Does religious doctrine mandate discrimination against gay people?

Originally posted by FMF
No I am not disgusted by promiscuity. I do however think willfully or negligently infecting someone else with a disease is immoral.

So just so long as they are not knowingly spreading disease you are cool with it?

Originally posted by whodey
The lifestyles of homosexuals, especially gay men, seem to be very promiscuous.

For example, in the US gay men account for about 5% of the population but also account for well over half of new AIDS and STD's every year in the US.

Now some people find promiscuous behavior to be disgusting, do you?

As for gay marriage, the verdict is still out on whether it can curb these numbers, if at all.

This is hardly a sufficient reason for actively working to prevent a significant portion of the population from receiving a basic human right, namely, to be able to marry the person they love.

Originally posted by Suzianne
This is hardly a sufficient reason for actively working to prevent a significant portion of the population from receiving a basic human right, namely, to be able to marry the person they love.

This should not even be a political issue Suzy. It is only there to divide the people, which is bread and butter to lawmakers.

After all, if lawmakers decided to treat us all the same, then who would vote? Who would send them millions of dollars to run a campaign?

Politics is all about getting a leg up on other people, which is what the LGBT community did. They paid their dues to their representatives and were subsequently rewarded.

Polygamists, on the other hand, not so much. Unless they pay up, they can kiss their rights bye, bye.

Originally posted by whodey
So just so long as they are not knowingly spreading disease you are cool with it?

1. Harming others - spreading disease for example, or not taking responsibility for any children that result from sexual relations - 2. Deceiving others and 3. Coercing others - seem to be the moral issues pertaining to promiscuity to my way of thinking.

Originally posted by whodey
Polygamists, on the other hand, not so much. Unless they pay up, they can kiss their rights bye, bye.

So if the polygamists receive equality before the law with regard to marriage, you will support equality before the law for homosexuals (as with heterosexual couples), is that what you mean?

Originally posted by FMF
So if the polygamists receive equality before the law with regard to marriage, you will support equality before the law for homosexuals (as with heterosexual couples), is that what you mean?

What about singles? What if two people live together but don't want to get married but want the rights that married folk have?

Again, why does the state demand to be in the bedroom at all?

Very odd.

Originally posted by whodey
What about singles? What if two people live together but don't want to get married but want the rights that married folk have?

Again, why does the state demand to be in the bedroom at all?

Very odd.

It's not about the bedroom, though, is it? It's about dependents, about children, it's about access to children by grandparents and other relatives, it's about assets, it's about ownership of property, it's about inheritance, it's about what happens if one becomes infirm, it's about responsibility, it's about protections for the economically/professionally weaker partner in the relationship if it goes wrong, it's about making a commitment in front of the community and the wider society, it's about the union being recognized in other states, other nations, it's about status, protections, rights, clarity, it's about what happens after people die, it's about the families they might raise. Why do you keep saying it's about "the bedroom"?

Originally posted by FMF
It's not about the bedroom, though, is it? It's about dependents, about children, it's about access to children by grandparents and other relatives, it's about assets, it's about ownership of property, it's about inheritance, it's about what happens if one becomes infirm, it's about responsibility, it's about protections for the economically/professionally weake ...[text shortened]... die, it's about the families they might raise. Why do you keep saying it's about "the bedroom"?

Yes it is about the bedroom.

If it were not about the bedroom, then people could have the same rights without getting married.

Aunt Mary and Aunt Jane could live together and have the same rights as a married person without actually getting married.

Originally posted by whodey
Yes it is about the bedroom.

If it were not about the bedroom, then people could have the same rights without getting married.

Aunt Mary and Aunt Jane could live together and have the same rights as a married person without actually getting married.

I don't think it is about the bedroom at all, for the reasons I gave. I think your focus on "the bedroom" has hamstrung your ability to discuss this issue. Do you believe that marriage has no meaning psychologically, emotionally, spiritually, legally, in the eyes of the two families, their community, their state, their nation, their status as citizens etc.?

Would you really deny the significance of marriage on all these fronts simply because you are fumbling with your distaste for homosexuality and it is politically expedient for you to bleat over and over again it's about the bedroom, it's about the bedroom, it's about the bedroom!, when that is - at best - nothing much more than a bit of anti-gay bumper sticker-ism and not a joined-up assessment of what marriage actually is for real people within a legal system and the culture for which that system provides a framework.

Campaign if you want to for the state to refuse to recognize anyone's marriage - all marriages - the rights and responsibilities of those involved, of the children, of the relatives etc., do that if you want to but it might take a generation or two. In the meantime what about homosexuals and polygamists being equal before the law in the issue of marriage, as are heterosexual couples?

Originally posted by whodey
Aunt Mary and Aunt Jane could live together and have the same rights as a married person without actually getting married.

And why shouldn't they be allowed to do so?

Originally posted by whodey
What is your definition of "persecution"?

Is persecution merely identifying such behavior as an abomination?

Persecution is singling out an identifiable group for poor treatment.

It seems that every time there are advances in gay rights in the US, a bunch of southern states rush to try to reverse them through legislation, usually in the name of religion.

Seriously. What's up with that?

Originally posted by whodey
This should not even be a political issue Suzy. It is only there to divide the people, which is bread and butter to lawmakers.

After all, if lawmakers decided to treat us all the same, then who would vote? Who would send them millions of dollars to run a campaign?

Politics is all about getting a leg up on other people, which is what the LGBT community ...[text shortened]... mists, on the other hand, not so much. Unless they pay up, they can kiss their rights bye, bye.

Polygamists have no rights. They are, by definition, breaking the law.

"After all, if lawmakers decided to treat us all the same, then who would vote?"
Everyone? No one would feel disenfranchised or unrepresented.

Originally posted by sh76
Persecution is singling out an identifiable group for poor treatment.

It seems that every time there are advances in gay rights in the US, a bunch of southern states rush to try to reverse them through legislation, usually in the name of religion.

Seriously. What's up with that?

Homophobia. That seems obvious.

Originally posted by whodey
Yes it is about the bedroom.

If it were not about the bedroom, then people could have the same rights without getting married.

Aunt Mary and Aunt Jane could live together and have the same rights as a married person without actually getting married.

No, marriage is recognized by the state, and because of this, the state can choose to endow married people with additional "rights" (which aren't really "rights" but rather, additional "privileges" ).

Originally posted by Suzianne
Polygamists have no rights. They are, by definition, breaking the law.

As I have argued before, maybe polygamists should have the right to have their marriages recognized by the state too. If, say, one is the second or third wife in a polygamous marriage to the same man, you might need - more than ever - clarity and certainty about your status, by way of legal protection and recognition by society (as manifested in the government) in case there are children, or one partner dies before the other(s), or the marriage breaks down, or there are financial responsibilities etc.