I couldn't disagree more!

I feel like if these people were truly christian, by their claiming to be 100% by the bible, they would also be against:
Divorce
Inter-racial marriage
Premarital sex
Usury
Inter-faith marriage

And would be pro:
Slavery
Punishing adultery by stoning to death
Punishing misbehaving children by stoning to death
Punishing pretty much everything by stoning to death

It just strikes me more as opportunistic, these people are raised to be bigoted and to fall back on the bible as proof. Religion doesn't so much dominate southern culture so much as it's used to vindicate it

See, that's one of the things I was talking about in my post. Of course I like a separation of church and state, but this shouldn't be about that. Being for gay marriage is not being against religion!

Separation of church and state again lays passed out in the corner.   It's not about religion but often religion+people (ironically a very different thing) comes into politics.
It's sad that people who have homosexual tendencies, which is a large part of the population, are growing up feeling like there's something wrong with themselves. Some people are born not in a '2 party system'. Until recently doctors would preform an operation making them fit their closest party. Or in some cases it was decided "It's easier to dig a hole than build a pole" (serious, I did not make that up). Often without asking the parents. But when the people grew up they still have feelings relating to who they are. That might be TMI, the point is that it's telling someone a key part of them is wrong as they grow up. A very damaging thing.

The same basic thing has been said about... how to put it... 'pleasuring yourself'. And many things throughout history. In the interest of not getting infracted I'll put it this way: Ketchup on eggs grosses me out even though I like eggs and ketchup separately. I know a few people who like ketchup on eggs. If I made a big deal and said they couldn't do that I'd be putting out negative energy and making someone feel bad but my eggs would be completely unchanged. The ketchup eggs eaters would feel bad, I get a hollow 'I'm right' feeling, the situation's a big hassle. -That's the basic repeating story throughout history. (Don't read too much into my metaphor; there's no hidden or specific meaning.)

What is kind of funny is a lot of people in power throughout history who were men wanted to preserve morals and what not yet had no problem knowing multiple women together. I wish someone would cop-to saying "man+man creeps me out (maybe because slight interest) but I'm totally into womanizing however I want to act righteous and preserve the sanctity of marriage all the same".

Human rights? Nah... we don't need those. Some of us will get those when we die, assuming we do what we think God wants, based off of text that has been edited and translated an unknown number of times. Assuming there is a god.


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/12/woman-leaves-13m-fortune-to-pet-cat/


So uh... why is it that we live in a world where you can leave your inheritance to an animal, but humans can't have basic rights?

But over time, things change~

I don't think the Bible really meant to still stone to death anyone that commits a crime or misbehave for the future generations to come~
I think mainly that the Bible likes to give examples/scenarios that Christians in today's world/generation are supposed to translate~
But hey, what do I know? =0

EZ answer: people are dumb and like cats.  My cat loves to smell any food I have then she quits bugging me.  One time I was making calamari so I showed her a squid and it freaked the h*** out of her, lol.

Better answer: like freedom of speech and expression you can't cater to everyone without conflicts.  People are terrified of uncertainty, (sort of) have an instinct to be afraid of what's different or strange, people are the biggest threat to people (unlike the balance when mountain lions eat the deer to keep them from taking over and eating all the grass and starving, etc), and generally humans are not rational animals.
It's not a fair world.  For people to have rights they must stand up (often fight) for them and to keep them.
______________________________________________
Agreeing with Eki, people use many methods to 'support' prejudice, their world views etc.  In many world religions some people say it's against gays and other people don't.  Homophobic discrimination can have nothing to do with religion too; like AIDS myths saying gay sex spread it (and sex in a broader category didn't was implied). 
Religion is a big, extremely subjective thing that deals with justification in a divine sense by certain viewpoints (a premise that paired with people and interpretation is d*** scary).  So, sadly religion is often used as a moral shield for people to justify themselves .

I've seen lots of folks compare the anti-gay-marriage position to discrimination against minority races, but I rarely see any argument given for why they should be similar cases. A lot of people think that homosexuality isn't like a race, but like a life-style choice (whether there are predispositions are not). Now they may be wrong in that, but you'll have to have some way of showing that besides just calling them bigots and assuming the comparison.



Most Christians I know are against divorce, premarital sex, and inter-faith marriage. I've never seen a passage in the Bible condemning inter-racial marriage. For what it's worth, it happened all the time in the Bible with prominent figures (e.g., Moses, Ruth).

The slavery in the Bible is nothing like the slavery we had in the 1800s. It was more of a voluntary servitude that people entered into the pay off debts. These "slaves" were closer to maids and butlers in our day than the slaves of the 1800s. Also, the rules in the Bible about this servitude were about how to act justly within the institution, but the Bible never commanded people to partake in it.

The rules about stoning were all part of the legal system of Israel as a theocratic government. So in the context, the rules are given for them in their society; they aren't universal commands. They don't apply to us since America isn't Israel.

It's a minority

being oppressed

soooooo

yeah


Also it DOESN'T MATTER if it's a choice or not. Why should it?

But if it WAS a choice, do you think people would commit suicide because of it?

Because people are. There are people who felt so miserable about not being accepted by the people around them, not being able to love whoever they wished, that they decided to end their own life. I can't imagine what goes through a person in this situation's head, but it's nothing I wish upon anyone. Every person proclaiming how homosexuality is a sin is in part responsible for these deaths. I'm sorry for being so blunt here, but it's the truth.


And most I know range from being for to being even more for these things.
I quoted a passage earlier.

Great!

You're ignoring usury, probably the strongest example of what christians today ignore from the bible

A sin which, unlike the other "old hebrew laws" (Don't eat shellfish, don't wear garments of mixed fabric, etc.), appears in both the new and old testimate

So your options are either

Abolish banks

or allow gay marriage

Now Eki did a wonderful job responding to the other portions of your post so I'll let him do his thing

Except for this line here:



This is anecdotal evidence. You're insinuating that all christians are against these issues, with only your sample group to base that judgement on. There's obviously going to be some on either side of the fence, and some between, and I don't really know how you plan to convince anyone otherwise with just "well I have had a different experience"

Holy **** you even say "most", so you're undermining your own general statement. How are you supposed to convince anyone else when you yourself don't even seem to be convinced

Please avoid using anecdotes in this way in the future

2 Americans, of legal age etc, being denied the right to marry.  Black+White or Man+man/Woman+woman is the only difference between interracial marriage discrimination and same sex marriage discrimination in a legal sense. 
All people are supposed to have equal rights (adults of legal age, fine print, etc).  This doesn't happen but it's good to have as a right anyway.
I think a 99 year old man can marry an 18 year old woman legally (beside immediate family but that's irrelevant and leads off track) because past 18 (or 21 for some cases) people are adults legally.  This extreame example I don't agree with morally but it's legal.  A black man is equal to a white man, same goes for women (please excuse my black and white terms, it's just easier get my point across without including every PC detail).  All people are equal.  A black woman marrying a white man=2 people marrying.  Interracial marriage rights are preserving the rights of 2 people to marry and not be separated by race.  Gay marriage rights preserve the rights of 2 people to marry and not be separated by gender.  2 men are equal to a man and woman.  It's not like man+man=1.5 people but man+woman=2 people.
It's human rights.  Think of everyone as an equal person with equal rights. 


___
This thread is leaning too far Christians vs gay marriage which, as Eki said, shouldn't be the case, IMO.

The significant difference between race and choices is that we're held responsible for choices, whereas we aren't for involuntary things like race. It's immoral to discriminate against someone for something they cannot control, but we take rights away from people all the time for choices they make. (For example, no one complains when drunk-drivers or murderers have rights denied them, because they chose those life-styles.) Now the three of you, so far as I can tell, simply assume that homosexuality is in the same category as race, not a life-style choice. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong here, but you'll need to give an good argument demonstrating this. Otherwise you've given those in favor of traditional marriage no good reason to adopt your view other than emotive responses and name-calling.

Response to Tybalt:

I'm confused on your point about usury being in the New Testament (using that link). First, how are the parables of Jesus even about usury? Second, doesn't Jesus seem to want increase on his investments? The wicked were the ones who didn't invest what they were given...

As for what I said here: "Most Christians I know are against divorce, premarital sex, and inter-faith marriage." The meaning wasn't meant to go beyond the words. I'm not inferring that all Christians believe these things or even that most do. You said that true Christians should be against divorce, premarital sex, and inter-faith marriage. I said that many I know are against these things. This is agreeing with you.

So you're saying being gay is a choice?

And the only christians that I know of that prohibit divorce are catholics.

In favor of gay marriage doesn't mean I'm not in favor of traditional marriages.  Denying 2 people marriage rights (legal age, etc) is discrimination. It's literally saying these 2 people can have this but these 2 can't.  Everyone is suppose to be treated equal.  People chose to marry for money, because they're wasted in Vegas, greencards, the girl got knocked up, for approval and many reasons that don't relate to sanctity or love.  It's legal.  Many hetero marriages are life style choices.  Even if being gay is a choice, which has many downsides socially, people are no less equal because of it.  Any 2 people should have equal rights.

"you'll need to give an good argument demonstrating this"
Personally as a heterosexual, the thought of sexual activity with another man literally made me shutter now.  TBH seeing 2 men kiss creeps me out.  I don't think this will ever change; I don't have any intention of ever trying to have sex with a man to see if I'm gay.  Writing this makes my skin crawl.
I do find women sexually attractive.  I enjoy watching 2 women kissing and more (I have internet access and am a man after all).  I like touching them and will stop there to save face and not get infracted, lol.  I've always been this way and really don't think it was or is a matter of choice.  But that's me and everyone's different.  I respect that.

example:
Dogs annoy me, a lot.  I find them to be stupid, slobbering, loud, nervous things.  So I have a cat.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with dog owners and people who like them.  Though spending time with people and the dogs they own has given me tolerance and a better understanding of dogs, I never want to own one.  /to each his own.

But when it comes to what people do privately in the bedroom that's their business.  I don't tell them what to do or not.  It seems wrong and perverted to monitor other's sex lives no matter who they are.   I'll have nothing to do with it and want no one to take interest in mine either.

I'm not saying either way. I'm just saying that we should give good reasons for what we believe on this issue so it isn't pure emotional expression.



Right, a feature of what I'm saying that I should have made explicit is this: those in favor of traditional marriage will typically hold that homosexuality is an immoral life-style choice. The response to this, from what I've seen, is that it can't be an immoral life-style choice because people don't choose it at all (i.e., it's similar to an ethnicity), and so to deny them rights would be discrimination. That's why I contrasted those as I do. But thanks for pointing out the distinction.

In any case all I'm saying is this: whether a person thinks that homosexuality is innate, is an amoral choice, or is an immoral choice, they should provide arguments in support of this. I posted initially because all I could see here were emotional expressions or simple assumptions (e.g., comparing gay rights with African American rights without justification), and I think the discussion would be more productive if we gave arguments.

Also, Rizen, I take the "traditional marriage" position to be saying that "marriage is between one man and one woman," which would automatically make it anti-anything that isn't one man and one woman. That's why I contrasted it with the gay marriage position.

Reread my last post on why it's most likely not a choice. You know, the people being mentally tortured until they kill themselves? I shouldn't even discuss whether or not it is, because as I've said, it shouldn't matter one bit. It's not wrong either way, and it's discrimination either way. We have nothing to prove.

For now, I'm just going to say this: Being against homosexuality is a choice. I'm holding you accountable for it.

Burden of proof

Is a simple phrase that means "You have to prove what you insinuate"

If you're going to come into any discussion and say "I disagree, homosexuality is a choice", then the burden of proof is on the person who believes that

When you argue "You have to explain to me how I am wrong or else I'm right", the argument is fundamentally flawed

The response isn't that homosexuality isn't an immoral choice because it's not a choice.  It's that what's immoral is highly subjective and should have no legal bearing. 
I think it's immoral to show an ad for food where the food pictured for the ad isn't real, it's a model (this happens a lot, often for cold foods because they could melt during the commercial filming) but that's legal. 
I think an 18 year old marrying a 90 year old person is immoral; it's legal.
I think the American Nazi political party is immoral (and hasn't a chance in hell of winning) but they're legal. 
Many FDA and EPA 'regulations' seem immoral and toxic to me but they're legal.
As a counter point I think being against gay marriage is immoral, at best, because it's telling people they can't have rights because their sexual preferences are wrong.  A lot of legal heterosexual acts in the bedroom seem immoral to say the least but I don't know, don't want to know and have no right trying to find out or tell them otherwise.
Immorality's not illegal; Jerry Springer and Bill O'Reilly shows prove that.
Regulating relationships seems like, even if a matter of morality, a very low priority and time that should be better spent, IMO.




Do you have a better definition of discrimination than the first bold part^ of this quote?
Supposedly there is separation of church and state.  Morals are highly subjective and have no legal bearing.  The only law gay marriage breaks is the one preventing it.

Traditional marriage is one of those buzzword terms with no real bearing.  'Traditional Marriage' in the recent past wouldn't allow interracial marriages.  What's 'traditional' referring to anyway?  Throughout the world and history there have been many variations of marriage and it's legal parameters.

Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy anyway. I have a great story about monkeys that illustrates if you guys want to read it. : P

Does any straight person really believe they made a conscious decision to be straight instead of gay? Why does whether it's a choice or not even matter for whether gay marriage should be allowed?

But really, all that is a red herring. As is whether it is comparable to race discrimination. The question is:

What reason is there to deny same-sex couples rights that opposite-sex couples have? Specifically, the right to enter into a legal relationship with one another in which the government recognizes them to have certain rights. Is there any legitimate (read: secular) reason why their rights should be different? If someone thinks it's immoral, they're entitled to believe that, but unless they can show their rights are somehow infringed by same-sex couples marrying one another, they must keep those reasons out of the courtroom and out of Congress.

If you want to have the talk about whether it's moral or not, I'm happy to do that to, but the two discussions are mostly separate.

Tybalt, please don't take this personally or in an offensive way here, but you're not doing a good job of reading carefully what I say. I never said homosexuality is a choice, nor have I defended any position in the gay marriage debate here. All I've said is the same thing you just did: that people who make claims in a debate have a burden of proof. That's all I've tried to add to this discussion (save for the comment on whether Christians are consistent).

Rizen, all of your boldface quotes are assertions that denying homosexuals the right to marry is discrimination, presupposing that homosexual actions are not immoral choices that remove a person's rights. You haven't given a reason why we should think this. Murderers and thieves have their freedoms removed because of their actions despite having innate human rights. Why isn't homosexuality something that does this as well?

Eki seemed to provide the closest thing to an argument when he mentioned that homosexuals are sometimes suicidal. But he was saying that they felt this way because their circumstances wouldn't let them act out their homosexual preferences, not because they were homosexuals. You'd have to make the latter claim to have an argument, but that would make one.

Bob, "traditional marriage" is just a name. I meant by it the belief that "gay marriage should be prohibited." If you don't like this, we can just call that belief the "anti-gay marriage position." It doesn't matter.

I'll probably let you guys have the last word here. All I wanted to do was make the discussion more substantive rather than merely expressive. I don't normally get into this debate because it too often merely consists of emotions and name-calling, and that doesn't lead to better thinking. My apologies for any anger I caused.