Minneapolis - The New Gay! (home, pros and cons, law)

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by southernsmoke

If mercury light bulbs harm people (I don't necessarily disagree), then why are we being forced to buy mercury light bulbs instead of incandescent ones? How do incandescent ones harm you?

As for gay marriage... it harms the social institution of marriage. It disrupts the natural order. It confuses gender identity issues. It harms children. There is no logically defensible reason for redefining marriage to include the union of two men, but not to include polygamous marriages--so we are well on the way to just getting rid of "marriage" altogether (which some of you would go ahead and admit you think is a good idea, but others of you would probably shy away from).

How does it harm children? I think kids really benefit from having their parents be legally protected in the same ways that kids of straight parents enjoy.

Polygamy is a totally different situation. We're not talking about such huge changes here (although I have no problem with the religious aspects of polygamy, just don't know the logistics of recognizing complex relationships it at the government level, and since that's not on the table in Minnesota it's rather a moot point), but rather whether or not the people of Minnesota really should be attempting to ban all future marriage between two people of the same gender.

I have gay and lesbian family and friends. Their relationships have not hurt my (straight) marriage; we're celebrating 10 years now. If any of my children turn out to be gay I want them to have the same rights and protections as my husband and I have. And like it or not, gay and lesbians are a part of our community these days -- they make up nearly 13 percent of residents in Minneapolis (not sure about the state as a whole), and they're not going to suddenly go away or marry straight people (and it wouldn't be fair to the straight people if they did). Don't you have family or friends or coworkers who are in long-term, committed relationships? Are they any different than you? Shouldn't they have the legal protections that any other couple enjoys? You don't have to approve of their relationship. There are a lot of things in life that I don't approve of myself, but I don't want the government stepping in to tell me what I can and can't do when it has no impact on anyone else.

[uptown_urbanist]

And you realize that there is no "religious" position on this, right? That is, the only reasons to ban gay marriage are based on religious arguments, but as far as people who are religious there is no one viewpoint on this. Many of our local churches perform religious ceremonies for GLBT couples, for example. This is not an issue of people who are "religious" (of whatever faith or denomination) versus those who are not.

[southernsmoke]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

Are they any different than you? Shouldn't they have the legal protections that any other couple enjoys? You don't have to approve of their relationship. There are a lot of things in life that I don't approve of myself, but I don't want the government stepping in to tell me what I can and can't do when it has no impact on anyone else.

I'm confused--are they different or aren't they? I thought the whole point was that they were different--and they couldn't change.

The people do have the same "legal protections." And I don't approve of the relationships, but I also don't want the government stepping in and telling them they can't have that relationship. That is not the issue. I keep saying that, but it's like nobody is listening. I understand that you want more than mere state acquiescence in the relationship--you want state endorsement of the relationship. That's your prerogative, but you need to stop confusing the issue.

[southernsmoke]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

And you realize that there is no "religious" position on this, right? That is, the only reasons to ban gay marriage are based on religious arguments, but as far as people who are religious there is no one viewpoint on this. Many of our local churches perform religious ceremonies for GLBT couples, for example. This is not an issue of people who are "religious" (of whatever faith or denomination) versus those who are not.

Yes. I understand that. That is closely related to my point about religion influencing people's participation in government. Religion is a slippery concept, and trying to say that "religion" cannot influence public policy is darn near idiotic.

[Cruz Azul Guy]

Originally Posted by southernsmoke

Yes. I understand that. That is closely related to my point about religion influencing people's participation in government. Religion is a slippery concept, and trying to say that "religion" cannot influence public policy is darn near idiotic.

She isn't saying it can't, but just that it shouldn't. What part of separation of church and state don't you understand?

[cl4]

Please stop feeding the Troll.

[southernsmoke]

Originally Posted by Slig

She isn't saying it can't, but just that it shouldn't. What part of separation of church and state don't you understand?

Amend my previous sentence to say "shouldn't" instead of "cannot." I understand it. I also think I understand what you mean when you try to whip out "separation of church and state" whenever people disagree with you.

[Minnesota Spring]

Originally Posted by southernsmoke

Yes. I understand that. That is closely related to my point about religion influencing people's participation in government. Religion is a slippery concept, and trying to say that "religion" cannot influence public policy is darn near idiotic.

So if a majority of Minnesota happened to be of the Muslim faith, would it be okay for religion to influence the goverment then? Impose shira law. After all, a majority of the residents would be against eating pork, even though it does not harm anyone, but no pork for you.
A slippery concept indeed.

[southernsmoke]

Originally Posted by Minnesota Spring

So if a majority of Minnesota happened to be of the Muslim faith, would it be okay for religion to influence the goverment then? Impose shira law. After all, a majority of the residents would be against eating pork, even though it does not harm anyone, but no pork for you.
A slippery concept indeed.

Your nonreligion is itself a religious point of view. What's hard to understand about that?

[cinnamon_toast]

but no pork for you