Gay marriage debate centers on history vs. change

OK. I'll look forward to the questions.

The problem that so many people have with such a point of view, which is also the origin of contempt for those who present it, stems from the very nature of contentious discussions. When people vehemently disagree on emotionally-charged topics, it is axiomatic that each side believes the others to be wrong. There can be few scenarios as insipid as that we would all just show up for the party to say, well, this is what i think, take it or leave it. Of course everyone thinks that those who disagree with them are wrong, and they intend, in normal debate, to state why they believe those positions are wrong.

If one responds by attempting to claim that all opinions are equal, that's just what i believe, and that coupled with a contention that someone stating that someone else is wrong constitutes a personal attack, the entire possibility of reasonable debate is lost. Invincible ignorance is placed on a pedestal from which it is not to be toppled based on a contention that all opinions are equal.

All opinions are not equal. Uniformed opinions may actually come closer to the truth than well-informed opinions, although the odds against that are astronomical, and in the event, it would simply represent bizarre coincidence.

Uniformed opinions, bigoted opinions, doctrinaire opinions, any form of opinion which derives from preferences about what the truth would or should be, as opposed to opinions based upon good information and a sincere attempt to reject subjective desire in a search for the truth--are not opinions worth holding. They are also opinions which ultimately, sooner or later, and usually sooner rather than later, cannot be defended in debate. At that point, such opinions are usually only persevered in by an attempt to divert the discussion with accusations that one is being personally attacked when it is simply the idiotic pronouncements which are under attack.

And you said every bit of that in an honest, intelligent, unoffensive manner. Kudos. I sincerely mean that, Setanta. That is the you that I had respect for.

I've never been dishonest in addressing you. Whether or not my posts contain intelligent remarks is not for me to say, and whether or not someone takes offense at the content of my posts is a matter of indifference to me.

I have no interest in your respect, i have none for you.

Was that supposed to have some meaning?

Beyond quoting Matthew 7:4, that is.

It is a reference to the biblical injunction to remove the beam from one's own eye before attempting to remove the mote from someone else's eye. In short, MOAN was copping to hypocricy . . .

In short, I was telling you, J_B, that I was not going to resort to bantering back and forth with you about things we both felt about the other because I am not without flaw in my own life so I have no right to point out to you what I think might be your flaws. I am a bit put out with you right now, yes. But, that doesn't give me the right to attack you because of it.

Setanta, I meant that as a compliment. So gracious of you to take it that way. I did not mean that you had never been honest and I think you know that. You actually proved my point for me. Civility CAN be accomplished if one takes responsibility for their own actions and carrys through on it.

Now, I am leaving this conversation, as it is way off topic and I'm not going to be responsible for continually keeping it that way.

Dawn over Marblehead

That's what I thought you meant. I have flaws aplenty, MA. And if any of them pertain to the prevention of all people having the same civil liberties then I would be happy to discuss them with you.

...so I'm not going to see those questions after all...?

Sozobe,

Yes, I will get back with you on this once I calm down a bit. I'm a bit ticked off (not at you) and I'm not going to take it out on anyone else. I'm sorry for getting off topic.

Momma Angel,

If you are going to continue to do on-line gay bashing why don't you start your own thread.

I don't know if you noticed but this is BBB's thread that you are monoplizing

And some wonder why I get upset? I get upset because I'm honest and I tell you how I feel. I tell you the truth. I could lie and say I agree with you and be all friendly, and etc., but I don't.

When I tell you how I feel and believe I get I am gay bashing and oh no, what you just said you believe is not what you really believe, you're in denial (not an exact quote but I think you get my drift.)

And I didn't realize this was BBB's thread so I definitely owe her an apology and hope she will take this post as one.

So Seaglass, J_B, Setanta, shall I now call you religious bashing because you don't agree with me?

Who cares if MOAN is ticked-off? I want no "compliments" from her. It is typical that she would condescend in such a manner and characterize it as complimenting someone. I have no reason to be civil to those who lie to me, and create unnecessary grief for those whom i do like and respect. Seaglass' remark about a gay-bashing thread is very much on point, and very ironic when juxtaposed with MOAN's comments about taking responsibility for one's own actions and carrying through . . .

ARE YOU GOING TO BRING UP LIES AGAIN? YOU ARE BEING A COWARD (IMO) BY NOT ADDRESSING WHAT YOU POSTED OF ME ABOUT ME STEALING AND KILLING FOR JESUS! HYPOCRISY!????

(Caps for emphasis only)

I think Lash might be disappointed by being left off the list of offenders.

Momma, if you find me offensive because I see your position as one routed in bigotry, then so be it. Guilty as charged!

You can stop shouting. I did not ever state that you've stolen or killed for Jesus. I don't doubt that you could justify such behavior in your own mind, but i've made no such accusation.

You have a qualified right, protected by the First Amendment from GOVERNMENT infringement, to spew words from your mouth or to write things on a discussion board that other people might find reprehensible and disagreeable. Your speech, however, is not protected from the criticism of other persons or from sanctions that might be imposed by the forum's owner for violating the discussion forum's TOS.

"The First Amendment generally prevents government from proscribing speech, or even expressive conduct, because of disapproval of the ideas expressed. Content-based regulations are presumptively invalid."

R. A. V. vs. CITY OF ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, 505 U.S. 377 (1992).
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/377.html

The GOVERNMENT is not intruding in this discussion or requiring you to silence your voice under the penalty of some law. Accordingly, your right to voice your opinion or your beliefs is not being violated. The fact that other people find your expressed opinions or beliefs to be reprehensible or disagreeable or discriminatory does NOT violate your rights.





It is your belief that homosexuality is immoral and wrong.

I will never understand this kind of intolerant, moralistic animus toward other human beings based solely on their sexual orientation. Just because they are different than you, that doesn't make them immoral beings nor does it make their sexual conduct immoral. It just makes them different and that difference doesn't make them deserving of moral condemnation.

Your belief, couched in religion, is incomprehensible and unreasonable and unnecessarily discriminatory. If God truly exists, then He embraces all of his children, homosexual and heterosexual alike. When your time comes to pass over into the light, I believe that God will set you straight. God will let you know that he did not approve of your moral condemnation of his children on earth. That is my opinion. And, we will have to disagree. But, I bet you a million bucks that God isn't going to pat you on the back and say, "good job, Momma . . . I'm glad you morally disapproved of homosexuals and made them feel like second-class citizens because they were different from you."

So, you voice your opinion. I voice my opinion. And we disagree.

And when you claim that people have the right to go to the voting booth and express their moral beliefs by casting their votes to deny homosexuals equal protection under the law, then we're going to disagree again. The fact that you volunteer to abstain from casting your vote to discriminate against homosexuals doesn't alter our disagreement.






One of my best friends cast her vote in a state election to amend our state Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriages. Prior to her telling me about her vote, I had no idea how hateful she was in her religious beliefs. I can never accept that she applied those unreasonable beliefs to discriminate against others. My disappointment in her as a human being is so overwhelming that our friendship has ceased to be important to me.




No. I don't accept hatred, bigotry, animosity, and moral condemnations of an entire class of people as being an inherent part of my friends. I don't socialize with Ku Klux Klan members; I don't socialize with neo-nazi believers; and I don't socialize with people who use God's name as an excuse to morally condemn those who are different.




Well, you are casting stones. When you morally condemn an entire class of people because their sexual orientation is different from your sexual orientation, you are casting stones.

You don't have to believe what I believe. You can believe whatever you want. My disappointment in you should be of no concern to you if you truly believe that the God you worship has condemned homosexuality as a sin.

I am just thankful that our Constitution works (even though it works ever so slowly), to extend equal protection under the law to disfavored classes of persons.

It is significant to any discussion of homosexuality into which MOAN pokes her nose that she has stated on more than one occasion that she thought homosexuality to be "wrong" before she became an animated bible thumper.

I infer from that a heterosexual bigotry which runs very deep.

Setanta,

I will find your exact words. You know and I know that you made it very clear that you believed I would steal and kill for Jesus. You have repeatedly ignored it since you said it. I'll find it though. Then tell me you didn't say it, imply it, or whatever you want to call it.

J_B,

I'm not offended because you have a problem with my position. Not offended by that at all. What I am offended by is the fact that it seems to be such a deciding factor in whether you would continue a typing/conversation relationship with someone. I could certainly understand it if I was beating up homosexuals, picketing their homes, etc. Yeah, I could see it then. But, since I only have discussions and I disagree with you about it, just doesn't make much sense to take such a turn on someone. It hurts, ya know. That's honest. It really hurts.