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]

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 said that it was my perception at the time. Please comprehend this. I was discussing things with both autodidact and someome else, I think flail, at the time. Now, if you think what I said in those discussions was somehow part of some secret agenda, please, present those comments so that I can address why I made those statements. If this is just a matter of your belief that a person is somehow being dishonest when they try to focus objectively on a discussion regarding public policy without discussing their private lives, then you are free to think anything you like. I personally believe in focusing on the discussion at hand without presuming that there is some kind of hidden agenda.

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".

I think this is what is commonly refered to as transferance. I have no doubt that there are "trolls" out there. However, most scientific types I have encountered seem to see the practice of looking for "trolls" under every bridge as a sign of paranoia. Be that as it may, since you seem to believe that I am somehow involved in some nefarious plot, please, feel free to point out any statement I make that might somehow be tied to such a plot. Of course, this will retard any effort we might make toward actually examining an issue, but expose to your heart's content.

[bluethread]

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.

Then, I was correct in saying that any beliefs I may have about how I conduct my personal life were not relevant to the discussion of public policy. The only reason we keep going down this road is that I get the impression that whenever I enquire regarding something, I am being told that it is not relevant or asked about it's relevance. I think, when one is asked why one is discussing something it is only common courtesy to explain why one is doing so. Now, if it is not relevant to examine the purposes and defintion of marrage in general, when determining whether it is good public policy to recognize homosexual marrage, then I am not sure what is legitimately relevant in making that determination.

[Autodidact]

O.K. well if you ever want to discuss the topic, as opposed to discussing your intent to discuss the topic, your goal in discussing the topic, your past discussion of the topic, or how you want to discuss the topic, please let me know.

[Angel]

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.

Then, I was correct in saying that any beliefs I may have about how I conduct my personal life were not relevant to the discussion of public policy. The only reason we keep going down this road is that I get the impression that whenever I enquire regarding something, I am being told that it is not relevant or asked about it's relevance. I think, when one is asked why one is discussing something it is only common courtesy to explain why one is doing so. Now, if it is not relevant to examine the purposes and defintion of marrage in general, when determining whether it is good public policy to recognize homosexual marrage, then I am not sure what is legitimately relevant in making that determination.

It is relevant in the sense that beliefs can influence someone's view, esp. religious belief. I used to be a Christian and even I would've voted against gay marriage and in fact voted against politicians who seemed to approve of gay marriage. Hek, there are Christians who call homosexuality as being harmful despite there being SCIENTIFIC evidence otherwise. So yes, since some try to impose their religion in public policy then at least INQUIRING about someone's religious belief is relevant. It may not be of the same aspect as talking about SECULAR reasons but nonetheless religious reasons are other types of reasons that can influence.

[bluethread]

O.K. well if you ever want to discuss the topic, as opposed to discussing your intent to discuss the topic, your goal in discussing the topic, your past discussion of the topic, or how you want to discuss the topic, please let me know.

I did for a number of pages. I'm sorry you did not see the relevance.

[bluethread]

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.

Then, I was correct in saying that any beliefs I may have about how I conduct my personal life were not relevant to the discussion of public policy. The only reason we keep going down this road is that I get the impression that whenever I enquire regarding something, I am being told that it is not relevant or asked about it's relevance. I think, when one is asked why one is discussing something it is only common courtesy to explain why one is doing so. Now, if it is not relevant to examine the purposes and defintion of marrage in general, when determining whether it is good public policy to recognize homosexual marrage, then I am not sure what is legitimately relevant in making that determination.

It is relevant in the sense that beliefs can influence someone's view, esp. religious belief. I used to be a Christian and even I would've voted against gay marriage and in fact voted against politicians who seemed to approve of gay marriage. Hek, there are Christians who call homosexuality as being harmful despite there being SCIENTIFIC evidence otherwise. So yes, since some try to impose their religion in public policy then at least INQUIRING about someone's religious belief is relevant. It may not be of the same aspect as talking about SECULAR reasons but nonetheless religious reasons are other types of reasons that can influence.

For the record, I was posting a response to Autodidact. Therefore, the comments I made refer to that discussion and comments I have made with regard to that discussion. Regarding your statements in this post, what does your prior bias, what christians call homosexuality and some who try to "impose" their religion on public policy have to do with what I have said? Are you trying to "impose" your beliefs regarding such people on me?

[Angel]

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.

Then, I was correct in saying that any beliefs I may have about how I conduct my personal life were not relevant to the discussion of public policy. The only reason we keep going down this road is that I get the impression that whenever I enquire regarding something, I am being told that it is not relevant or asked about it's relevance. I think, when one is asked why one is discussing something it is only common courtesy to explain why one is doing so. Now, if it is not relevant to examine the purposes and defintion of marrage in general, when determining whether it is good public policy to recognize homosexual marrage, then I am not sure what is legitimately relevant in making that determination.

It is relevant in the sense that beliefs can influence someone's view, esp. religious belief. I used to be a Christian and even I would've voted against gay marriage and in fact voted against politicians who seemed to approve of gay marriage. Hek, there are Christians who call homosexuality as being harmful despite there being SCIENTIFIC evidence otherwise. So yes, since some try to impose their religion in public policy then at least INQUIRING about someone's religious belief is relevant. It may not be of the same aspect as talking about SECULAR reasons but nonetheless religious reasons are other types of reasons that can influence.

For the record, I was posting a response to Autodidact. Therefore, the comments I made refer to that discussion and comments I have made with regard to that discussion. Regarding your statements in this post, what does your prior bias, what christians call homosexuality and some who try to "impose" their religion on public policy have to do with what I have said? Are you trying to "impose" your beliefs regarding such people on me?

It is not a bias, it's a fact that SOME Christians (and other Bible believers) try to impose their religion on public policy by voting based on RELIGIOUS reasons. I've done it. If you DENY that this happens, this is when I question if people are just wanting to disguise their religion for the purposes of wanting to appear rational or scientific. In regards to you personally, I can only go by your posts so far and yes I do find them questionable, and I'll explain why in my next post.

[Angel]

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 said that it was my perception at the time. Please comprehend this. I was discussing things with both autodidact and someome else, I think flail, at the time. Now, if you think what I said in those discussions was somehow part of some secret agenda, please, present those comments so that I can address why I made those statements. If this is just a matter of your belief that a person is somehow being dishonest when they try to focus objectively on a discussion regarding public policy without discussing their private lives, then you are free to think anything you like. I personally believe in focusing on the discussion at hand without presuming that there is some kind of hidden agenda.

The discussion at hand between you and I was about your religious view on gay sex/marriage. In fact, I saw your conversation with Autodidact winding down so I went ahead and started talking about gay sex/marriage from a different aspect. The only thing I've accused you of is being reluctant to express your religious views within the context of OUR discussion on your religious position on gay marriage. I can only SPECULATE why someone would be reluctant, but yes, one typical reason is because the reluctant person wants to appear rational-based and not DOGMA-based. And when someone won't reveal their position from that religious context, then they probably won't offer it in a secular context either EVEN when that is the only thing they're going by. Now I can't prove that your primary motivation for opposing gay marriage is only for RELIGION, but your reluctance to give me a straightforward answer when asked about it, which I'll provide some of your responses below, is what holds as being questionable in my view.

When I asked Bluethread if gay sex/marriage was moral from his or her RELIGIOUS belief, these are some of the NON-specific (shows reluctance) answers I was receiving:

Bluethread's response to if gay marriage is moral..
From pg. 24, post #233- Bluethread's response to if gay marriage is moral..

Therefore, I do not permit anything unclean within my gates. What others wish to do within their gates is none of my business. I personally choose not to partake of "the portion of the king's meat", because I can not be certain that the "king" respects Adonai's ways. This forum is not within my gates.

From pg. 24, post #237 -Another one of Bluethread's NON-straightforward responses..

To speak directly to marital relations, two people who are or wish to be considered married in other venues must repect the fact that such a relationship may not be recognized in my home and act accordingly. This is not limited to homosexual relationship, but a range of relationships that may or may not be acceptable to others.

AFTER a couple of times of pressing Bluethread for a straightforward response, only then he or she gives a straight answer.. From pg. 24, post #239, Bluethread says..

There is no provision for gay marrage in the Scriptures. Therefore, I do not believe that it is among Adonai's ways. Any reluctance I have is based on the fact that people tend to judge things based on their prospective, rather than taking the time to examine people's beliefs in context. The reference to the term unclean as a "tribal taboo" is a case in point.

It is common experience that when someone is reluctant to give a STRAIGHT answer, they are usually hiding something for whatever reason. Bluethread claims that he is not disguising his RELIGIOUS view to appear to be rational or scientific where SECULAR reasons are required. I only find his position questionable when he refuses to provide a straight answer, when he refuses to admit that his RELIGIOUS view has already made him against gay marriage despite his NEUTRAL-stance postings here, and when he refuses to admit that people do take their religious views into the ballot box to try to influence public policy.

[bluethread]

It is common experience that when someone is reluctant to give a STRAIGHT answer, they are usually hiding something for whatever reason.

Hiding is a loaded term. I already told you why I did not give a "STRAIGHT" answer. I just got done spending two pages having to explaining why my frustration with what appeared to me to be a limitation of the discussion was not relevant to the discussion because I accepted the limitation. Sorry, for all of the qualifications in that last sentence, but it appears that I must state things according to my perceptions, since there isn't always agreement on what has been said earlier in this thread. Now, maybe I prefer to not waste time on such explanations and qualifications and that is why I am reluctant to point out things that I do not consider relevant at the time. Nah, it must be because I am out to get someone.

Bluethread claims that he is not disguising his RELIGIOUS view to appear to be rational or scientific where SECULAR reasons are required. I only find his position questionable when he refuses to provide a straight answer, when he refuses to admit that his RELIGIOUS view has already made him against gay marriage despite his NEUTRAL-stance postings here, and when he refuses to admit that people do take their religious views into the ballot box to try to influence public policy.

Why are we talking about me in the third person? Are we trying to disguise who it is we are talking about. Don't worry, I'll never tell.

If his religious view is disguised to appear rational, then it must not be rational. If that is the case, can it not be disproven on rational grounds.? Now if it is indeed a rational view, why does it matter if it may also be his religious view? Are all religious views somehow irrational? I don't recall seeing him make anything look scientific. Are all views by definition more rational if they look scientific?

How is it that his religious views have already made him against gay marriage as public policy? Does his apparent unwillingness to recognize homosexual marrage in his home mean that he has already determined that public policy should follow his personal preferences? Oh right, homosexuals also want to make it acceptable to have sex in public because they do it at home. Give him a break.

I also didn't notice him refusing to admit that people do take their religious views into the ballot box to try to influence public policy. Of course they do. So what? I don't think he ever said that a majority vote made public policy right. Maybe we should be focusing on what public policy should be rather than demagoguing his personal religious views.

[Angel]

It is common experience that when someone is reluctant to give a STRAIGHT answer, they are usually hiding something for whatever reason.

Hiding is a loaded term. I already told you why I did not give a "STRAIGHT" answer. I just got done spending two pages having to explaining why my frustration with what appeared to me to be a limitation of the discussion was not relevant to the discussion because I accepted the limitation. Sorry, for all of the qualifications in that last sentence, but it appears that I must state things according to my perceptions, since there isn't always agreement on what has been said earlier in this thread. Now, maybe I prefer to not waste time on such explanations and qualifications and that is why I am reluctant to point out things that I do not consider relevant at the time. Nah, it must be because I am out to get someone.

I use the word 'hiding' to mean withholding information. Perhaps to your disliking, you don't get to decide what's relevant but rather the TOPIC post (post #1) does. My question to you in regards to your religion is within the scope of the topic.

I also don't see or agree that something being irrelevant would inhibit you from giving a straight answer. You could've given a straight answer if you wanted to but it took me pressing for it to finally get it out of you.

Bluethread claims that he is not disguising his RELIGIOUS view to appear to be rational or scientific where SECULAR reasons are required. I only find his position questionable when he refuses to provide a straight answer, when he refuses to admit that his RELIGIOUS view has already made him against gay marriage despite his NEUTRAL-stance postings here, and when he refuses to admit that people do take their religious views into the ballot box to try to influence public policy.

If his [Bluethread] religious view is disguised to appear rational, then it must not be rational.

I disagree. If it were really rational then it wouldn't need to be disguised (as in something being portrayed as something else). And by appearing rational I'm referring to really only disagreeing on gay marriage because of your religion but yet you still try to offer whatever secular reasons you can grasp for. Perhaps using 'secular' or non-religion, as the Constitution requires on this matter, is a better word.

If that is the case, can it not be disproven on rational grounds.?

It's not a matter of disproving but rather just a lack of evidence if all you got is religion. As of yet, I haven't seen you give a position or offer any logical reason as to why gay marriage should be banned.

Now if it is indeed a rational view, why does it matter if it may also be his religious view? Are all religious views somehow irrational? I don't recall seeing him make anything look scientific. Are all views by definition more rational if they look scientific?

All religious views that are not backed by logic or evidence are irrational. Keep in mind, this is not the same as false, but could simply mean unproven or unprovable. But when there is evidence that supports gay couples as causing no harm, then I question why hold on to a position that LACKS evidence such as religious dogma.

How is it that his religious views have already made him against gay marriage as public policy?

I never claimed this was you specifically but only offered that as speculation as to why you couldn't give a straight answer to my simple question. I'd also have to press you more on your belief to get this out of you assuming that you'd be honest. For instance, are Adonai's morals relative or do they apply to everyone? If they apply to everyone, and that is your belief system as you claim, then how could you support banning gay marriage as personal standard and not also a public policy standard?

Does his apparent unwillingness to recognize homosexual marrage in his home mean that he has already determined that public policy should follow his personal preferences? Oh right, homosexuals also want to make it acceptable to have sex in public because they do it at home. Give him a break.

Your question here is a red herring. My dispute with you was about you not being able to give a straight answer in regards to your religious position. We can speculate the reason why is because that is the only reason you have to ban it publically. Isn't Adonai against gay sex wherever it's done, publically or privately? I don't see why it's impossible for someone to want to apply their personal standard as public policy esp. considering my earlier points about some Christians doing that by voting based on their religion.

I also didn't notice him refusing to admit that people do take their religious views into the ballot box to try to influence public policy. Of course they do. So what? I don't think he [Bluethread] ever said that a majority vote made public policy right. Maybe we should be focusing on what public policy should be rather than demagoguing his personal religious views.

Had you given a straight answer about your religious views, then I wouldn't have had to question the reasons behind your position on public policy. And this is especially considering that you haven't really offered your position here (for or against gay marriage).