North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban

[photon]

Originally Posted by Knalus

That was not my intent.

Understood, which is why I was pointing it out.

Intent easily gets misinterpreted, potentially including blasting a whole thread as being unfair, wrong, and hateful. EDIT: Meaning that you have to consider that you've misread others' intent just as your intent wasn't seen.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Guys, give Knalus a break, he has been polite and I doubt he is trolling, this is after all an issue of belief, I suspect he is probably not wholly comfortable defending his own position, that is a good thing.

Yes, he has been polite and respectful, which is why I'd like to engage in civilized coversation with him (or her?).

To just say "gay marriage is wrong" but post nothing further to back up that point does not facilitate an intelligent and respectful conversation.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Guys, give Knalus a break, he has been polite and I doubt he is trolling, this is after all an issue of belief, I suspect he is probably not wholly comfortable defending his own position, that is a good thing.

If you're not comfortable defending/supporting your position then you should do 1 of two things:

1) Keep your mouth shut
2) (this one is preferable) Give some serious critical thought as to why defending a postion you hold is uncomfortable to you.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Guys, give Knalus a break, he has been polite and I doubt he is trolling, this is after all an issue of belief, I suspect he is probably not wholly comfortable defending his own position, that is a good thing.

"Give him a break. He's well meaning despite supporting a position of bigotry."

Equal rights means equal rights for everyone. It doesn't mean exclude equal rights for those people you choose to marginalize. I commend those that confront bigotry. Perhaps if more people did it then there would be more dialogue leading to more tolerance and understanding.

[HPLovecraft]

I don't understand why a guy is being given an out after flatly stating allowing gay people to marry is wrong, a remark that is obvious to inflame some passions, and then refusing to defend it with any sort of logical defense.

There is nothing wrong with differing opinions and perspectives on an issue like this; in fact, it's preferred, or else you end up with a Reddit-style circle jerk, but it needs to be based in reason to be actually thoughtful. And, particularly, on a message board it needs to be defended when questioned, as any opinion needs to be, or else it's just trolling, intentional or not.

[photon]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

I don't understand why a guy is being given an out after flatly stating allowing gay people to marry is wrong, a remark that is obvious to inflame some passions, and then refusing to defend it with any sort of logical defense.

Well no one can force him to reply, so there's not much you can do if someone does that.

If it's an ongoing pattern though it would be trolling, and whoever did such things would get a reputation for it at the very least.

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

And, particularly, on a message board it needs to be defended when questioned, as any opinion needs to be, or else it's just trolling, intentional or not.

Yup, and unintentional trolling can be forgiven sometimes, but eventually no one is going to believe it if it keeps being claimed (in general terms, not a specific commentary on this thread).

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

I don't understand why a guy is being given an out after flatly stating allowing gay people to marry is wrong, a remark that is obvious to inflame some passions, and then refusing to defend it with any sort of logical defense.

There is nothing wrong with differing opinions and perspectives on an issue like this; in fact, it's preferred, or else you end up with a Reddit-style circle jerk, but it needs to be based in reason to be actually thoughtful. And, particularly, on a message board it needs to be defended when questioned, as any opinion needs to be, or else it's just trolling, intentional or not.

I am not saying we shouldn't engage him, I am just asking that we put away the torches and pitchforks, I would like to have him go back to his family and/or church and argue in favour of gay marriage, not telling tales of intolerent liberal f****** and their godless sins!

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I am not saying we shouldn't engage him, I am just asking that we put away the torches and pitchforks, I would like to have him go back to his family and/or church and argue in favour of gay marriage, not telling tales of intolerent liberal f****** and their godless sins!

Where are the torches and pitchforks? All I'm seeing are posters who want Knalus to explain his point further so we can have a civilized discussion. I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation at all.

Saying "I think gay marriage is wrong for reasons X, Y, and Z" is a starting point to further conversation.

Saying "I think gay marriage is wrong, but I refuse to explain why!" ends the possibility for any intelligent debate.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Where are the torches and pitchforks? All I'm seeing are posters who want Knalus to explain his point further so we can have a civilized discussion. I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation at all.

Saying "I think gay marriage is wrong for reasons X, Y, and Z" is a starting point to further conversation.

Saying "I think gay marriage is wrong, but I refuse to explain why!" ends the possibility for any intelligent debate.

Habernacs was getting out there,

[habernac]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Habernacs was getting out there,

Not a great response by me, agreed. I just hate when supposed adults come back with a 3 year old's response when asked why they think a certain way. "I don't know". "Because yes." etc.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Yes, he has been polite and respectful, which is why I'd like to engage in civilized coversation with him (or her?).

To just say "gay marriage is wrong" but post nothing further to back up that point does not facilitate an intelligent and respectful conversation.

I will try.

I should have said: Denying gays the right to marry is wrong, but allowing them isn't much better.

I don't know about most of you, but I find definitions to be important. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman that are not related to each other and who are not married to anyone else. (although in the distant past and/or Saudi Arabia, that last one is iffy).

Marriage is an important thing. Not a flippant thing, nor an iffy thing. I didn't get married because it was no big deal, that if things went south I could always divorce. That's not right. Where I come from, where I grew up, Marriage was a solemn thing. It went beyond politics and ordinary stuff.

So when I see things like this:

Originally Posted by Dion

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

I wonder if this was part of God's design?

I guess I really should get past that. What I believe just isn't relevant anymore. The Institution of Marriage is indeed destroyed. I can understand why everyone should be free to do what they want, but I can also be disappointed in what they do.

Which is why I struggle with this argument. The definition stands as it is. No amount of wishing by anyone will change that meaning. The definition doesn't make homosexuals or their life choices right or wrong. It is merely what the word means. But at the same time, what it means, doesn't mean anything anymore. (I think that by this time it's clear that I'm no writer, and I'm not necessarily the best at putting my point of view across).

So then, are gays who want to marry being persecuted, and denied something that they will consider a powerful and transformative part of their lives? Some of them, yeah. Which is why it would be wrong to deny them this.

But are others just using it as a political statement, a statement about equality and rights and acceptance? Yes. Some of them are. It would be wrong to even further diminish something that still holds some value, merely because people are using it as a political statement. I guess I don't believe that marriage is dead, and that someday people are going to wake up and realize it is a powerful and valuable thing. But they probably won't.

Which brings up the question as to whether or not government should be involved in marriage in the first place. Half of me says no. They don't need to be there, having government get out of the marriage business would solve the problem. Everyone that wants a union can have a union, and no one can have a marriage, and we will all be happy. But the other half of me realizes that there are currently different levels of marriage, such as common law marriage (which I do not consider "real" marriage, just like I do not consider gay marriage "real" marriage), and other larger scale legal issues that revolve around rights, such as what happens when your partner dies? Or ownership issues. And that half of me does not want government to take away marriage, because my wife could end up with the government taking away all of the things that belonged to "me" from her when I die. That thought worries me.

So, in the end, there is no good answer. All the answers are bad ones, most of which really affect me, even if at the same time some don't affect me at all.


But a bigot is a bigot, right? And because I said I didn't agree with gay marriage, well...


By the way, I find it interesting that many of those who quoted me like this:

Originally Posted by Knalus

Allowing gays to marry isn't right

ignored the rest of the sentence.

Originally Posted by Knalus

Allowing gays to marry isn't right, but neither is denying them. Catch-22. There is no right answer. There is only wrong answers. There are no winners in this argument.

It's a him, btw, not that it matters.

[MarchHare]

Marriage is an important thing. Not a flippant thing, nor an iffy thing. I didn't get married because it was no big deal, that if things went south I could always divorce. That's not right. Where I come from, where I grew up, Marriage was a solemn thing. It went beyond politics and ordinary stuff.

I agree with this completely, and I treat my marriage the same way, as something solemn that should not be easily discarded if things start to go poorly. I imagine most gay people want to be married for this exact reason; they view the loving relationships they have with their partners as something serious and solemn. For the same reason that you view marriage as superior to a common law relationship, so too do homosexuals view marriage as something superior to a civil union. That's why I support them 100% on this issue even though it has absolutely zero effect on me personally.

Everyone that wants a union can have a union, and no one can have a marriage, and we will all be happy.

I would not be happy with a union. I want a marriage. So does my wife. From your post, it sounds like you also want a marriage.

So do homosexuals.

[Edit]
Thanks for the reply, btw!

[Hilch]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman that are not related to each other and who are not married to anyone else.

Nope. That might be your definition but history tells us a different story. Again your personal belief may be that it's a man and a women but mariage hasn't always been that way.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I don't know about most of you, but I find definitions to be important.

But why are they important? Are they important because they allow for mutual understanding? Or are they important because there's something intrinsic about the definition that transcends mere facilitation of communication?

The former is obvious, the latter isn't. Definitions change all the time, definitions of words are a result of the actual usage and/or thing being defined changing.

Definitions facilitate communication, that's all.

Originally Posted by Knalus

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman that are not related to each other and who are not married to anyone else.

Not always, Wikipedia lists some examples of same sex marriages in history.

And even if it were true, why does that mean it should always be so? You've said here that the definition of marriage that you propose is the right one in all cases for all cultures in all times, and the only justification is that "definitions are important".

Until you can support why definitions are so important that they should transcend any potential reason for change, and why your definition is the right one, your argument which follows from those premises fails IMO.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Well first thank you for elabortating on your thoughts Knalus. Now...

I can understand why everyone should be free to do what they want, but I can also be disappointed in what they do.

That you can. So why prevent them from doing so? It doesn't affect you personally in any way, shape, or form.

But are others just using it as a political statement, a statement about equality and rights and acceptance?

Right, cause staight people never get married for reasons other than love (money, fathering a child out of wedlock, citizenship, mail-order brides etc...)

But the other half of me realizes that there are currently different levels of marriage, such as common law marriage (which I do not consider "real" marriage, just like I do not consider gay marriage "real" marriage)

Common law is no different than marriage except for that pesky legal document, hence why I think marriage is just a piece of paper. Seriously, tell me whats different? Do people love each other less? Can they not have children? What if they're non-believers who choose not to get married?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I will try.

I should have said: Denying gays the right to marry is wrong, but allowing them isn't much better.

I don't know about most of you, but I find definitions to be important. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman that are not related to each other and who are not married to anyone else. (although in the distant past and/or Saudi Arabia, that last one is iffy).

I think the major issue here is that you're basing your argument around a definition that you've constructed, and certainly not a definition that fits the reality of the word either historically or in modern society.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Knalus

This doesn't make any sense. Anti-gay marriage proponents are considered by some posters to be hateful. Other posters spew hateful messages about the suspected religion and/or reasoning behind why they would act that way. How is that false equivalence? My statement was based on actions in this thread, not based on deductive reasoning.

You really don't see the difference? On one hand you have the religious right who wants to deny gays and lesbians the RIGHT to marry and on the other hand we have some angry people using angry words to describe their feelings towards so-called Christians who are happy to discriminate against the gay community.

Denial of the same rights as everyone else enjoys versus 'bad words'. Not really equivalent.

[Coach]

Thank you for your response. Pretty interesting to see someone who really does have both points of view. Personally i was raised Catholic, but stopped going to church when I was around 16 (around the time of my parents divorce) because I came to the realization that I didn't know how the universe started or what will happen when I die and I am completely OK with not knowing. I live my life for myself and for those that I care about and who care about me. I realize that I'm arguing with "past-you" but I thought I'd respond to a few points...

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Fundy-Text: It would not be a disagreement with me, but with God. Disagreeing with God is dangerous, and I see it as my responsibility as someone who knows the truth to ensure that everyone else knows it.

I understand the idea that they want to "save" non-believers, but why can't they just let it go? If someone wants to burn in hell for being gay, why is it their problem?

Fundy-Text: Better for everyone. History shows that social health is absolutely dependent upon the strength of family, and once that is diminished, it always leads to social decay. Take the Roman Empire as an example for how sexual and moral degradation resulted in its weakness and destruction. Homosexuality is bad for society.

Homosexuality is bad for their idea of what society should be. The notion that homosexuality is a cause of diminished family strength I think has shown to be false simply by looking at the divorce rate amongst heterosexual couples. And also at the fact that the rate of divorce increases with every previous marriage.

Fundy-Text: It is a war, and if we concede on this point, it would be like laying down our arms and surrendering to the enemy on the front line of the battlefield. What we are trying to do is two things: First, to show our solidarity with God—we want to be on the winning side in the end. Second, to prevent the continuing and rapid moral and social decay, which is but a symptom of a much greater, much more pernicious and insidious form of evil. Ultimately, this is about combatting and defeating evil.

A war on what? Semantics? What the definition of marriage is? It's just a word. Language evolves. If the concern is that gay marriage doesnt chime with Webster's definition is it really worth all this fighting? Does it invalidate your marriage if gay people can do it too?

[Makarov]

Thanks for giving us your thoughts.

Originally Posted by Knalus

I don't know about most of you, but I find definitions to be important. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman that are not related to each other and who are not married to anyone else. (although in the distant past and/or Saudi Arabia, that last one is iffy).

I think that your definition of marriage is far too narrow. Indeed, you are describing only one type of marriage. Marriage conventions and practices vary tremedously across societies and time. Also, even in the West, the institution of marriage has not been static or unchanging. For example, polygamous marriages were once common place. Arranged marriages were typical until only a couple of hundred years ago, etc.

Originally Posted by Knalus

Marriage is an important thing. Not a flippant thing, nor an iffy thing. I didn't get married because it was no big deal, that if things went south I could always divorce. That's not right. Where I come from, where I grew up, Marriage was a solemn thing. It went beyond politics and ordinary stuff.

This is in fact one of the arguments in favour of same sex marriage.

Originally Posted by Knalus

I guess I really should get past that. What I believe just isn't relevant anymore. The Institution of Marriage is indeed destroyed. I can understand why everyone should be free to do what they want, but I can also be disappointed in what they do.

I became engaged less than a year ago. I don't feel that the institution of marriage is destroyed at all.

Originally Posted by Knalus

Which is why I struggle with this argument. The definition stands as it is. No amount of wishing by anyone will change that meaning.

Again, the definition of marriage changes dramatically from place to place and time to time. Indeed, it just did in Canada 5 years ago.

Originally Posted by Knalus

It's a him, btw, not that it matters.

Well, in North Carolina, it matters because it cuts your pool of potential spouses in half.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

You really don't see the difference? On one hand you have the religious right who wants to deny gays and lesbians the RIGHT to marry and on the other hand we have some angry people using angry words to describe their feelings towards so-called Christians who are happy deny to discriminate against the gay community.

Denial of the same rights as everyone else enjoys versus 'bad words'. Not really equivalent.

Or in the case of NC, they didn't just ban gay marriage, they banned civil unions as well, pushing back against even rights such as hospital visitation rights... The crazyness isn't stuck at the word Marriage, its beyond that.