Can you be a racist while rooting for a player of a different race?

[Dave Gray]

Well, Pondwater, there are religious reasons, as you mentioned.

My wife and I aren't religious, but we got married for social reasons, mostly.  It's just a traditional way to tell your friends and family that you are in a life-long, committed relationship.  ...as well as each other, I suppose.  It makes it more easy to operate as a family unit, the way that society functions.

And there are legal reasons -- tax implications, property rights, rights if each other get sick or hurt, stuff with kids, death benefits, etc.

[pondwater]

Well, Pondwater, there are religious reasons, as you mentioned.

My wife and I aren't religious, but we got married for social reasons, mostly.  It's just a traditional way to tell your friends and family that you are in a life-long, committed relationship.  ...as well as each other, I suppose.  It makes it more easy to operate as a family unit, the way that society functions.

And there are legal reasons -- tax implications, property rights, rights if each other get sick or hurt, stuff with kids, death benefits, etc.

You can be in a life long committed relationship without being married. A piece of paper doesn't make someone any more committed does it? The legal reasons, most of those can be taken care of with proper planning and paperwork.

As for taxes and death benefits, I'm of the opinion that married people shouldn't get "extra" tax benefits just for being married. Seems to me that government shouldn't be in the business of promoting marriage. Which is what they're doing by giving additional benefits. I'm all for monogamy, but marriage just makes no sense. Guess I'm just an oddball, haha.

[Dave Gray]

You can be in a life long committed relationship without being married.

You absolutely can.

A piece of paper doesn't make someone any more committed does it? The legal reasons, most of those can be taken care of with proper planning and paperwork.

I think that there's a social expectation and it's harder to just walk away from a marriage than not.  Divorce is a process that takes intent, perhaps social shame, etc.  You can just break up with a girlfriend much easier.  It is a greater level of commitment, from a social perspective.

As for the legal stuff, you can replicate some of it with contracts, but not all of it.  And much of it is stuff that you don't deal with until it happens, as its unforeseen.

I absolutely understand if you want to abolish marriage as a legal institution.  But until you do that, the same rights should be afforded to everyone, regardless of your sexual preference.

[pondwater]

You absolutely can.

I think that there's a social expectation and it's harder to just walk away from a marriage than not.  Divorce is a process that takes intent, perhaps social shame, etc.  You can just break up with a girlfriend much easier.  It is a greater level of commitment, from a social perspective.

As for the legal stuff, you can replicate some of it with contracts, but not all of it.  And much of it is stuff that you don't deal with until it happens, as its unforeseen.

I absolutely understand if you want to abolish marriage as a legal institution.  But until you do that, the same rights should be afforded to everyone, regardless of your sexual preference.

Actually, I don't want to abolish anything. Just getting different perspectives. I think everyone should have the right to enter the 50% divorce rate club. Almost 50 percent of all marriages in the United States will end in divorce or separation. Why anyone would want to get married is beyond me, but hey that's just my take on it.

So for the record, as far as I'm concerned:

As long as it's consensual, any human should be able to marry any other human, non incest of course.

Employment and housing discrimination shouldn't be allowed for anyone.

As far as the Military goes, I can't answer. I'm not in the military and probably most here aren't currently enlisted. As I've previously said, I think they should decide for themselves. If the majority of enlisted personal don't want homosexuals and/or transsexuals in the military, I think it would be prudent to listen to them.

[CF DolFan]

No, but actively suppressing a homosexual's right (by voting) to marriage most certainly is persecution.

But hey, if it makes you feel righteous to deny to others what you already have for yourself, then do whatever you need to do to sleep at night...

There is nothing that makes me feel "righteous". I come from a long line of white trash so I have to remind myself that I actually deserve anything good that comes my way. The difference between me and many of you is that I used to think that way but my eyes have been opened to a different perspective. I remember vividly arguing the point that homosexuals were "born" that way and we should just accept that. I now believe it is much more complicated than that.

[Fau Teixeira]

There is nothing that makes me feel "righteous". I come from a long line of white trash so I have to remind myself that I actually deserve anything good that comes my way. The difference between me and many of you is that I used to think that way but my eyes have been opened to a different perspective. I remember vividly arguing the point that homosexuals were "born" that way and we should just accept that. I now believe it is much more complicated than that.

I think the question of genetics vs environment for sexual preference is irrelevant.

People like what they like. I don't care that you prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla ice cream. I especially don't care if your preference is genetic or based on your environment. It is furthermore none of my business, and i would be ridiculous to legislate anything concerning or driven by your ice cream preference.

Can you tell me why sexual preference is any different than ice cream preference for a government?

[Tenshot13]

I don't think it's the question of genetics vs environment, but the answer of genetics AND environment.

[CF DolFan]

There is no way of anyone is understanding this until they see it for their own eyes but it comes down to desensitization and opportunity. A boy usually starts out by getting excited over seeing a nipple and then one day they end up requiring a midget and an audience to get aroused.

Today it's common and popular to be bi-sexual where as 30 years ago most males would have been disgusted with the thought. The more a person peruses their form of porn and come across it ... the more acceptable it becomes until one day they decide ... why not try it? There are also the ones who were molested or "played" with boys as a child. That's where the opportunity comes from.

Although I used to think differently I no longer believe people are inborn to be child molesters but they have gotten to that point by circumstances and opportunity. Science has shown that it usually starts with their own molestation but can happen through being exposed to it over a period of time until they begin to feel it is acceptable.   

[Spider-Dan]

But we're not talking about whether homosexuality should be allowed.  The religious right already lost that argument, and most are now unwilling to publicly argue that homosexuality should be outlawed.  (Unless you have something you'd like to add?)

What you are saying is that you don't think the government should step in and stop gay people from having sex, or living together, or even raising kids.  You're saying that the government should only stop them from legally being married... and someone's legal marriage status has nothing to do with "desensitization."

Ultimately, given that your (plural) objections really appear to be towards homosexuality itself, your insistence on banning SSM seems like reaching for any way you think will work to strike at the LGBT community.  The ideologically consistent outcome of the points you are making is that homosexuality should be outlawed, but it would be even more difficult to advocate for that while objecting to claims of "homophobia."

[Fau Teixeira]

I think your logic is completely flawed.

You also seem to conflate or imply some sort of correlation between child molestation and homosexuality. That's the textbook definition of homophobia. It's literally the same type of bigotry as saying that Asians can't drive or that Mexicans are lazy. If you can't see that, you should take a step back and ask yourself why you think this way. Is it based on data? Or is it based on propaganda, anecdotes, innuendo and supposition?

[CF DolFan]

But we're not talking about whether homosexuality should be allowed.  The religious right already lost that argument, and most are now unwilling to publicly argue that homosexuality should be outlawed.  (Unless you have something you'd like to add?)

What you are saying is that you don't think the government should step in and stop gay people from having sex, or living together, or even raising kids.  You're saying that the government should only stop them from legally being married... and someone's legal marriage status has nothing to do with "desensitization."

Ultimately, given that your (plural) objections really appear to be towards homosexuality itself, your insistence on banning SSM seems like reaching for any way you think will work to strike at the LGBT community.  The ideologically consistent outcome of the points you are making is that homosexuality should be outlawed, but it would be even more difficult to advocate for that while objecting to claims of "homophobia."

I accept the fact that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable in our society and so is porn. There is nothing I can do about that but if you ask me if either is good for you I can't say that it is because I do not believe that. Like I said before ... there are things I do and have done that I can't say are good.  If you ask me are you welcome in my Church, place of work or wherever ... then I'll say yes. Recently Christian singer Lauren Daigle was on Ellen as well as several other shows. Some people are upset that she would be on the show of a homosexual but they are in the minority. I am certainly not one of those. 

I think your logic is completely flawed.

You also seem to conflate or imply some sort of correlation between child molestation and homosexuality

Only in the sense of how they are achieved. You can add serial murder, cheating on a spouse and any other offense that you can think of.

A person doesn't just go out and cheat. We all know that is wrong. The fact is good people end up cheating all the time.  They first started innocently enjoying attention at work. Next they started having lunch, inside jokes, secret texts and other things that "doesn't hurt their spouse if they don't know". Besides ... you tell yourself it is just an innocent relationship. Finally they start fantasizing about what it would be like to have sex with the other person (since sex at home is a bit boring) and then it happens. While people will say "it just happened" it was really a series of choices ... even more choices than I mentioned.

in the church it is explained this way. The devil doesn't just jump out and tell you to do horrible deeds because he knows you would run away. He does it in baby steps and keeps whispering in your ear that it isn't really that bad. Goes all the way back to the story of Adam and Eve.

Sin doesn't typically start as a major infraction. It is something small that your conciseness minimizes away. Satan didn't tell them he was introducing sin, shame and separation from God to them. He made it look like an innocent chase for knowledge.

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

[Spider-Dan]

I accept the fact that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable in our society and so is porn. There is nothing I can do about that but if you ask me if either is good for you I can't say that it is because I do not believe that.

The explicit problem here (and why the positions of people like you and Mike Pence are being called "homophobic") is that you haven't accepted that there is nothing you can do about it.

We aren't calling you guys homophobic for saying that you think same-sex marriage is sinful, but rather because you think the government should step in to stop it.  So when you talk about how you would "vote to ban SSM if it were on the ballot," that's why you all are accused of homophobia.  As Hoodie said, the difference is between deciding that you don't want a gay marriage vs. deciding that no one else should have them, either.

[Tenshot13]

This isn't directed at you CF, more of a generalization when it comes to a lot of fellow Christians.  There is too much judgement on others, Christian and non-Christian alike.  

Matthew 7:1-2
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

The bible has a very open interpretation depending on who you speak to.  Jesus's overwhelming point was to be selfless, caring and love one another, so that's what I try to do.  I'm not going to be the type of person that condemns someone to hell because they are gay.  Whatever makes them happy, go ahead, I won't be in the way of it if it isn't something that will affect me negatively.  If end ups being morally wrong, I also will not be the person judging them for it.

Ultimately, the Old Testament damning homosexuality was because it conflicted with what humanity needed at that time...population growth.  Man+Man doesn't equal baby, so it was frowned on for the betterment of growing the population.  In the new testament, it was used to poke at the Romans, one of the better known civilizations featuring homosexuality, for their perceived immorality.  Homosexuality is used in the same sentences as greed, theft, etc., using examples of sin to better the argument that all are sinners.

[CF DolFan]

The explicit problem here (and why the positions of people like you and Mike Pence are being called "homophobic") is that you haven't accepted that there is nothing you can do about it.

We aren't calling you guys homophobic for saying that you think same-sex marriage is sinful, but rather because you think the government should step in to stop it.  So when you talk about how you would "vote to ban SSM if it were on the ballot," that's why you all are accused of homophobia.  As Hoodie said, the difference is between deciding that you don't want a gay marriage vs. deciding that no one else should have them, either.

I have accepted there isn't anything I can do about it. I also of the mind set if you ask me I will tell you the truth. If it's on the ballot, and I am to choose one or the other, than I am going to vote my beliefs. My not caring who someone is screwing does not superseed that fact.

This isn't directed at you CF, more of a generalization when it comes to a lot of fellow Christians.  There is too much judgement on others, Christian and non-Christian a like.  

Matthew 7:1-2
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

The bible has a very open interpretation depending on who you speak to.  Jesus's overwhelming point was to be selfless, caring and love one another, so that's what I try to do.  I'm not going to be the type of person that condemns someone to hell because they are gay.  Whatever makes them happy, go ahead, I won't be in the way of it if it isn't something that will affect me negatively.  If end ups being morally wrong, I also will not be the person judging them for it.

Ultimately, the Old Testament damning homosexuality was because it conflicted with what humanity needed at that time...population growth.  Man+Man doesn't equal baby, so it was frowned on for the betterment of growing the population.  In the new testament, it was used to poke at the Romans, one of the better known civilizations featuring homosexuality, for their perceived immorality.  Homosexuality is used in the same sentences as greed, theft, etc., using examples of sin to better the argument that all are sinners.

I agree there is too much judging in the church. It's actually worse among church members than it is to the outside world.  There are dozens of passages about judging even in the NT. People confuse holding Christians accountable with judging.

There's plenty of references to homosexuality in the New Testament as well. The problem I have is this. The day I got saved I didn't become the best Christian in the world. God began a new work in me and has changed me throughout my life. It's like going to the ER after an accident. They fix things one at a time starting with the most urgent. That's how I see how God works. You start out as a weak Christian and grow as your relationship with Christ grows. So even if you a Christian and you are gay ... I will show you where it's wrong in the Bible if you ask .... but it is up to God to change that in you.  I never have and never will be able to change a persons heart ... including my children.

The question I'd ask any Christian that is attacking you is if they tithe at least 10% of their income. There are over 2500 versus on money and material things in the Bible. Why? Because the love of money is the number one thing that separates us from God. If that Christian hasn't enough faith to put God first in their lives then surely they shouldn't expect any others to do so.

 

[Dave Gray]

You seem to not be addressing the issue that we keep bringing up -- the legality of all of this.

If you believe that homosexuality is wrong, don't be gay.  Don't go to gay events.  Don't associate with gays.  Teach your kids about the dangers of gayness.

But you take it a step further to say homosexuality is wrong and these right should be denied.  I don't like what you're doing, therefore you shouldn't be able to do it.  That's where your argument falls apart.