Skip to main content

View Diary: To lose my Best Man on Easter Sunday (66 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The Bible thumpers (10+ / 0-)

    keep their prejudice and bigotry at their own peril.   Obviously, God created gay and gay people.  To deny them, to persecute them is to go against God and God's wishes.  These people are deeply involved with sin.  We must pray for them.

    Everyone! Arms akimbo!

    by tobendaro on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 10:49:01 AM PDT

    •  Naw. They can be as bigoted (8+ / 0-)

      as they like, just like everybody else. They just can't (or, shouldn't be allowed to) dictate who and what everybody else in a civil society must believe/do. Marriage serves several purposes, the legal recording of which is purely a matter of contract law. Shared property, custodial/financial support for resulting family if such family comes forth, legal rights under the law in recognition of the contract, etc.

      Who gives a shit what the religios believe about it. The state is not allowed by the Constitution to create laws that establish or enforce any religion. That they've done so anyway is just a legal inconvenience to be rectified whenever we've got a SCOTUS that will do its proper job (or states manage to get themselves governments that will rescind unconstitutional mandates). Takes awhile, but the end result isn't in question by rights.

    •  That's not really a good reason though. (8+ / 0-)

      Whether or not God exists and whether or not this god created gay people "that way", are both utterly and completely unrelated to the question of whether the law should treat them as equals to everyone else.  They should be treated equally regardless of what any particular religion has to say on the issue.

      Just as wrong as it is to use religion to be bigoted, it is also wrong to use religion as the argument for why NOT to be bigoted.  (Because doing so creates the implication that were it not for religion, bigotry would be okay.)  The reasons for bigotry being wrong are completely derivable from entirely secular principles, and when talking about laws, should be.

      When the reasons for being a decent human being become solely dependent on religion in people's minds it creates a dangerous house of cards.  There are lots of good logical intellectual reasons for people to deny the truthfulness of religion and you don't want them to also become selfish pricks at the same time when they do so, like Ayn Rand did.

    •  The other problem I have with the (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mad Season, Nowhere Man, zett, worldlotus

      "god created them that way" argument is when it's not so much the religious "god" part that's being highlighted but rather the phrase is being used to highlight the "they were born that way" fact.  Arguments of the form "the reason people have a right to engage in gay sex or gay marriage if they like is because they can't help it and were born that way" sort of bother me because, really, shouldn't it be "they have a right regardless of whether or not they were born that way"??!

      The scientific question of "is homosexual attraction an inborn trait or is it a choice?" should be completely divorced from the question "is it legally okay or not?"  They really have nothing to do with each other.  Consider the following reasons why:

      If someone performs a legal action, we don't ask whether or not they had a choice first before declaring that it was legal and fine.  "Bob gave a charitable donation to a soup kitchen.  But was that because he chose to or was that because his hypothalamus in his brain forced him to feel compassion?"

      Conversely, If someone performs an illegal action, we don't ask whether or not they had a choice before declaring that he should be stopped from doing it again.  "Bob stole another wallet yet again, but we've recently discovered the part of the brain responsible for his kleptomania so therefore he should be allowed to continue stealing since he can't help it."

      Whether or not gay sexual attraction is a choice is utterly and completely irrelevant to whether or not it's legal to have sex with someone of the same sex or get married to someone of the same sex.

      If you succeed in convincing a homophobe that being gay is built-in and there's no choice, but fail to even address the question of whether or not homosexual activity is okay, then the result will NOT be that the homophobe will say "oh well since you can't help it , then in that case go right ahead".  The reaction will be similar to the reaction of someone who thinks murder is wrong but recognizes a person has a brain disorder that makes them do it - they will say " they need to be locked up for their own good and need mental care and maybe someday a cure can be found but even though it's not their fault it's still unsafe to let them wander the streets on their own because they will probably re-offend."

      Or consider the converse side of this:  A person who isn't actually gay but is so open minded and experimental that they decide to "give it a go" to see what it's like just this once.  Is their one homosexual act somehow more immoral than the act of someone who really is gay?  In other words, does the fact that in the case of the non-gay experimenter it really was a choice instead of being inborn somehow make it worse?

      What you absolutely do NOT want is to create a scenario where the law says "Okay, yes you can have a gay marriage but ONLY if you can prove you were born that way and can't help it.  Anyone who's uncertain or perhaps a bisexual in the middle who could go either way, they can't have a gay marriage - only those people who really can't help it are allowed to."

      You don't want the gay marriage argument to rest upon the "can't help it" foundation.

      You want it to rest upon the "nobody being harmed by it" foundation.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site