Gay Youth Group Has Specialty Plate Pulled

True. For example, I am a member of GLAD. I am not homosexual, but my membership was neither denied nor limited because of that.

Thank you Skanker and NAMKOR! I was like FUCK YES! when I read your posts. You said it better than I could and I totally agree with you guys here.

And either way, we are arguing about "should they even be called a gay youth group"? The real problem is that if they even support homosexuality they were still going to be rejected for having the plates made, merely because they support gay rights. This is the real problem and I'm just so sick of it... It just seems like we aren't getting anywhere as a society...

It really depresses me sometimes to think people refuse to accept some beliefs and are okay with others... I know this is a little off topic but Deanna and I were talking the other day and I came to the realization about how stupid refusing gay marriage is. Most are  apposed to the idea because it is supposed to be a holy marriage between man and woman, right? They bring God into the equation all the time and yet Atheist get married all the time. They are fine with this. It makes no sense to me at all. Everyone should be able to get married, not just a select few. (I now it's more of a majority but you get my point...)

I hope I'm not out of line for saying that...

Hardly out of line. RMRK is surprisingly gay-populated.

I just feel that people should focus more on HUMAN rights than select rights.  Not everyone is going to agree with everything but to label a group off of a single objective seems narrow minded to me, no matter who they allow in their group to support the cause.

I hope I'm not out of line for saying that...

Hard to be out of line when a lot of people are going to agree with you. You'll find that RMRK is very open and accepting to many kinds of people, especially when it comes to supporting gay rights.

And you're right, there's an unfortunate lack of "separation of church and state" in regards to gay marriage. One group's religious beliefs should not dictate what another group can or cannot do. I always imagine some guy sitting at home just so fucking mad that gay people exist, like "THERE ARE MEN FUCKING EACH OTHER AND I MUST STOP IT". Unless gay people are trying to force themselves on straight people, I'm not sure how it's anyone's business but their own.

Cautionary note: don't let this become a religious debate/hate fest

Disclaimer: I am on medicine that is making it hard to formulate coherent sentences.

I dig the med situation.

Perhaps the road to human rights has to be paved with these special interest groups untill more of us get that we're all a family of humankind. I cling to the hope that one day everyone will see that.

I mean, I was in Florida once, hanging out with some friends of friends, some of whom were Mexican, Dominican, Brazilian, you get it. Small language barrier and we were from places that are several hundred miles apart. But we were all on the patio, listening to metal, sharing smokes, cokes and talking about sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll. How different can we possibly be? We all eat, breathe, love, live, work and then die. All of us are simply fellow travelers on the way to the grave. Everything else is just details.

It really depresses me sometimes to think people refuse to accept some beliefs and are okay with others... I know this is a little off topic but Deanna and I were talking the other day and I came to the realization about how stupid refusing gay marriage is. Most are  apposed to the idea because it is supposed to be a holy marriage between man and woman, right? They bring God into the equation all the time and yet Atheist get married all the time. They are fine with this. It makes no sense to me at all. Everyone should be able to get married, not just a select few.

I don't believe that's a fair characterization of the argument. For instance, the opposition of the Catholic Church to same-sex marriage is based on the premise that sex is meaningful only when it is both unitive and procreative. The purpose of marriage is to instutionalize the norms that govern the creation of human life. Marriage is not recognized for its own sake or for the sake of the two partners, but for the life-generating capacity of the union. Indeed, there are many loving relationships of equal or greater value to society than a bare sexual or mutually supportive relationship (like siblings or friends); the reason that committed heterosexual sexual relationships are given special legal recognition is because it is a symbol which conveys respect for the natural transmission of human life.  To the extent that the Roman Catholic position is based on a belief in God, it is primarily as authority for the proposition that a committed and loving relationship is the ideal environment for the creation of life.

Marriages between heterosexual atheists do not jeopardize that basic premise; marriages between homosexuals do since, once permitted, it is impossible to say that marriage is about recognizing the importance of the procreative capacity of sexual relationships. By recognizing same-sex unions as capable of marriage, marriage becomes a simple status symbol of unity and love between two individuals - it is no longer related to the norms and environment in which the society wishes its citizens to be created. Absent that function, there is indeed no institution in society which conveys any particular respect for natural procreation and sexual relationships are valued only for their unitive purposes.

That said, that argument has more consistency within the Catholic Church than in the broader society since that is the same reason that artificial contraception is banned, masturbation is intrinsically disordered, and infertility is a ground for annulment. In the broader society, there is nothing preventing infertile couples from marrying or married couples from choosing not to have sex which is open to procreation. Same-sex marriage still jeopardizes marriage as a symbol of procreation, but whether that symbol has any remaining normative force is uncertain.

That said, there are opponents of same-sex marriage whose views are less consistent and perhaps based primarily out of prejuice, including some Catholics and other Christians. However, I don't think the official position of the Catholic Church or of those who espouse it are among those.

Obviously, that is just one example of one sect of one religion, but my point is that I disagree with your characterization of the religious interest in opposing same-sex marriage. I don't believe same-sex marriage is a matter of justice where all opponents to it are irrational or immoral or out-dated; I think it is simply a dispute between competing values and visions for the role of marriage within society.

It really depresses me sometimes to think people refuse to accept some beliefs and are okay with others... I know this is a little off topic but Deanna and I were talking the other day and I came to the realization about how stupid refusing gay marriage is. Most are  apposed to the idea because it is supposed to be a holy marriage between man and woman, right? They bring God into the equation all the time and yet Atheist get married all the time. They are fine with this. It makes no sense to me at all. Everyone should be able to get married, not just a select few.

I don't believe that's a fair characterization of the argument. For instance, the opposition of the Catholic Church to same-sex marriage is based on the premise that sex is meaningful only when it is both unitive and procreative. The purpose of marriage is to instutionalize the norms that govern the creation of human life. Marriage is not recognized for its own sake or for the sake of the two partners, but for the life-generating capacity of the union. Indeed, there are many loving relationships of equal or greater value to society than a bare sexual or mutually supportive relationship (like siblings or friends); the reason that committed heterosexual sexual relationships are given special legal recognition is because it is a symbol which conveys respect for the natural transmission of human life.  To the extent that Roman Catholic opposition is based on a belief in God, it is primarily as authority for the proposition that a committed and loving relationship is the ideal environment for the creation of life.

Marriages between heterosexual atheists do not jeopardize that basic premise; marriages between homosexuals do since, once permitted, it is impossible to say that marriage is about recognizing the importance of the procreative capacity of sexual relationships. By recognizing same-sex unions as capable of marriage, marriage becomes a simple status symbol of unity and love between two individuals - it is no longer related to the norms and environment in which the society wishes its citizens to be created. Absent that function, there is indeed no institution in society which conveys any particular respect for natural procreation and sexual relationships are valued only for their unitive purposes.

That said, that argument has more consistency within the Catholic Church than in the broader society since that is the same reason that artificial contraception is banned, masturbation is intrinsically disordered, and infertility is a ground for annulment. In the broader society, there is nothing preventing infertile couples from marrying or married couples from choosing not to have sex which is open to procreation. Same-sex marriage still jeopardizes marriage as a symbol of procreation, but whether that symbol has any remaining normative force is uncertain.

That said, there are opponents of same-sex marriage whose views are less consistent and perhaps based primarily out of prejuice, including some Catholics and other Christians. However, I don't think the official position of the Catholic Church or of those who espouse it are among those.

Obviously, that is just one example of one sect of one religion, but my point is that I disagree with your characterization of the religious interest in opposing same-sex marriage. I don't believe same-sex marriage is a matter of justice where all opponents to it are irrational or immoral or out-dated; I think it is simply a dispute between competing values and visions for the role of marriage within society.

I have to agree but wow.  That was a very well thought out post and it's refreshing to see someone pointing out the logical points rather than the illogical argument that you would hear from most people who just don't know why they feel that gay marriage is wrong but they just know it is because the bible says so etc.

Yes, agreed. It also illustrates in living color the problem with politicians putting their own beliefs in front of their policies- and that is that it doesn't apply to everyone, and there are people who they have sworn to protect that they are excluding. I understand, it's going to happen; I'd do it if I were in office. I think I differ from the vast majority of current office-holders though, because I don't think these guys really beleive; I think they're betting on the votes of people who do.

I think it's past time we reevaluate our norms outside of any politician's personal values. Either that or move to Sweden.

...move to Sweden.

If only it were that easy.

I always imagine some guy sitting at home just so fucking mad that gay people exist, like "THERE ARE MEN FUCKING EACH OTHER AND I MUST STOP IT".

I disagree with this example man. Regardless of orientation, I think everyone's sex life is equally disgusting.

As for a specific perspective on this argument, I have none. I'm afraid I don't know enough about this topic anymore, and all these perspectives have left me neutral.

It really depresses me sometimes to think people refuse to accept some beliefs and are okay with others... I know this is a little off topic but Deanna and I were talking the other day and I came to the realization about how stupid refusing gay marriage is. Most are  apposed to the idea because it is supposed to be a holy marriage between man and woman, right? They bring God into the equation all the time and yet Atheist get married all the time. They are fine with this. It makes no sense to me at all. Everyone should be able to get married, not just a select few.

I don't believe that's a fair characterization of the argument. For instance, the opposition of the Catholic Church to same-sex marriage is based on the premise that sex is meaningful only when it is both unitive and procreative. The purpose of marriage is to instutionalize the norms that govern the creation of human life. Marriage is not recognized for its own sake or for the sake of the two partners, but for the life-generating capacity of the union. Indeed, there are many loving relationships of equal or greater value to society than a bare sexual or mutually supportive relationship (like siblings or friends); the reason that committed heterosexual sexual relationships are given special legal recognition is because it is a symbol which conveys respect for the natural transmission of human life.  To the extent that Roman Catholic opposition is based on a belief in God, it is primarily as authority for the proposition that a committed and loving relationship is the ideal environment for the creation of life.

Marriages between heterosexual atheists do not jeopardize that basic premise; marriages between homosexuals do since, once permitted, it is impossible to say that marriage is about recognizing the importance of the procreative capacity of sexual relationships. By recognizing same-sex unions as capable of marriage, marriage becomes a simple status symbol of unity and love between two individuals - it is no longer related to the norms and environment in which the society wishes its citizens to be created. Absent that function, there is indeed no institution in society which conveys any particular respect for natural procreation and sexual relationships are valued only for their unitive purposes.

That said, that argument has more consistency within the Catholic Church than in the broader society since that is the same reason that artificial contraception is banned, masturbation is intrinsically disordered, and infertility is a ground for annulment. In the broader society, there is nothing preventing infertile couples from marrying or married couples from choosing not to have sex which is open to procreation. Same-sex marriage still jeopardizes marriage as a symbol of procreation, but whether that symbol has any remaining normative force is uncertain.

That said, there are opponents of same-sex marriage whose views are less consistent and perhaps based primarily out of prejuice, including some Catholics and other Christians. However, I don't think the official position of the Catholic Church or of those who espouse it are among those.

Obviously, that is just one example of one sect of one religion, but my point is that I disagree with your characterization of the religious interest in opposing same-sex marriage. I don't believe same-sex marriage is a matter of justice where all opponents to it are irrational or immoral or out-dated; I think it is simply a dispute between competing values and visions for the role of marriage within society.

To be fair, most of the opponents of same-sex marriage that I've personally seen or met actually WERE more the irrational / immoral / outdated type rather than just simply disputing values, stubbornly believing in their own superiority and usually citing God or the bible as their excuse whether they even know the reasoning why or not. An obvious exaggeration of an example, Fred Phelps, though thank god there's next to no one near as bad as he. That said, I'm well aware that there are plenty of legitimate reasons for people to be against gay marriage, even if I don't agree with them; it's just that it seems to me that there are far more cases and news stories of prejudiced Christian fundies getting pissy about something that doesn't fit their way of life than people who could actually sit down and explain why they are against it.

I'm glad though that most of the people I know, like everyone on RMRK, are a lot more open-minded so that even if they don't exactly approve of homosexuality in itself, they can understand that being different doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong either. It means I can feel free to be who I really am without worrying too much of people looking down on me.

I can feel free to be who I really am without worrying too much of people looking down on me.

Unless you're a bronie

I always imagine some guy sitting at home just so fucking mad that gay people exist, like "THERE ARE MEN FUCKING EACH OTHER AND I MUST STOP IT".

I disagree with this non-existent, example man. Regardless of orientation, I think everyone's sex life is equally disgusting.

As for a specific perspective on this argument, I have none. I'm afraid I don't know enough about this topic anymore, and all these perspectives have left me neutral.

This is not a nonexistent example. there are people like this out there. It is weird that you think this statement is wrong when there are people out there at home stating the opposite. I'm just saying that there are people that do feel this way. They go to the funerals of our soldiers saying that it is divine justice that our soldiers are being killed because of America's tolerance of homosexuals.

Sorry, I wasn't clear on what I meant.

He didn't mention a guy who specifically existed, rather referred to an imaginative guy, based on real people. The example is not non-existent, the man mentioned is.

So, I called him a non-existent-example-man, because the man himself is non-existent and he's an example-man, as well. Not saying that those people do not exist. Sorry about that, lo, my words came off differently then I wanted them to. I'm going to edit my post to sound less "OH THESE PEOPLE DON'T EXIST", because that's totally not what I meant by it lo

I call him Steve, if that helps.

That does help! >_>

I disagree with people like Cory Lumbermechovertyesper Smithjonesmenger. Regardless of orientation, I think everyone's sex life is equally disgusting.

Fixed!

Regardless of orientation, I think everyone's sex life is equally disgusting.

That's one of the funniest things I've seen you say.

Can we call him something else like Bob?  My name is Steve

"Bob" is close to Halo's name lol

Let's try...

Smithjonesmenger

Yeah, no one will have that name...

No, because my name is Bobby. We can call him Cory.

EDIT: Oh, Smithjonesmenger works too.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaattttttttt lol

foad: cory's easier to type, though

Maybe Smithjonesmenger can just be his last name. I'm flexible on this issue.

Okay, fine. That'll be his last name lol