Gay Marriage at Cedar Point: Please help us!

Gator, I completely agree. I am not into any organized religion, and I am a very open-minded person. I do not believe being gay/lesbian/transgendered is a choice any more than I believe I chose to be straight. Honestly, who would CHOOSE to be part of a culture that is discriminated against and bullied on a regular basis? People love who they love and are attracted to who they are attracted to, and I can't see why those people shouldn't have the right to express that love the way that the general public does.

Actually, I started getting a little tangential there. Getting back to your point, there are many Christians who believe in equality for everyone. It is not safe to assume every religious person is against it. Nor is it safe to assume that every non-religious person is FOR equality. Many people don't consider this.

My problem is this: There is such a thing as separation of church and state in this country. From a legal standpoint, churches are not supposed to be able to dictate what rights others receive and do not receive. Yes, many people who are not religious still have moral issues with LGBT rights, but who gets hurt by allowing it? No one. On the other hand, if a people's rights are imposed upon because of a religious group that they don't even believe in, THAT is hurting a large population.

I don't think this country is ready to completely accept LGBT rights for everyone either, and it makes me sad. Some of my family members and friends are gay, one of my very best friends is transgendered, and they're all some of the smartest, kindest, all around best people I know. To see them not be able to commit to their significant others like I am committed to my husband hurts.

ApolloAndy said:

The entire counter argument is that it's not a civil right because it is immoral.

That makes it an even less compelling argument, because there's no justification for that argument that doesn't exist outside of religious text.

Is your claim that every one of these should be abolished because they're just one group imposing its morality on everyone?

Of course not.

Drinking/Gambling/Smoking age... prohibitions on drug use... suicide prohibitions... polygamy... incest... prostitution...

...seat belt requirements... minimum age to enlist in the army... statutory rape... mandatory schooling... minimum wage... child labor laws...

The first group represents behavior that does not have a direct impact on others, and thus should not be regulated.

The second group are all examples of behavior that has a direct impact on others, and by that metric, should be controlled in some way. And honestly, an argument could be easily be made that even some of these should not be regulated.

But none of that is relevant. After all, the existence of laws that infringe on personal liberty is not appropriate justification for additional laws that infringe on personal liberty.

There is absolutely no reasonable way to suggest that same-sex marriage infringes on others' personal liberty (outside of ways in which opposite-sex marriage does the same).

DJ, interesting. I was thinking about non-religious justifications for the denial of equality in civil rights, and I couldn't think of a single one, other than "it's icky". Well, I don't think love between two consenting adults is "icky", but I mean the other people. If you take religion out of the equation, it actually makes LESS sense to ban LGBT people from receiving the same rights as others. Hmmm...

djDaemon said:

That makes it an even less compelling argument, because there's no justification for that argument that doesn't exist outside of religious text.

Morality doesn't exist outside of religion?

There is absolutely no reasonable way to suggest that same-sex marriage infringes on others' personal liberty (outside of ways in which opposite-sex marriage does the same).

There is no reasonable way to suggest that not wearing a seat belt infringes on others' personal liberty...or employing a willing child worker...or having sex with a consenting minor...and yet we legislate against them, why? Because they are wrong. Religious text or no, we have collectively decided they are wrong and that the government (as the collective representation of the will of the people, in theory) has a responsibility to prevent them.

You're right, the precedent of legislating morality doesn't give a green light to further legislate morality. It does, however, indicate that, in some way we believe the government's role is to legislate morality in some cases, to some extent. To a lot of people, this is one of those cases.

Again, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here because I agree with you that gay marriage should be legal, but I object to the stance that it is somehow objectively so and the opposition is automatically discriminatory, ignorant, and/or oppressive (there are many who are, for sure, but not all).

Getting "gay married" won't infringe on anyone's personal liberties. No one gets hurt. So yeah, when someone attempts to oppress that act, at the very least it's discriminatory. And stupid.

I'm a little confused, Andy. Earlier you said:

The entire counter argument is that it's not a civil right because it is immoral.

You're speaking about homosexuality in general and not specifically gay marriage, right? And in that comment you were just playing devil's advocate as you said, because you personally don't actually think homosexuality is immoral, correct?

But then you said:

There is no reasonable way to suggest that not wearing a seat belt infringes on others' personal liberty...or employing a willing child worker...or having sex with a consenting minor...and yet we legislate against them, why? Because they are wrong. Religious text or no, we have collectively decided they are wrong...

So are you saying that, in this country, the jury is in in regards to those examples, but that in the case of homosexuality, personal views aside, the jury is out?

Bakeman31092 said:

And in that comment you were just playing devil's advocate as you said, because you personally don't actually think homosexuality is immoral, correct?

Correct

So are you saying that, in this country, the jury is in in regards to those examples, but that in the case of homosexuality, personal views aside, the jury is out?

I don't understand your terminology.

Jeff said:

Getting "gay married" won't infringe on anyone's personal liberties. No one gets hurt. So yeah, when someone attempts to oppress that act, at the very least it's discriminatory. And stupid.

Having consensual sex with a minor won't infringe on anyone's personal liberties. No one gets hurt. So yeah, when someone attempts to oppress that act, at the very least it's discriminatory. And stupid.

Except that I'm not sure the example holds true, Andy. I thought the logic behind laws against consensual sex with a minor are due to the idea that minors haven't matured enough to make decisions about consent. Some think minors could easily get manipulated into giving consent and essentially get hurt in the process, among other things. I'm not sure the examples you offered can be compared to gay marriage.

bunky666 said:

Gator, I completely agree.

That's the "easy-button" method to a +1. ;~)

Getting back to your point, there are many Christians who believe in equality for everyone. It is not safe to assume every religious person is against it.

I consider myself a Progressive Christian, and find it extremely challenging to use the term Christian without having people assume I'm in league with WBC or some-such nonsense...

My problem is this: There is such a thing as separation of church and state in this country. From a legal standpoint, churches are not supposed to be able to dictate what rights others receive and do not receive.

This is why law should be based on secular comcepts - if you can't make laws based on someone's interpretation of the Koran (Qu'ran, whatever), then the use of the Torah and the New Testament should likewise be prohibited. What we can "all" reasonably agree is bad for society (or, in the case of child labor laws, bad for those who cannot "speak" for themselves)...those actions should be against the law.

edited since Carrie posted: Minors and those deemed mentally incompetent cannot give legal consent for exactly the reasons you stated. Those groups are to be protected by law, because in theory they may not be able to protect themselves.

You said that even though you personally are in support of gay marriage, you wouldn't automatically label dissenting opinions as discriminatory. That sounds to me like you're saying that "we haven't all collectively decided" that it's acceptable, and so it's a valid opinion to hold that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry (even though that's not your opinion). In other words, the jury is out on the morality of homosexuality.

Re: Carrie
I actually agree (which is what makes this a tough position to maintain. I guess I'm "Gonching" it). I do see a difference there.

But there's enough gray area in there for me to not immediately dismiss the anti-gay marriage position as wholly different from the anti-sex with minors position.

rollergator said:

This is why law should be based on secular comcepts - if you can't make laws based on someone's interpretation of the Koran (Qu'ran, whatever), then the use of the Torah and the New Testament should likewise be prohibited. What we can "all" reasonably agree is bad for society (or, in the case of child labor laws, bad for those who cannot "speak" for themselves)...those actions should be against the law.

Bingo.

ApolloAndy said:

Morality doesn't exist outside of religion?

Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought you were pointing out that gay marriage is not a civil right because it is immoral. I was responding that the only context in which gay marriage is considered immoral is within religion.

There is no reasonable way to suggest that not wearing a seat belt infringes on others' personal liberty...

If you get into a car accident while not wearing a seat belt, you're far more likely to sustain serious or fatal injury, and as a result, impart a greater cost on society. At least that's the "classic" argument. I'm not saying I universally agree with this argument, and if it can be demonstrated as spurious, then I have no problem allowing everyone to not wear seat belts (and similarly for helmet laws, etc.).

or employing a willing child worker...or having sex with a consenting minor...

When it comes to age-based legislation, I feel like that's a special category. I mean, we don't even let opposite-sex underage couples marry without permission of some kind, for the simple reason that it's largely accepted that kids aren't mature enough to make such decisions.

And we make the age-based judgment in certain cases not based on a religious text, but on scientific observation. That's a very important distinction, especially in the context of a discussion around same-sex marriage.

To a lot of people, this is one of those cases.

And those people are wrong. :-)

I say that only partly in jest. I agree that there are moral-based areas where we legislate, and even some that are reasonable in that they can be justified in some objective way. However, there's no scientific or moral argument that holds water when it comes to opposing gay marriage.

Re: Bakeman
Well, the jury is out, not on the morality of homosexuality (since I think most people have already decided that) but whether this is a case where that morality should be legislated or not.

But if the jury is in for the question of morality then why shouldn't it be legislated?

djDaemon said:

Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought you were pointing out that gay marriage is not a civil right because it is immoral. I was responding that the only context in which gay marriage is considered immoral is within religion.

Does that make it less immoral? Lots of would say the reason they don't kill people is because of their religion. Does that not count either? Heck, the reason I give to charity is 100% because of my religious beliefs. Is that not also a moral decision?

However, there's no scientific or moral argument that holds water when it comes to opposing gay marriage.

Why are those the only valid criteria? Why aren't religious reasons valid bases for moral conclusions?

Because they are imaginary.

Re: Bakeman

A lot of people think it should be legislated against (which is why we are where we are). A lot of people think it's wrong but shouldn't be legislated against. A lot of people think it's right.

These numbers are constantly changing so the legislation is also constantly changing.

(I'm not sure I understood your question).

ApolloAndy said:
Why are those the only valid criteria? Why aren't religious reasons valid bases for moral conclusions?

In a secular society, religious reasons can, I think, be the basis for moral conclusions, so long as those reasons can be supported objectively outside of religion.

Obviously, when it comes to gay marriage, that is not the case.