Re: To opponents of gay marriage

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (MexicanRocket) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Well, hoping that your post is a genuine attempt at understanding and
> not simply troll bait, here goes:

I'll try to respond to your points in as non-trollish a way as
possible.
> 
> 1. While I oppose gay marriage, I do concede that yes it probably will
> eventually pass. Lamentably so, but hopefully no time soon...

Lamentably soley because of your religious beliefs?  Or are there
other reasons.

> 2. I, probably like most who oppose gay marriage, oppose gay marriage
> based on religious reasons. If you can remove yourself from your
> worldview from a moment and put yourself in a position where you
> believe there is a God ordained right and wrong in the world, and
> believe that people ought to follow that to the best of their
> abilities, then you'd understand my perspective. It's not some sort of
> arbitrary bigotry, as anti-gays are oft portrayed as being, rather it
> is an act of deference to God whom you believe to be very real.

First, I never said whether I did or did not believe in a God. 
Second, I will take you at your word that you believe that God thinks
homosexuality is wrong.  Do you get that from your reading of
Leviticus?  I ask, because that's the usual source.  If so, what do
you make of the other instructions in Leviticus--not mixing fibers,
ways to make animal sacrifices, and other bits that nobody today
argues we should take literally as a matter of law.

Second, assuming you think that God really does want to prevent gay
marriages, why should that be a matter of civil law in a secular
state?  Don't you agree that people that have different religious
beliefs should have rights also?  For example, the Ten Commandments
have stuff in them like "You shall have no other God before me" and
"Don't make/worship false idols"--you, of course, are free to follow
those commandments, but should they be legally required in the U.S.?

> On the flip side of that coin, I can see that in a worldview where
> there is no God, morality is essentially "what-ever-floats-your-boat"
> for there is no higher source to answer to. "If two people love each
> other...why not?" is the most oft asked rhetorical question. If you
> hold your worldview, the answer is "nothing!" If you hold my
> worldview, then the answer is "because the all-knowing God says its
> bad." Obviously these two viewpoints are irreconsilable, which leads
> to the next point of...

You are making two assumptions that I disagree with.  First, the idea
that believing in God means opposing laws allowing gay marriage.  Some
folks believe in God and disagree with you.  More importantly,
religion doesn't set laws here.  Second, you think that without a God,
we must inevitably descend into moral anarchy and chaos.  I disagree,
but that's a longer discussion.

> 3. Intolerance. I hate this word. Not because of its actual meaning,
> but because nowadays basically anyone who disagrees with YOUR opinion
> is now labeled "intolerant." "Intolerent" is to today, as "Commie" was
> in the 50's.
> 
> Gay marriage is NOT a tolerance issue. Gays are tolerated right now!
> They can go do whatever they want in their homes, walk around in
> public and be as flaming flamboyant as they like. It's their lives and
> they're welcome to live it as they wish. I don't agree with
> homosexuality, but it's a free country and they can choose to do
> whatever. However, to LEGALLY RECOGNIZE gay marriage is to move beyond
> saying "we as a society 'tolerate' gays" to saying "we as a society
> are 'legitimizing' gays as perfectly normal." Tolerance and
> legitimization are two very different things. Gay activists who say
> they are fighting for tolerance are straight-out lying. They already
> have tolerance, but they are clearly on a crusade for their agenda to
> redefine social norms.

Gays lack many rights that marriage brings:  inheritance rights,
beneficiary rights, often adoption rights, rights to be considered the
next-of-kin in a variety of life-and-death situations, in a majority
of places lack of protections under civil rights laws in employment,
and etc.

These are loving couples that *want* to form stable relationships. 
That will only help society.

> 4. You wrote that "religion doesn't define national policy." That's
> very true. However, we live in a DEMOCRACY, and thus PEOPLE get to
> define national policy. Therefore the many people who share my
> convictions DO get a say in defining national policy. If we want to
> say, "We don't want our society to LEGITIMZE homosexuality" then we
> can say so, and cast our votes to shape the policy of the society of
> which we are citizens. That's the beauty of democracy: everyone gets a
> voice and a say. Ultimately, in this issue, it will be a matter of
> majority rules - with the other side fuming made - as there really
> isn't much compromise between the two factions of this debate.

Yes, you're right.  You have every right to vote based on
religious-based viewpoints, and you're right that people will.  If you
want to support folks that run on a platform of "I want this part of
Leviticus to be national law, but not other parts," that's your
perogative.

I guess I would just ask you again to ask yourself, "who exactly is
gay marriage hurting?"

> 5. You said you think society will reject my viewpoint in a generation
> or two. I don't think it will be that soon. The fact is, while people
> are perfectly willing to be tolerant, most people in fact mock
> homosexuality as the gross bizarre subculture it is. Put the image of
> two mustached men frenching in front of most Americans and their first
> instinct will be to wince with disgust. The only reason "gay marriage"
> is succeeding in winning more support, is because people are being
> told they are "biggotted" and "intolerant" if they don't support the
> gay social agenda. Nobody wants to be "intolerant" or "bigotted"
> today, just as noone wanted to be a "commie" in the 50's, or as school
> children want to be called "chicken." I really hope the American
> public wakes up and sees these ad-hominem arguments for what they are:
> juvenile name calling. However, they probably want and the McCarthyist
> school yard bully will probably get his way...

Well, we could both guess exactly when this will happen, but it would
be just guesses.  I can point to trends, as I did in my first post. 
But even you think this is just a matter of time.

As to being "intolerant," yes, it is increasingly common for people
who don't want to grant gays and lesbians equal rights to be
considered intolerant.  Just like it happened with civil rights for
blacks in the 1950s and 1960s.  Consider which side of history you
want to be on.--Joe (n.j.) [mWo]