Gay marriage

[inviere1644]

Ok, as a moderate gay man I'm always interested to see what people on the liberal and conservative spectrums have to say about this issue. So, is it right or wrong? why or why not?

[bluethread]

I haven't refused anything. On the contrary, over and over again I've invited you to examine anything you like. Further, I've gone down blind alleys and explored irrelevant minutae with you for page after page,n one of which has shed light on the subject. Where your logic was faulty, I showed it. Where your understanding of the constitution was erroneous, I explained your error. Here at RF we don't call that hostility. We call it debate, which is why we're here. If you don't enjoy debate, and find disagreement to be hostile, this may not be the most appropriate forum for you.

As you are so fond of saying, why is this relevant?

[Autodidact]

I haven't refused anything. On the contrary, over and over again I've invited you to examine anything you like. Further, I've gone down blind alleys and explored irrelevant minutae with you for page after page,n one of which has shed light on the subject. Where your logic was faulty, I showed it. Where your understanding of the constitution was erroneous, I explained your error. Here at RF we don't call that hostility. We call it debate, which is why we're here. If you don't enjoy debate, and find disagreement to be hostile, this may not be the most appropriate forum for you.

As you are so fond of saying, why is this relevant?

Because this:

Ok, autodidact you caught me. I do not like the fact that you refused to examine the concept of marrage in a broader context. Does that make my willingness to limit the discussion to legal recognition of marrage somehow suspect?

I'm responding to your post. That's kind of how the whole thing works. If you don't think it's relevant, then don't bring it up.

Now, as I have said over and over, do you have an argument to make?

[bluethread]

As you are so fond of saying, why is this relevant?

Because this:

Ok, autodidact you caught me. I do not like the fact that you refused to examine the concept of marrage in a broader context. Does that make my willingness to limit the discussion to legal recognition of marrage somehow suspect?

I'm responding to your post. That's kind of how the whole thing works. If you don't think it's relevant, then don't bring it up.

Sorry, next time I'll tell angel to take a hike.

Now, as I have said over and over, do you have an argument to make?

No, but I did have question to which i did not notice an answer. Does that make my willingness to limit the discussion to legal recognition of marrage somehow suspect?

[Angel]

NOthing that you've said here takes away from my point of RELIGION being one reason why some oppose gay sex and marriage.

If you read the topic post (post #1 of this thread) you'd see it isn't just limited to 'legal' reasons. The topic is a general one asking about reasons why people see gay marriage as right or wrong. I started a new discussion within that topic which has to do with religious belief. From there I saw some reluctance from you to even reveal your religious position after I CLEARLY made it known that I'm looking for your RELIGIOUS standpoint. Other than wanting to appear that you're going by science and/or logic and not just religion, I can only speculate why else people would want to hide or disguise their religious reasons for opposing gay sex/marriage. So far you've admitted that your opposition to gay sex/marriage does involve religious reasons. I see no harm in making that known so that way people can see some of the things that influence or that are part of your beliefs.

I didn't mean to offend you. However, I was in a complicated discussion with autodidact and others regarding how one determines when a relationship should be recognized as a marrage for legal purposes and not about my beliefs. One reason why one would not disclose religious reasons for any opposition one might have for something is because some presume religious views make one closed off to discussions that are not based on religion. This is not necessarily the case of course and bias is not limited to those with religious views. This makes it difficult to investgate something properly. Therefore, I deemed it best to accept the limitation of the discussion to legal marrage in accordance with autodidact's wishes.

I am not offended. I agree with you that bias can be on both sides but that doesn't help the typical bible-believers side on the issue of gay marriage/sex. At least, those who are for homosexuality being moral have the backing of some scientific evidence and logic whereas religionists tend to have dogma. If non-religionists can back their side with scientific evidence then I'm not sure if that should even be called a bias.

[Angel]

At the end of that discussion, given the seeming hostility to my inquiries, I was reluctant to give an unqualified statement of my personal belief system, lest it be presumed that everything that had proceeded that was anything other than an examination of whether or not a secular government should recognize homosexual marrage. Now, if you wish to discuss marrage in my belief system. I can do that.

It's odd that you perceive disagreement as hostility, given that this is a debate forum. You know, the purpose is to debate. Nothing hostile about it.

Ok, autodidact you caught me. I do not like the fact that you refused to examine the concept of marrage in a broader context. Does that make my willingness to limit the discussion to legal recognition of marrage somehow suspect?

Angel, do you really require me to not only ignore autodidacts preferences in limiting the scope of the discussion but also insist that homosexual marrage be judged only on my personal preferences?

My issue is not with your debate with Autodidact on legalities. That's a separate aspect of the topic of gay marriage but I brought up a different aspect. It is possible to discuss gay marriage from a legal and religious standpoint, is it not? MY discussion with YOU is about your religious standpoint on gay marriage so you can limit your discussion with me on that and limit your discussion with Autodidact in legalities if you both choose to do so.

You asked me in another post if I"d like to discuss your religious view on gay marriage/sex. My response is, no, unless it can be backed by evidence otherwise all you may as well be doing is preaching to me, i.e. , gay sex is wrong because my god tells me so. Nevermind that many scientists disagree or that evidence can be shown otherwise that gay couples cause no harm or nothing much different than your average heterosexual couple.

[Autodidact]

As you are so fond of saying, why is this relevant?

Because this:

Ok, autodidact you caught me. I do not like the fact that you refused to examine the concept of marrage in a broader context. Does that make my willingness to limit the discussion to legal recognition of marrage somehow suspect?

I'm responding to your post. That's kind of how the whole thing works. If you don't think it's relevant, then don't bring it up.

Sorry, next time I'll tell angel to take a hike.

I"m sorry, I don't follow you. I answer your question, you tell me it's irrelevant, and now it's Angel's fault?

Now, as I have said over and over, do you have an argument to make?

No, but I did have question to which i did not notice an answer. Does that make my willingness to limit the discussion to legal recognition of marrage somehow suspect?

What question is that? Please try not to get defensive.

[bluethread]

My issue is not with your debate with Autodidact on legalities. That's a separate aspect of the topic of gay marriage but I brought up a different aspect. It is possible to discuss gay marriage from a legal and religious standpoint, is it not? MY discussion with YOU is about your religious standpoint on gay marriage so you can limit your discussion with me on that and limit your discussion with Autodidact in legalities if you both choose to do so.

You asked me in another post if I"d like to discuss your religious view on gay marriage/sex. My response is, no, unless it can be backed by evidence otherwise all you may as well be doing is preaching to me, i.e. , gay sex is wrong because my god tells me so. Nevermind that many scientists disagree or that evidence can be shown otherwise that gay couples cause no harm or nothing much different than your average heterosexual couple.

You asked my why I did not speak of my convictions, I was primarily in a discussion with autodidact. Therefore, I presumed you were asking me why I did not do so in that discussion. However, even within the context you wish things to be discussed, why must I bow to the opinions of social science with regard to what I permit within my gates. I have already said that those who do not share my views are free to do as they please within their gates.

I agree with you that bias can be on both sides but that doesn't help the typical bible-believers side on the issue of gay marriage/sex. At least, those who are for homosexuality being moral have the backing of some scientific evidence and logic whereas religionists tend to have dogma. If non-religionists can back their side with scientific evidence then I'm not sure if that should even be called a bias.

Of course it is a bias. It is a scientific bias. However, I was not taking sides. I was enquiring regarding certain aspects that relate to how one would decide the issue at hand. In fact, it appeared that both of you seemed to be insisting that I take a "side". I am sorry that I disappointed you. Any position I may take on the issue is based on how our shared society views marrage in general. If I can find some agreement on that then maybe I can reach an opinion on how homosexual marrage should be handled in our shared society.

[bluethread]

Sorry, next time I'll tell angel to take a hike.

I"m sorry, I don't follow you. I answer your question, you tell me it's irrelevant, and now it's Angel's fault?

I was not finding fault. I was pointing out that angel seemed to be asking me why I did not express my religious views in our discussion and I was responding to that. In doing so I let slip that your limiting the discussion to legally recognized marrage bothered me, but I accepted that limitation. As I said before, in my opinion, it is not relevant to the discussion we did have. If you do not believe you limited the discussion in that way, well so be it.

No, but I did have question to which i did not notice an answer. Does that make my willingness to limit the discussion to legal recognition of marrage somehow suspect?

What question is that? Please try not to get defensive.

Does that(my not stating my personal religious convictions) make my willingness to limit the discussion to legal recognition of marrage somehow suspect? Why would you caution me about being defensive? I just stated that I did not notice an answer to the question I stated and have now repeated twice. The second time with clarification regarding the context in which the question was first posed. Do you need any further clarification?

[Angel]

My issue is not with your debate with Autodidact on legalities. That's a separate aspect of the topic of gay marriage but I brought up a different aspect. It is possible to discuss gay marriage from a legal and religious standpoint, is it not? MY discussion with YOU is about your religious standpoint on gay marriage so you can limit your discussion with me on that and limit your discussion with Autodidact in legalities if you both choose to do so.

You asked me in another post if I"d like to discuss your religious view on gay marriage/sex. My response is, no, unless it can be backed by evidence otherwise all you may as well be doing is preaching to me, i.e. , gay sex is wrong because my god tells me so. Nevermind that many scientists disagree or that evidence can be shown otherwise that gay couples cause no harm or nothing much different than your average heterosexual couple.

You asked my why I did not speak of my convictions, I was primarily in a discussion with autodidact. Therefore, I presumed you were asking me why I did not do so in that discussion. However, even within the context you wish things to be discussed, why must I bow to the opinions of social science with regard to what I permit within my gates. I have already said that those who do not share my views are free to do as they please within their gates.

I did not ask you about talking about your religious beliefs on gay marriage in your discussion with Autodidact. Please comprehend this. I was asking why were you reluctant to reveal your religious position on gay marriage when it came to my discussion with you which was a SEPARATE discussion from Autodidact's discussion w/ you. My discussion with you was about your RELIGIOUS position on gay marriage which I couldn't have made more clear. When someone tries to disguise or hide their religious position even in the context of a discussion about RELIGION, then the more they'll hide it in a discussion from a SECULAR standpoint if they want to make it appear that their religion has no influence on their view on gay marriage even when it does.

I agree with you that bias can be on both sides but that doesn't help the typical bible-believers side on the issue of gay marriage/sex. At least, those who are for homosexuality being moral have the backing of some scientific evidence and logic whereas religionists tend to have dogma. If non-religionists can back their side with scientific evidence then I'm not sure if that should even be called a bias.

Of course it is a bias. It is a scientific bias. However, I was not taking sides. I was enquiring regarding certain aspects that relate to how one would decide the issue at hand. In fact, it appeared that both of you seemed to be insisting that I take a "side". I am sorry that I disappointed you. Any position I may take on the issue is based on how our shared society views marrage in general. If I can find some agreement on that then maybe I can reach an opinion on how homosexual marrage should be handled in our shared society.

You already have a side no matter how much you try to post as if you don't. You've already exposed that Adonai's way is not for gay sex/marriage and that this is your belief system. I'm not interested in debating people who can't even be honest with themselves and yet expect me to believe that they're honestly looking for answers from others. The only thing to do with these types is to expose them like I would do any other person, usually called "trolls".

[Autodidact]

Does that(my not stating my personal religious convictions) make my willingness to limit the discussion to legal recognition of marrage somehow suspect? Why would you caution me about being defensive? I just stated that I did not notice an answer to the question I stated and have now repeated twice. The second time with clarification regarding the context in which the question was first posed. Do you need any further clarification?

As far as I'm concerned you're free to discuss whatever you like. What is getting tedious is these endless discussions about what you are discussing, intend to discuss, want to discuss, think you should discuss.

Just make any argument or explore any aspect you like, and I'll do the same. Thank you.