You Can Play

[McCall]

Geesh, the guy said he doesn't feel it's his place to tell someone what they can or cannot be, even if it's personally against his beliefs. Whatever, it his personal feeling. It's mighty big of him to say that despite his beliefs, he doesn't condone people being treated unfairly because of it. That's pretty good advancement of tolerance when you consider some of the physical hate taking place. Let him alone.

That's why I said "it's a start."

Yeah, I was talking to the others. Basically, I see it that way, too. Hell, if all those opposed to homosexuality simply did like that guy, we wouldn't have nearly the problems with this subject as we do.

[infrared41]

Geesh, the guy said he doesn't feel it's his place to tell someone what they can or cannot be, even if it's personally against his beliefs. Whatever, it his personal feeling. It's mighty big of him to say that despite his beliefs, he doesn't condone people being treated unfairly because of it. That's pretty good advancement of tolerance when you consider some of the physical hate taking place. Let him alone.

Relax. No one is picking on him. Braden's questions are perfectly legitimate. If someone says they are "against" Braden, I think he has every right to ask why.

In my case, I'm just curious to hear his reasoning. It was a serious question. I asked because back when gay marriage started getting some traction as an issue (in other words, when politicians started exploiting it) I was against it. My girlfriend, brother, sister-in-law, and I got into a discussion about it. All three of them were pro-gay marriage. They asked me why I was against it and the best answer I could come up with was "I don't know, I'm just not crazy about it."

It was at that point that I realized if "I'm not crazy about it" was the best argument I could come up with, then I really had no argument at all. I was pro-gay rights in every other area, just not marriage. Simply stated, it was just me being an old guy who was resisting change. As a result of that discussion, I am now pro-gay marriage. Despite all evidence to the contrary around here, there are times when a discussion about tough issues can actually be a positive thing.

Anyway, that's why I'm curious to hear his reasoning on being "against homosexuals."

The nature of this forum is that people make statements and people respond to those statements. Asking someone if they're willing to elaborate on their position is a perfectly fair question. Let d_hav decide if he wants to answer it.

[Kevin W.]

If you need an argument in favor of gay marriage, just look at Kim Kardashian. If that attention whore can get fake married because her overlords at E! told her to and wrote it into a script, then why can't gay and lesbian couples be married legitimately?

[charger77]

If you need an argument in favor of gay marriage, just look at Kim Kardashian. If that attention whore can get fake married because her overlords at E! told her to and wrote it into a script, then why can't gay and lesbian couples be married legitimately?

Hopefully, this doesn't ruffle too many feathers.

Get government 100% out of marriage. There is no reason to require a marriage license. Scrap the tax incentive for married people, why should a person get a tax break because they found love?

Marriage = Religious Institution

Civil Union = Civic Institution

As a straight Catholic man I (in my world view) should get married in a Catholic church to a woman (as a religious ceremony) Then go to the local court house and file my paper work for a state recognized civil union with her to ensure she gets my stuff when I die and gets all my tax payer benefits that she is entitled to and any "partner" benefits that she may get via my employer.

Gay Marriage can be solve quite easily if government was willing to get the hell out of the way.

The only law should be: Willing, able minded person aged 18 or older.

[Cujo]

If you need an argument in favor of gay marriage, just look at Kim Kardashian. If that attention whore can get fake married because her overlords at E! told her to and wrote it into a script, then why can't gay and lesbian couples be married legitimately?

I don't think we need to bring in the Kardashian family as a reason to allow gay marrage. There are better reasons as to why it should be allowed.

BTW, Is gay marrage legal in the state you reside in, CRich?

[McCall]

Geesh, the guy said he doesn't feel it's his place to tell someone what they can or cannot be, even if it's personally against his beliefs. Whatever, it his personal feeling. It's mighty big of him to say that despite his beliefs, he doesn't condone people being treated unfairly because of it. That's pretty good advancement of tolerance when you consider some of the physical hate taking place. Let him alone.

Relax. No one is picking on him. Braden's questions are perfectly legitimate. If someone says they are "against" Braden, I think he has every right to ask why.

In my case, I'm just curious to hear his reasoning. It was a serious question. I asked because back when gay marriage started getting some traction as an issue (in other words, when politicians started exploiting it) I was against it. My girlfriend, brother, sister-in-law, and I got into a discussion about it. All three of them were pro-gay marriage. They asked me why I was against it and the best answer I could come up with was "I don't know, I'm just not crazy about it."

It was at that point that I realized if "I'm not crazy about it" was the best argument I could come up with, then I really had no argument at all. I was pro-gay rights in every other area, just not marriage. Simply stated, it was just me being an old guy who was resisting change. As a result of that discussion, I am now pro-gay marriage. Despite all evidence to the contrary around here, there are times when a discussion about tough issues can actually be a positive thing.

Anyway, that's why I'm curious to hear his reasoning on being "against homosexuals."

The nature of this forum is that people make statements and people respond to those statements. Asking someone if they're willing to elaborate on their position is a perfectly fair question. Let d_hav decide if he wants to answer it.

He didn't say he was against Braden, he said homosexuality. Is that all Braden or any other gay person is? I always thought of Braden as a pretty good artist based off some of the stuff he's shown, and a pretty funny guy. That's who I think Braden is. And the way you guys were questioning him as if he is against Braden personally, that's what I was defending him for. Look I disagree with his beliefs, but they're his beliefs and I think it's pretty decent of him to say he doesn't believe those who are gay should be treated unfairly. Like Gothy said, it's a pretty good start. Things are a lot better than they once were. It's still got some way to go, but I think this guys here shows how things are turning for the better.

[OnWis97]

If you need an argument in favor of gay marriage, just look at Kim Kardashian. If that attention whore can get fake married because her overlords at E! told her to and wrote it into a script, then why can't gay and lesbian couples be married legitimately?

Hopefully, this doesn't ruffle too many feathers.

Get government 100% out of marriage. There is no reason to require a marriage license. Scrap the tax incentive for married people, why should a person get a tax break because they found love?

Marriage = Religious Institution

Civil Union = Civic Union

As a straight Catholic man I (in my world view) should get married in a Catholic church to a woman (as a religious ceremony) Then go to the local court house and file my paper work for a state recognized civil union with her to ensure she gets my stuff when I die and gets all my tax payer benefits that she is entitled to and any "partner" benefits that she may get via my employer.

Gay Marriage can be solve quite easily if government was willing to get the hell out of the way.

The only law should be: Willing, able minded person aged 18 or older.

Right now you do both: Civil and religious.

I actually don't have a problem with your solution. As long as the "government" part of it provides equality for all couples, then it's hard for me to complain. For reasons long ago that I cannot identify, the word "marriage" was used for both. It's arguable that it should never have been that way in the first place. It slightly ruffles my feathers when someone says "Marriage is for religion and while it's fine important that we give gays equal rights, it's also important that we don't give them the same label." I don't understand why it's important. But as I said, I easily could live with this solution. But until the government changes from "marriage" to "civil unions", I want "gay marriage" to exist.

[charger77]

If you need an argument in favor of gay marriage, just look at Kim Kardashian. If that attention whore can get fake married because her overlords at E! told her to and wrote it into a script, then why can't gay and lesbian couples be married legitimately?

Hopefully, this doesn't ruffle too many feathers.

Get government 100% out of marriage. There is no reason to require a marriage license. Scrap the tax incentive for married people, why should a person get a tax break because they found love?

Marriage = Religious Institution

Civil Union = Civic Union

As a straight Catholic man I (in my world view) should get married in a Catholic church to a woman (as a religious ceremony) Then go to the local court house and file my paper work for a state recognized civil union with her to ensure she gets my stuff when I die and gets all my tax payer benefits that she is entitled to and any "partner" benefits that she may get via my employer.

Gay Marriage can be solve quite easily if government was willing to get the hell out of the way.

The only law should be: Willing, able minded person aged 18 or older.

Right now you do both: Civil and religious.

I actually don't have a problem with your solution. As long as the "government" part of it provides equality for all couples, then it's hard for me to complain.

In my "perfect USA" it would apply to all couples. I am 100% in favor of gay marriage, I think my solution is the best way to do it.

[-kj]

He didn't say he was against Braden, he said homosexuality. Is that all Braden or any other gay person is?

I'll take the bait on this one.

If I came out and said I was against people who were born in Missouri, would that be perfectly ok with you--especially if there were a history of denying those born in Missouri the same rights and privileges as other US citizens, just based on where they were born? You'd not be interested one bit in why someone might hold that against you?

No, I'm not only gay. But I am gay; it is part of who I am. When you say you're against an unchangeable part of who I am, you say that you are against me.

Also: Let the man speak for himself. You don't need to try and speak for everyone.

[infrared41]

If you need an argument in favor of gay marriage, just look at Kim Kardashian. If that attention whore can get fake married because her overlords at E! told her to and wrote it into a script, then why can't gay and lesbian couples be married legitimately?

Hopefully, this doesn't ruffle too many feathers.

Get government 100% out of marriage. There is no reason to require a marriage license. Scrap the tax incentive for married people, why should a person get a tax break because they found love?

Marriage = Religious Institution

Civil Union = Civic Institution

As a straight Catholic man I (in my world view) should get married in a Catholic church to a woman (as a religious ceremony) Then go to the local court house and file my paper work for a state recognized civil union with her to ensure she gets my stuff when I die and gets all my tax payer benefits that she is entitled to and any "partner" benefits that she may get via my employer.

Gay Marriage can be solve quite easily if government was willing to get the hell out of the way.

The only law should be: Willing, able minded person aged 18 or older.

I could not agree more. I've always thought that the best path to gay marriage is to show that the state/government has no compelling interest in marriage. Period. Because it doesn't. If it's an issue of child custody, that's easily solved without marriage. If it's a matter of joint property, that's easily solved as well. The government has no interest in marriage and no business being involved in it. Never has. Never will.

While we're at it, state sanctioned marriage is discriminatory. -Dan already pointed out the tax break. How about the fact that I can't name whomever I'd like to share my health insurance? Why is it limited to just my legal spouse? That discriminates against people who may not believe in marriage. (There may not be many, but I'm sure they're out there.) Any extra benefit that is given to married people is discriminatory against those who aren't married.

We have laws that address things like whether or not it's legal to smoke in a bar. I'm pretty sure we could cover the leftovers of taking government out of marriage.

A while back, I wrote a much better version of my "marriage discriminates" argument here. I wish I could remember where it's at.

[RedSox44]

That's a good point. Why don't the leagues allow female referees? A woman isn't going to call Andrew Bynum clotheslining JJ Barea any differently from a man.

Isn't there a female referee in the NBA, though? Didn't the always classy, eloquent and smart Tommy Heinsohn said she needed to "get back in the kitchen" after a foul call against a Celtic.

I thought I read about a female umpire working her way to the majors a few years ago, too.

That was Cedric Maxwell.

Heinsohn did it, too. In fact, I think Maxwell was "making fun of" Heinsohn when he said that.

[McCall]

He didn't say he was against Braden, he said homosexuality. Is that all Braden or any other gay person is?

I'll take the bait on this one.

If I came out and said I was against people who were born in Missouri, would that be perfectly ok with you--especially if there were a history of denying those born in Missouri the same rights and privileges as other US citizens, just based on where they were born? You'd not be interested one bit in why someone might hold that against you?

No, I'm not only gay. But I am gay; it is part of who I am. When you say you're against an unchangeable part of who I am, you say that you are against me.

Also: Let the man speak for himself. You don't need to try and speak for everyone.

I can defend him. It's allowed.

Yes, he said he's personally against homosexuality as part of his belief system, but he also said he doesn't believe they should be treated differently or unfairly, DESPITE his beliefs. You guys seem to always exclude that part. So yes, it is different unless you say you disagree with everyone and everything about Missouri, BUT you do believe they should be treated the fairly and the same as everyone else. It's not like he was spewing some anti-gay rhetoric.

I don't believe there is anything wrong with homosexuality, but I also believe in a person's right to have they're own beliefs, as long as their ACTIONS don't infringe on the freedom from harm/harassment of others.

[The_Admiral]

If I came out and said I was against people who were born in Missouri, would that be perfectly ok with you--especially if there were a history of denying those born in Missouri the same rights and privileges as other US citizens, just based on where they were born? You'd not be interested one bit in why someone might hold that against you?

Showmephobia shouldn't exist in the 21st century.

[Gothamite]

Marriage is a civil institution in the United States. Has been since before we were the United States.

The Puritans instituted civil marriages in their new colony, not religious ones.

That's because marriage defines a thousand civil benefits, from spousal immunity from testifying in court to tax regulations to inheritances. The state has a very compelling interest in marrige, which is why it is a civil institution in our country, not a religious one

Churches have the right to set limits on the ceremonies they will perform. And nobody is suggesting that be taken away. That's all as it should be; a civil institution that churches can administer among their members, so long as they are licensed by the state.

"Get government out of marriage" sounds like a good idea on the surface, but it would be a far more radical revision of the institution than anything marriage equality advocates have even contemplated.

[charger77]

That's because marriage defines a thousand civil benefits, from spousal immunity from testifying in court to tax regulations to inheritances. The state has a very compelling interest in marrige, which is why it is a civil institution in our country, not a religious one

All of these benefits could be addressed without a state sanctioned marriage.

[BBTV]

He didn't say he was against Braden, he said homosexuality. Is that all Braden or any other gay person is?

I'll take the bait on this one.

If I came out and said I was against people who were born in Missouri, would that be perfectly ok with you--especially if there were a history of denying those born in Missouri the same rights and privileges as other US citizens, just based on where they were born? You'd not be interested one bit in why someone might hold that against you?

No, I'm not only gay. But I am gay; it is part of who I am. When you say you're against an unchangeable part of who I am, you say that you are against me.

Also: Let the man speak for himself. You don't need to try and speak for everyone.

I can defend him. It's allowed.

Yes, he said he's personally against homosexuality as part of his belief system, but he also said he doesn't believe they should be treated differently or unfairly, DESPITE his beliefs. You guys seem to always exclude that part. So yes, it is different unless you say you disagree with everyone and everything about Missouri, BUT you do believe they should be treated the fairly and the same as everyone else. It's not like he was spewing some anti-gay rhetoric.

I don't believe there is anything wrong with homosexuality, but I also believe in a person's right to have they're own beliefs, as long as their ACTIONS don't infringe on the freedom from harm/harassment of others.

People have the right to their own beliefs - we agree there. Of course, that means that I have the right to believe that those beliefs make him (and anyone like him) a complete moron. Any belief system that has someone thinking that they're superior to someone else for reasons outside of one's control is dumb, and our world would be better off without anyone who felt that way - be it about homosexuality, race, gender, handicaps (please don't interpret that as me equating those other three things with a handicap because that's not my intent) or anything else like that. It's the equivalent of thinking that you're just "born better" than someone else - and it's patently absurd.

[charger77]

He didn't say he was against Braden, he said homosexuality. Is that all Braden or any other gay person is?

I'll take the bait on this one.

If I came out and said I was against people who were born in Missouri, would that be perfectly ok with you--especially if there were a history of denying those born in Missouri the same rights and privileges as other US citizens, just based on where they were born? You'd not be interested one bit in why someone might hold that against you?

No, I'm not only gay. But I am gay; it is part of who I am. When you say you're against an unchangeable part of who I am, you say that you are against me.

Also: Let the man speak for himself. You don't need to try and speak for everyone.

I can defend him. It's allowed.

Yes, he said he's personally against homosexuality as part of his belief system, but he also said he doesn't believe they should be treated differently or unfairly, DESPITE his beliefs. You guys seem to always exclude that part. So yes, it is different unless you say you disagree with everyone and everything about Missouri, BUT you do believe they should be treated the fairly and the same as everyone else. It's not like he was spewing some anti-gay rhetoric.

I don't believe there is anything wrong with homosexuality, but I also believe in a person's right to have they're own beliefs, as long as their ACTIONS don't infringe on the freedom from harm/harassment of others.

People have the right to their own beliefs - we agree there. Of course, that means that I have the right to believe that those beliefs make him (and anyone like him) a complete moron. Any belief system that has someone thinking that they're superior to someone else for reasons outside of one's control is dumb, and our world would be better off without anyone who felt that way - be it about homosexuality, race, gender, handicaps (please don't interpret that as me equating those other three things with a handicap because that's not my intent) or anything else like that. It's the equivalent of thinking that you're just "born better" than someone else - and it's patently absurd.

BBTV I completely agree with your entire statement.

However I do not see where the poster in question said or implied that he was born better than anybody or how McCall defended that notion.

[BBTV]

I'll re-read it and reconsider it later. When I read it the first time I was pretty fired up (from an internet perspective, not literally fired up.)

[thespleenenator]

He didn't say he was against Braden, he said homosexuality. Is that all Braden or any other gay person is?

I'll take the bait on this one.

If I came out and said I was against people who were born in Missouri, would that be perfectly ok with you--especially if there were a history of denying those born in Missouri the same rights and privileges as other US citizens, just based on where they were born? You'd not be interested one bit in why someone might hold that against you?

No, I'm not only gay. But I am gay; it is part of who I am. When you say you're against an unchangeable part of who I am, you say that you are against me.

Also: Let the man speak for himself. You don't need to try and speak for everyone.

I can defend him. It's allowed.

Yes, he said he's personally against homosexuality as part of his belief system, but he also said he doesn't believe they should be treated differently or unfairly, DESPITE his beliefs. You guys seem to always exclude that part. So yes, it is different unless you say you disagree with everyone and everything about Missouri, BUT you do believe they should be treated the fairly and the same as everyone else. It's not like he was spewing some anti-gay rhetoric.

I don't believe there is anything wrong with homosexuality, but I also believe in a person's right to have they're own beliefs, as long as their ACTIONS don't infringe on the freedom from harm/harassment of others.

People have the right to their own beliefs - we agree there. Of course, that means that I have the right to believe that those beliefs make him (and anyone like him) a complete moron. Any belief system that has someone thinking that they're superior to someone else for reasons outside of one's control is dumb, and our world would be better off without anyone who felt that way - be it about homosexuality, race, gender, handicaps (please don't interpret that as me equating those other three things with a handicap because that's not my intent) or anything else like that. It's the equivalent of thinking that you're just "born better" than someone else - and it's patently absurd.

BBTV I completely agree with your entire statement.

However I do not see where the poster in question said or implied that he was born better than anybody or how McCall defended that notion.

The majority of homophodes in the US say they are for gay rights, or that they are against it, but don't believe they should be treated differently, because they know if they said "Gays are horrible", they would be attacked, even though a lot of the people attacking them would at least sort of agree. It's one of those things where the majority of people agree that homosexuality is in some form not ok, but it's considered a taboo, so most people keep that to themselves. I'm not saying that is necessarily the case for him, but it is a reason to want him to explain himself more.

[charger77]

The majority of homophodes in the US say they are for gay rights, or that they are against it, but don't believe they should be treated differently, because they know if they said "Gays are horrible", they would be attacked, even though a lot of the people attacking them would at least sort of agree. It's one of those things where the majority of people agree that homosexuality is in some form not ok, but it's considered a taboo, so most people keep that to themselves. I'm not saying that is necessarily the case for him, but it is a reason to want him to explain himself more.

No offense, but that is a complete opinion. There is no way of knowing what a person "really means" when they say it.

Are you saying that infrared, BBTV and Gothamite are closet homophobes? In my 5 years of membership here they have never said or implied a single thing to make me think they are homophobes?

Because by your logic, they are potentially in the majority of homophobes simply because they said they are for equal rights for all.

You just painted everybody as a potential homophobe which is not fair.