suddenly stop fucking and reproducing. Homosexual relationships, pregnancies, and parenthood are independent events, by and large. If nothing else, the modern era has shown just how detached the idea of "marriage" can be from "parenthood." This all more or less renders your point moot.

But I'm not done yet.

3) If you choose to ignore #1, let us entertain the inverse of your universal homosexuality means we'll all die out after one generation oversimiplified nonsensical juvenile theory. Why is this relevant if, given the institution we have globally now (let's call it the "fuck and have as many kids as possible") lead to extinction on a mass level when we reach a population threshold where we can no longer maintain a balance between the planet's resources and providing persons with adequate resources to survive? In short, I'm pointing out that exponential population growth is a path to environmental disaster, and disaster for the human race as well.

So your argument fell apart quite a while back.

First I'd like to respond to the second half of that. When a person goes to the polls and votes according to their conscience and beliefs, are they imposing their will on others? In other words, is voting a form of imposing your will? Have you yet, or do you plan to vote at any point in the future? Do you believe that by so doing you will be imposing your will upon society? Or do you believe that just by speaking their mind, a person is therefore imposing their will on others?

Irrelevant. When my will is "hey, let those people do what they want," and your will is "fuck those queers, they can't have what I have," then our wills aren't parallel. They aren't equal. My will is more righteous than yours. You suffer the folly of pride by thinking your life choices are superior to others. Sinner.

But anger and violence are not the way. Open discussion and an attempt to understand one another are the only way we're ever going to reach an acceptable arrangement as a society.

Some people don't deserve to be debated with. In my view, wanting to curtail the behaviors of other people who have no effect on your life puts you in a position where you don't deserve to be debated with. The level of folly underlying your claims, and the ease with which they were taken apart, is something else that shows you don't belong here.

[lilboo]

Why doesn't anyone believe that homosexuals are here simply because if everyone has reproduced since the beginning of time..we'd be WAAAAY beyond 7 billion people :(

[mykevermin]

That's what ugly people are for, boo.

[Richard Kain]

You sound kind of nuts. There really is no discussion to be had on this because your religion doesn't really allow you to change your mind. You couldn't be part of the religion if you did change your mind, correct?

That's kind of harsh, isn't it? Faith is belief without evidence. This holds true for every defined system of belief. Even those who aren't religious have something that they place their faith in. Due to the limits of human perception and experience, it is impossible for any one person to know and understand everything. At some point, everyone has to place their faith in something. Without this, the world becomes a rather bleak place.

Is it really all right for the mind to be mutable on any subject? Is there no merit for making a stand on a decision you have already made? If a person chooses to adopt a defined belief system, you would expect him/her to turn against his/her own faith just so that they can agree with your position?

The scientific method would have us question and test everything. But humans can't actually live that way. That is the path of madness. We are built to believe.

[sanderdaniels81]

There really is no discussion to be had on this because your religion doesn't really allow you to change your mind.


Does *your* religion of humanistic thought allow you to change your mind? What will you do if it turns out that there is actually a God, and that He actually did forbid homosexuality? Would you be willing to change your mind and try to understand why He forbid it, and why/how it was detrimental? Or would you believe that you know better than an omniscient being and choose to hate Him?

My right to change my mind about ANYTHING is not granted by, nor repealed by, my religion. That right is given me of God, and is inherent to all people. And likewise, no human mind can be changed by force - only by persuasion, discussion, and experience.

[johnnyrocker360]

why hasn't this thread been moved or deleted by now?

[sanderdaniels81]

Some people don't deserve to be debated with. In my view, wanting to curtail the behaviors of other people who have no effect on your life puts you in a position where you don't deserve to be debated with. The level of folly underlying your claims, and the ease with which they were taken apart, is something else that shows you don't belong here.


Apparently your religion of humanism allows you to discriminate on the basis on opposing views.

My religion allows me to hear you out, give you a chance to speak, and asks that I treat you with respect, now matter how abhorrent I believe your statements to be.

Your religion tells you that since I disagree in a way that is abhorrent to you, you should alienate me with statements like "you don't belong here" and telling me that it's worthless to listen to what I have to say, because you already have all of the answers.

Your approach assumes your own omniscience, to such a degree that all points of view that differ from your own are completely shut out.

I'm willing to hear what you have to say and consider it thoughtfully.

Which of these approaches is more open minded?

The desire and attempt to silence your opposition is not the way of democracy. It is the way of dictatorship.

[docvinh]

Does *your* religion of humanistic thought allow you to change your mind? What will you do if it turns out that there is actually a God, and that He actually did forbid homosexuality? Would you be willing to change your mind and try to understand why He forbid it, and why/how it was detrimental? Or would you believe that you know better than an omniscient being and choose to hate Him?

My right to change my mind about ANYTHING is not granted by, nor repealed by, my religion. That right is given me of God, and is inherent to all people. And likewise, no human mind can be changed by force - only by persuasion, discussion, and experience.

Wouldn't your "God" just strike me down for not believing him? I have nothing against religion, I just believe your interpretation of your religion is wrong. I actually have had fairly in depth discussion about homosexuality with religious folk, and surprise, they're okay with homosexuality. So either your interpretation is wrong, or their interpretation is wrong, but I'm pretty sure you're going to say they're wrong.:)

That's kind of harsh, isn't it? Faith is belief without evidence. This holds true for every defined system of belief. Even those who aren't religious have something that they place their faith in. Due to the limits of human perception and experience, it is impossible for any one person to know and understand everything. At some point, everyone has to place their faith in something. Without this, the world becomes a rather bleak place.

Is it really all right for the mind to be mutable on any subject? Is there no merit for making a stand on a decision you have already made? If a person chooses to adopt a defined belief system, you would expect him/her to turn against his/her own faith just so that they can agree with your position?

The scientific method would have us question and test everything. But humans can't actually live that way. That is the path of madness. We are built to believe.

I place my faith in here and now. My life isn't looking to be filled up by something. I don't expect them to turn against their faith, I'm just saying the tenants of their religion don't allow them to question anything within it. Well, his/her religion anyway. I stand by my opinion of him/her being nuts.:)

[rcpettit]

At least homosexuals don't come knocking on my door at 8am on a Saturday. Plus, they help keep the world population under control. Can others say the same?

[mykevermin]

Apparently your religion of humanism allows you to discriminate on the basis on opposing views.

My religion allows me to hear you out, give you a chance to speak, and asks that I treat you with respect, now matter how abhorrent I believe your statements to be.

Your religion tells you that since I disagree in a way that is abhorrent to you, you should alienate me with statements like "you don't belong here" and telling me that it's worthless to listen to what I have to say, because you already have all of the answers.

Your approach assumes your own omniscience, to such a degree that all points of view that differ from your own are completely shut out.

I'm willing to hear what you have to say and consider it thoughtfully.

Which of these approaches is more open minded?

The desire and attempt to silence your opposition is not the way of democracy. It is the way of dictatorship.

Two things:

1) I did consider your arguments, and I did point out multiple fatal flaws in them. I don't have to do it politely. You choose to ignore that I pointed out the folly in all of your claims, instead cherry picking the last line of my post to attack that, as if it is the only thing I said to you. Should I assume you have nothing to say in response to my retort of your original claims?

2) I just noticed your telling me to go back and take statistics classes above. You have yet again misread something to make an argumentative point. What I said was that lazy people "instinctively distrust statistics." I am referring, of course, to people who are not capable of thoughtful refutation or deep questioning of theory, of methodology, or of statistics; I am referring to people who offer no deeper a refutation of data than "I don't believe that." There is a huge difference between that and informed skepticism, that considers the study and argues against it. But a flippant disregard of data is a vote in favor of anti-intellectualism and a vote in support of uninformed ideology. Given the religious foundation of your belief system, I'm not at all surprised that you are afraid of empiricism. But being religious is not something that goes hand in hand with illiteracy. If you are going to continue to respond to my posts, please have a grasp of what I'm saying first. I'm a bit tired of responding to refutations of things I did not say, and refutations of cherry-picked and misinterpreted statements in my posts.

It's particularly insidious when you opt to not include the parts of my posts where you are disarmed of the "logic" of your argument.

[sanderdaniels81]

Two things:

1) You're talking about something that is as unlikely to occur as...well, as unlikely as the second coming of Christ. Or, if you take offense to that metaphor, as unlikely as a Chicago Cubs World Series. So what's the point of saying something is bad given everyone does it, if, in fact, everyone does not do it?
2) You're also assuming that a population of 6 close to 7 Billion people, who've been ****ing and reproducing as long as we've been here, will suddenly stop ****ing and reproducing. Homosexual relationships, pregnancies, and parenthood are independent events, by and large. If nothing else, the modern era has shown just how detached the idea of "marriage" can be from "parenthood." This all more or less renders your point moot.

But I'm not done yet.

3) If you choose to ignore #1, let us entertain the inverse of your universal homosexuality means we'll all die out after one generation oversimiplified nonsensical juvenile theory. Why is this relevant if, given the institution we have globally now (let's call it the ****" and have as many kids as possible") lead to extinction on a mass level when we reach a population threshold where we can no longer maintain a balance between the planet's resources and providing persons with adequate resources to survive? In short, I'm pointing out that exponential population growth is a path to environmental disaster, and disaster for the human race as well.

So your argument fell apart quite a while back.


You choose to ignore that I pointed out the folly in all of your claims, instead cherry picking the last line of my post to attack that, as if it is the only thing I said to you. Should I assume you have nothing to say in response to my retort of your original claims?


There was nothing to refute. I already stated in my initial post that it would never be universally practiced, but that the fact that it would be cataclysmic if it were should act as an indicator that it isn't good. You really didn't pick ANYTHING apart here. All you did was say "this will never happen, so it isn't bad."

The claim that I made is a fact. If it were universally practiced it would be the end of man. That part is simple fact, so there's nothing to refute. Your argument was based on the premise that since it will never happen, my conclusion was false. If you understand the mechanics of implication, you understand that when A implies B, ~A does NOT imply ~B. Therefore the logic upon which your assertion is based is flawed.

Your accusations against overpopulation came completely out of left field, since I never advocated unrestrained, unplanned pregnancy, to the point of overpopulation. In the world of logical fallacies, this is what is known as a straw-man argument. You've attributed an assertion to me which I never made, and then attacked this assertion in an attempt to discredit me. Unfortunately for you, I never made any such assertion.


Irrelevant. When my will is "hey, let those people do what they want," and your will is "**** those queers, they can't have what I have," then our wills aren't parallel. They aren't equal. My will is more righteous than yours. You suffer the folly of pride by thinking your life choices are superior to others. Sinner.


For starters, you put words in my mouth here. Secondly, this entire statement is essentially you professing that your beliefs are better than mine. You aren't making any points to refute here other than attempting to say that what you have to say is more correct than anything I have to say.

"You suffer the folly of pride by thinking your life choices are superior to others." <-- This statement is so dripping with irony that it's hard to see how you let this escape your mouth (or fingers, in this case) without recognizing it. You clearly believe that your life choices and points of view are superior to mine.


The final piece of your comment was already addressed by my previous comments, which you referred to as "cherry picking". I had to admit that I find it funny that you accuse me of "cherry picking" and immediately introduce some misdirection by addressing a post I made several pages back, with the intention of defending someone that you launched a personal attack at - on the basis that you are smarter than him, and that his distrust of statistics is ignorantly unfounded (which it is not, as I have previously pointed out in plenty of detail).

But back to the point at hand - you have continued to make accusations that essentially say "i'm better than you, and my point of view is more valid."

Perhaps you would be more comfortable in the company of dictators who share your disdain for people who speak their mind when it conflicts with their position, such as Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.

[dubbfoolio]

I recognize that not everyone shares these beliefs. But the law entitles EVERYONE to vote according to *their own* beliefs.

This is where you're wrong. I think as an American it's you responsibility to vote for what's best for the country and your countrymen. And while gay marriage in no way benefits you or your beliefs, it certainly does not stand in your way. How would you feel if laws were put in place that limited the legal privileges of mormons?

[sanderdaniels81]

This is where you're wrong. I think as an American it's you responsibility to vote for what's best for the country and your countrymen. And while gay marriage in no way benefits you or your beliefs, it certainly does not stand in your way.


I think it's safe to say that you don't understand democracy. Under a democracy, people are entitled to vote according to their conscience and beliefs, and are not bound by any external forces or regulations to vote in any specific way. The fact that you used the words "I think" qualify your statement as your opinion. You are perfectly entitled to vote according to that opinion, but no one else is required to do so. They are entitled to vote according to THEIR opinion.


How would you feel if laws were put in place that limited the legal privileges of mormons?


Firstly, I find it odd that you seem to be making the assumption that I'm a Mormon, since I never identified myself as such, and since there are numerous other religions that openly and vocally oppose gay marriage, including Catholics, Muslims, and MANY others.

Regarding the "limited legal privileges" - I think it's safe to say that Mormons know something about this, since they are one of only THREE groups of people in the USA whose wholesale murder was sanctioned by governmental authority.

Africans were brought to the USA as slaves, and were often killed by those who had enslaved them, with the governmental approval to do so. Native Americans also had MANY orders issued by the government for their slaughter. In the 1800's, there was an extermination order issued in the state of Missouri for the legal murder of Mormons. A possible fourth group could be Japanese Americans, who while there was never an explicit order for their murder, were placed in internment camps during World War II, and many of them died.

And what was the cause for the issuing of this extermination order against Mormons? Sadly, it was because of differing political views. See, Mormons didn't believe that slavery was acceptable, and they voted accordingly. The residents of Missouri didn't like that so much, and they convinced the governor to sign an extermination order against Mormons.

They essentially threw democracy to the wind, and decided that what THEY wanted was more important than democracy, to the extent that they sought the MURDER of their political opponents. This is what I like to refer to as pure evil, and the antithesis of democracy.

There's pretty much no way to deprive someone of more rights than by murdering them.

The constitution requires that ALL people be guaranteed the right to LIFE. There's really no debating that one, since the word "life" is mentioned SPECIFICALLY by name.

There is no such mention of "marriage" as a right.

[docvinh]

Well, we can agree on that. The government shouldn't recognize any type of marriages at all, they should only be recognizing civil unions for legal reasons. I have no idea how this evolved into a talk about dictatorship.

[docvinh]

But back to the point at hand - you have continued to make accusations that essentially say "i'm better than you, and my point of view is more valid."

Perhaps you would be more comfortable in the company of dictators who share your disdain for people who speak their mind when it conflicts with their position, such as Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.

Wait, what? He spoke his mind, he thought your opinion was stupid. Isn't he allowed to think his opinion is superior, I mean you certainly think your opinion is correct, right? I'm confused at what you're trying to say here.

[mykevermin]

Perhaps you would be more comfortable in the company of dictators who share your disdain for people who speak their mind when it conflicts with their position, such as Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.

I get it now.

1) You're intolerant of homosexuals sharing the same rights as heterosexuals. This is ok.
2) I'm intolerant of your intolerance. That's not ok.
3) You're intolerant of my intolerance of your intolerance. This is ok.

And yet somehow you think you're above value judgments.

Christ. :roll:

[fullmetalfan720]

I think it's safe to say that you don't understand democracy.
I think you don't understand this country.
Under a democracy, people are entitled to vote according to their conscience and beliefs, and are not bound by any external forces or regulations to vote in any specific way. The fact that you used the words "I think" qualify your statement as your opinion. You are perfectly entitled to vote according to that opinion, but no one else is required to do so. They are entitled to vote according to THEIR opinion.
Let me make this clear for you and all you other idiots out there. This country is not a Democracy, has never been a Democracy, and hopefully will never be a Democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic so that idiots like you cannot infringe upon the rights of others because you don't like them.

Firstly, I find it odd that you seem to be making the assumption that I'm a Mormon, since I never identified myself as such, and since there are numerous other religions that openly and vocally oppose gay marriage, including Catholics, Muslims, and MANY others.

Regarding the "limited legal privileges" - I think it's safe to say that Mormons know something about this, since they are one of only THREE groups of people in the USA whose wholesale murder was sanctioned by governmental authority.

Africans were brought to the USA as slaves, and were often killed by those who had enslaved them, with the governmental approval to do so. Native Americans also had MANY orders issued by the government for their slaughter. In the 1800's, there was an extermination order issued in the state of Missouri for the legal murder of Mormons. A possible fourth group could be Japanese Americans, who while there was never an explicit order for their murder, were placed in internment camps during World War II, and many of them died.

And what was the cause for the issuing of this extermination order against Mormons? Sadly, it was because of differing political views. See, Mormons didn't believe that slavery was acceptable, and they voted accordingly. The residents of Missouri didn't like that so much, and they convinced the governor to sign an extermination order against Mormons.

They essentially threw democracy to the wind, and decided that what THEY wanted was more important than democracy, to the extent that they sought the MURDER of their political opponents. This is what I like to refer to as pure evil, and the antithesis of democracy.You don't know what Democracy means. Democracy is mob rule. Exactly what you described. The majority makes the rules. Republic is the antithesis of Democracy, because in a Republic people have unalienable rights.

[sanderdaniels81]

Firstly, I need to correct something. I made the comment that the constitution mentions life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, when in fact it is mentioned in the declaration of independence. I am aware of this fact, and mistakenly mentioned it as being in the constitution. However, both of these documents are essential to the foundation of our government, and reflect the will of the founding fathers who established this nation.

Let me make this clear for you and all you other idiots out there. This country is not a Democracy, has never been a Democracy, and hopefully will never be a Democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic so that idiots like you cannot infringe upon the rights of others because you don't like them.


The United states is indeed a constitutional republic - but a constitutional republic is a form of liberal democracy (and in our case we can also be described as a representative democracy). I never said that we were a PURE democracy, but we are indeed a form of democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

So no - Republic is *not* the antithesis of Democracy.

Make no mistake, the government derives its power from the PEOPLE, not inherently from itself.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

This is essentially the ultimate statement of democracy - that our government only even EXISTS by the will of the people. I'm pretty sure the words of the founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence are a legitimate source of information on the subject.

Where you ARE correct is in the fact that a liberal democracy provides protections for minority rights. However, I see no indication anywhere that marriage was considered a "right" by our founding fathers.

There ARE rights that need to be provided to gay couples, such as hospital visitation of partners, property rights, and health insurance benefits. I believe that a civil union should provide these benefits, and other similar rights. But gay couples with civil unions should be the exception - not the foundation for society.

When the family unit (a father, mother, and children if possible) breaks down, society is headed for calamity. This ALSO applies to heterosexual couples. The mounting numbers of divorces and single parents are of great concern. These are signs of a breakdown of the ability of individuals to compromise, treat each other with respect, and accept individual responsibility.

It may or may not interest you to know that I'm also opposed to heterosexual couples having sex outside of marriage, and I believe it is just as much a sin as homosexual sex.

Anyhow, for those of you who disagree with me, I respect your right to do so. I apologize for any comments I made that were presented in a curt or rude manner, but I do not apologize for my point of view or my beliefs. I sincerely believe that if the traditional family unit continues to disintegrate, our nation, and even our world is headed for calamity.

I don't harbor any ill will towards any of you, whether or not you harbor it towards me. I don't believe that gay people are going to hell, and I don't believe that God hates them, and neither do I. I try to be kind to everyone, but like most people, I fail at that at times. And I act according to what I believe is right, which is the most I can expect from anyone else, regardless of whether their views align with mine.

While there are some serious issues that divide us, I think it's pretty obvious that we're all here because we share a mutual interest in gaming. No votes are going to take place on CAG that determine whether gays can marry. Perhaps it would be best to move on since we appear to be at an impasse.

mykevermin - We may vehemently disagree on this issue, but I respect your willingness to defend your views. While I stand by the content of my views, I apologize for the abrasive way I delivered some of those views.

[dubbfoolio]

It's not your views that I find offensive, it's your willingness to vote for legal enforcement of your views onto others. As you stated before, our democratic country has a very regretful history of the majority persecuting minorities. This is what you are proposing to continue with homosexuals.

[CheapyD]

If someone could point out where exactly I said anything about Mormons, that would be greatly appreciated. I just went back and listened to the Shadow Complex segment and didn't hear anything.

[MrNEWZ]

If someone could point out where exactly I said anything about Mormons, that would be greatly appreciated. I just went back and listened to the Shadow Complex segment and didn't hear anything.

Oh wait, this was a thread about Cheapy calling Orson Scott Card and all Morons homophobes, right?

6 pages in and I forgot. ;-)

On the other side I want to mention one thing. "Marriage" existed in various forms across various cultures long before the creations of the religions that are defending it as an institution.

In the past (and some current cultures) to constitute a marriage, men (or women) would trade the marriage for monetary gain.

Some institution worth protecting.

[tweetjj]

Hello Cheapy,

I began this thread because of what was said in the podcast about Orson Scott Card and his link to the Mormon Church (actually the name of the church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but we don't mind being called the Mormon Church.)

I re-listened to the podcast. At 1:18 Wombat called Orson Scott Card a gigantic douchebag and a homophobe. Then you called OSC an a**hole and a homophobe. Then Wombat linked OSC with the Mormon church.

I just read the article in Gay Gamer. I can respect the tone used by the author of the article. OSC does have some extreme views of gays, but these views do not coincide with the tenets of our church. We do however agree that marriages are a sacred covenant between a man, a woman, and God.

Just to let you know I am using most of my lunch hour to compose this post. I am not hateful, bigoted, biased, or homophobic. And to call members of the Mormon church such, is proof that the accusers are the ones guilty of being hateful.

Simply put, I believe that all members of our society must have the same rights and equality. I do not want the definition of marriage to be changed. And I deny your accusations of homophobic because of what I believe in and stand for.

Hope this can settle the argument so I can spend the rest of my lunch hour enjoying the CAG cast and getting higher that 52 flags on Plant vs. Zombies survival mode.

Tom in Vegas

[mykevermin]

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=9c672f2324d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

With regards to homosexuality, "hate the sinner, love the sin" is indeed a homophobic standpoint.

Unless you want to follow all the tenets of Leviticus. And you assuredly are not, since you aren't in prison.

[Wombat]

Hello Cheapy,

I began this thread because of what was said in the podcast about Orson Scott Card and his link to the Mormon Church (actually the name of the church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but we don't mind being called the Mormon Church.)

I re-listened to the podcast. At 1:18 Wombat called Orson Scott Card a gigantic douchebag and a homophobe. Then you called OSC an a**hole and a homophobe. Then Wombat linked OSC with the Mormon church.

I just read the article in Gay Gamer. I can respect the tone used by the author of the article. OSC does have some extreme views of gays, but these views do not coincide with the tenets of our church. We do however agree that marriages are a sacred covenant between a man, a woman, and God.

Just to let you know I am using most of my lunch hour to compose this post. I am not hateful, bigoted, biased, or homophobic. And to call members of the Mormon church such, is proof that the accusers are the ones guilty of being hateful.

Simply put, I believe that all members of our society must have the same rights and equality. I do not want the definition of marriage to be changed. And I deny your accusations of homophobic because of what I believe in and stand for.

Hope this can settle the argument so I can spend the rest of my lunch hour enjoying the CAG cast and getting higher that 52 flags on Plant vs. Zombies survival mode.

Tom in Vegas

But your definition of Marriage is different then my definition, I am not saying that you have to change your definition, but why is mine less valid?

We all know that marriage is contract bewteen two families where one family offers a child to another family in return for monetary gain or livestock.

[tweetjj]

Yes Wombat. I totally agree that your definition of marriage is different than my definition of marriage. I do not, in any way, think your definition is less valid than mine. I totally expect that you to believe, think, and vote according to your beliefs, as will I.

What I don't understand is why people who happen to believe the same as I do are called hateful things like homophobe and bigot. In your own podcast you called OSC a gigantic douchebag and then said he is a member of the Mormon Church. It would never, ever enter into my mind the thought that I should slander, harass, or ridicule someone just because they have a differing opinion.

Listen, I love the podcast. I totally appreciate what you and Cheapy do everyweek producing this podcast. It is obviously a labor of love and it shows in the quality of your podcast. But when I heard what you both said about OSC and Mormons it surprised and shocked me. I felt I should say something. I had no intention of it turning into a 6 page forum battle. I totally respect your right to say anything you want on your show. I even think the episodes of South Park that make fun of Mormons are some of the funniest of the series. I get jokes, even if they are about my religion.

I just didn't like what was said and thought I should say something.

Tom in Vegas

[donkeydrop]

We all know that marriage is contract bewteen two families where one family offers a child to another family in return for monetary gain or livestock.

In Talmudic law there are three ways to get married, a contract, money, or sex; if the woman accepts any of these you're hooked lol.

Seriously though, every religion defines marriage as between a man and a woman so there's no reason to start selectively insulting Mormons. Given that a large majority of the US population shares that opinion it doesn't seem like calling them all homophobes is the best way to get them to change that opinion, or to to ensure that gay couples are treated equally.

Intelligent people can still have extreme political disagreements without the need to believe that one or the other is immoral. Jew, Muslim, Christian, Black, White, Hispanic, Gay, Straight, whatever you are going to have some opinion on which you are are 100% sure you are morally right and that only a racist homophobe anti-semite could disagree with you. And just as surely someone else has the opposite opinion. Your choice is to show some respect and maybe work out the points on which you can agree; or do the rhetorical equivalent of pulling a .45 and blowing his head off. The second might make you feel better temporarily, but the first is the only way to make progress.

[Thekrakrabbit]

Frankly I was offended that Cheapy in the most recent podcast labeled Mormons, specifically Orson Scott Card, as homophobes. I would like to know if Cheapy has such stereotypical opinions toward all religions. I would also like to know if Cheapy bases this negative opinion on an actual conversation with a real life Mormon.

I think that we should all be entitled to have any opinion we want without fear of being labeled homophobic because our opinions differ. But according to Cheapy, since I am against gay marriage, but in support of partner rights I must be a homophobe as well. This hateful speech toward me and the religion I cherish really turned my stomach.



I consider the CAG cast to be one of my top three favorite podcasts. In spite of my disagreement of Cheapy's opinion of Mormons I will continue to download and listen because I can respect that his opinions differ from mine. I just hope that Cheapy will agree that all groups, religions and people should be allowed to live, think, act and vote as their conscience dictates.

Tom in Vegas

I am pretty sure most are really homophobes. Nost are only open to the Adam & Eve idea, not the Adam & Steve idea. I'm not gay, but I am pretty sure most religions are "homophobes".

[wageslave]

If someone could point out where exactly I said anything about Mormons, that would be greatly appreciated. I just went back and listened to the Shadow Complex segment and didn't hear anything.

What I recall hearing cheapy say is that OSC is a Mormon and OSC is a homophobe in separate statements. He didn't come out and say that Mormons are Homophobes.

[TheToiletDuck]

What I don't understand is why people who happen to believe the same as I do are called hateful things like homophobe and bigot. In your own podcast you called OSC a gigantic douchebag and then said he is a member of the Mormon Church. It would never, ever enter into my mind the thought that I should slander, harass, or ridicule someone just because they have a differing opinion.


So what you're saying is that you don't like the fact that someone said something hurtful or slanderous about something you believe in, or as i suspect from your posting something that plays a significant part of your life and in some ways defines the person you have become (much the same way that some people feel about their sexuality).

The comments that CheapyD and Wombat said were directed to someone that did exactly that. OSC just happens to slander a group that you are not part of.

You cannot have a belief that is in direct conflict with someones way of life, be vocal about it and not expect some sort of backlash. I respect religions and peoples rights to a belief providing they do not have a negative impact on other people. I would however, consider promoting hatred towards homosexuals, or if you want a less inflated example impeding their legal rights as couples, a negative impact.

It's all fun and games until you're the one thats getting shot with the bb gun.

To be fair to your points though, it doesn't look like you share the extremist views of Orson Scott Card and don't believe in preaching hate, and that's totally cool :). It may be unfortunate then that he is such a vocal representative of your church. I do think however you are being a little naive to why people may be a little angry towards your religion and/or beliefs and frankly a little sheltered if you think you can claim "no backs'ees" .

P.s. Also, as a gay man i would like formally acknowledge on behalf of 'my people' that yes we are all out to get you, and one false turn = butt sex.

[greatAuk]

Sorry, I know this has topic has been beaten to death, but I have to get in my 2 cents.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Catholic who has gay friends, so I don't really agree with my church's view on the subject.

Yes, the bible has passages that would condemn homosexuals, however it also has passages about not eating shrimp(Leviticus 11:9-12), selling daughters into slavery(Exodus 21:7), and stoning people who sleep with a menstruating women(Leviticus 20:18). If you are going to literally follow the old testament, do you really get to chose which parts?

Christianity is belief in Jesus Christ. He said the commandments could be summarized as follows: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." [Matt22:37-40] It irritates me all the hateful "Christians" who ignore the second part. Unfortunately, Catholicism itself has a long history of not loving thy brothers.(Crusades, Inquisition) (An interesting side note. My mother was a littler shocked to learn that my family was originally Jewish, and was forcibly converted by the Spanish Inquisition.)

Bottom line, in the Catholic Church marriage is one of the seven sacraments. My marriage is a religious institution, but it was also a civil one too. People need to stop confusing the two. I had a church wedding, based on church law, and was then married as far as my church was concerned. Then I turned in my wedding license, and was legally married. While there was admittedly some overlap, that is done more as a convenience by goverment. They were two separate acts.

If the Mormon church doe not want to marry gay people fine. Personally, I think they are wrong, but that is their right. My church is still struggling over this matter too. However, they have no right to keep the government from performing a civil marriage between a gay couple. If this is truly just about the religious function of marriage what is the problem? It is hard to not think it isn't homophobia.

[CoffeeEdge]

Nice post, greatAuk, but it's sort of a waste of time to try to explain that state marriage and religious marriage are separate things. Most people cannot understand that same-sex state marriage would not mean that their churches would suddenly be forces to do wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, because people are retarded.

[willardhaven]

Nice post, greatAuk, but it's sort of a waste of time to try to explain that state marriage and religious marriage are separate things. Most people cannot understand that same-sex state marriage would not mean that their churches would suddenly be forces to do wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, because people are retarded.

So true. Sorry I don't have anything to contribute but your post made me laugh.

[Magus8472]

Nice post, greatAuk, but it's sort of a waste of time to try to explain that state marriage and religious marriage are separate things. Most people cannot understand that same-sex state marriage would not mean that their churches would suddenly be forces to do wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, because people are retarded.

I think people are opposed to gay marriages regardless of whether or not they occur in churches. Religious and civil marriages are certainly conflated, but if anything that just provides for more religious overtones in what should be a secular institution.

If it were so easy to differentiate the two, all these problems could be easily solved by just abolishing civil "marriage" entirely and just having people enter into contractual partnerships to gain "marriage" benefits. But I doubt anybody would be satisfied with that.