|
On June 29 2010 04:06 enzym wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 03:25 Djzapz wrote:On June 29 2010 03:18 kzn wrote:On June 29 2010 03:13 PanN wrote:
Wait, there's people that argue against gay marriage on teamliquid? I thought there were only intelligent writers / readers here. >implying everyone who disagrees with you is unintelligent  Anyone who takes actions that screw with equal rights are either unintelligent or messed up enough that I see no problem in calling them idiots. you are assuming an awful lot of things here without supporting either of them in a sufficient amount to resolve this issue. among your assumptions are: - heterosexual couples are the same as homosexual couples
- the meaning of the word marriage is clear and undisputed
- you know what that meaning is
- you can discard all other possible meanings of the word
- there is no difference between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples that matters before the meaning of the wordand you go on to make that your fundament to insult others from.
Well by those standards we have to go ahead and define all the ambiguous words like in a proper debate. I can start over if you want if you care enough to clear up everything for us =)
Until then, those who think gay couples shouldn't get the same tax cuts as heterosexual couples have to explain why they think so.
homosexual people have the right to marry a member of the opposite just as everyone else
Very useful.
|
I can't believe there's still people that want to limit other's happiness when it doesn't affect them.
This is great news and all, but i can only say "so?" This should have happened a long time ago everywhereeee.
|
On June 29 2010 04:06 enzym wrote:
homosexual people have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex just as everyone else has. the ability to do that is a reasonable claim and denying them that would give us a civil/equal rights issue. that is not what they complain about though.
No, the issue at hand is that gays are only given civil unions, which ain't the same as marriage. Different tax benefits, and a host of other things. Gay and your spouse is terminally ill, on his deathbed alone in the hospital? You can't see him. Can't touch the will, etc.
Marriage is a government endorsed church function that discriminates against certain groups of people based on their sexual orientation. It's sure as shit a civil rights issue.
|
On June 29 2010 04:06 enzym wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 03:25 Djzapz wrote:On June 29 2010 03:18 kzn wrote:On June 29 2010 03:13 PanN wrote:
Wait, there's people that argue against gay marriage on teamliquid? I thought there were only intelligent writers / readers here. >implying everyone who disagrees with you is unintelligent Anyone who takes actions that screw with equal rights are either unintelligent or messed up enough that I see no problem in calling them idiots. you are assuming an awful lot of things here without supporting either of them in a sufficient amount to resolve this issue. among your assumptions are: - heterosexual couples are the same as homosexual couples
- the meaning of the word marriage is clear and undisputed
- you know what that meaning is
- you can discard all other possible meanings of the word
- there is no difference between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples that matters before the meaning of the wordand you go on to make that your fundament to insult others from. edit: also: Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 03:30 PanN wrote:
Straight people can get married.
Gays can't.
Straight people have the right to get married, yet gay's dont.
homosexual people have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex just as everyone else has. the ability to do that is a reasonable claim and denying them that would give us a civil/equal rights issue. that is not what they complain about though. their complain is that they are not allowed to change or define the meaning of the term without considering what it means for everybody else. it will eventually boil down to a case of opinion versus opinion, at which point i would still argue that it is better to keep the meaning as it is (in this case), because changing it would cause the meaning of the concept as it was before to be lost. if that doesnt satisfy people, then one can only resolve the issue by having government withdraw from this private matter alltogether.
People once used the "We're different" thing to justify such nice things as slavery, sexism, racism, mistreatment of children, discrimination of people who didn't own land or were illiterate...
Talking about definitions is irrelevant because things are not justified simply by having existed and being accepted previously.
The real default position is to not ban same sex marriage. To move away from the default position puts the burden of proof on you. A breach of freedom or equality requires justification. Appeals to tradition\small town attitudes won't convince many people who aren't firmly in that mindset (unless you don't subscribe to this... i guess). The same goes for marijuana legalization. Just because it is currently banned does not mean banning it is the default position.
If the best that we can come up with is, "Gays don't have children so they are useless to the state" then you have a lot of work to do. Should we give people IQ tests to judge their value to society and the rights they should receive? Should the privacy of couples who want their marriage recognized be invaded to make sure the man has a sufficient sperm count to have children? If we are using the measure of, "How useful are you to society" we can't simply apply that only to homosexual marriage and not other aspects of state-personal relations.
I suppose you could argue gays not having children is readily apparent, but I would say knowing their gender is just an invasion of privacy to begin with. Hell, it was readily apparent that there were kids in my highschool that couldn't pass a math class if they had divine intervention, but they weren't kicked out for wasting tax dollars. Reminds me of the AZ law.
Not to mention that despite the not having children difference (which married couples can share), there are many more similarities like ease of taxing, economic\emotional\health security of the couple, married couples won't be spreading STDs, etc etc. Also, keep in mind the scope of the issue here. The CBO estimates 0.6% percent of adults would enter into a gay marriage if they were allowed. Really going to go through the trouble of trying to justify discrimination of 0.6% of the population?
|
On June 29 2010 04:21 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 04:06 enzym wrote:
homosexual people have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex just as everyone else has. the ability to do that is a reasonable claim and denying them that would give us a civil/equal rights issue. that is not what they complain about though. No, the issue at hand is that gays are only given civil unions, which ain't the same as marriage. Different tax benefits, and a host of other things. Gay and your spouse is terminally ill, on his deathbed alone in the hospital? You can't see him. Can't touch the will, etc. Marriage is a government endorsed church function that discriminates against certain groups of people based on their sexual orientation. It's sure as shit a civil rights issue.
i dont think that acknowledging undeniable and existing differences between both types of couples (whichever the difference brought force by the legislative body to justify that differentiation might be) is a problem at all.
and no, racism is no valid comparison, as race does have no influence on the nature of the couple, but sex does.
|
On June 29 2010 04:36 enzym wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 04:21 Hawk wrote:On June 29 2010 04:06 enzym wrote:
homosexual people have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex just as everyone else has. the ability to do that is a reasonable claim and denying them that would give us a civil/equal rights issue. that is not what they complain about though. No, the issue at hand is that gays are only given civil unions, which ain't the same as marriage. Different tax benefits, and a host of other things. Gay and your spouse is terminally ill, on his deathbed alone in the hospital? You can't see him. Can't touch the will, etc. Marriage is a government endorsed church function that discriminates against certain groups of people based on their sexual orientation. It's sure as shit a civil rights issue. i dont think that acknowledging undeniable and existing differences between both types of couples (whichever the difference brought force by the legislative body to justify that differentiation might be) is a problem at all. and no, racism is no valid comparison, as race does have no influence on the nature of the couple, but sex does.
So all heterosexual couples are the same no matter the culture
All homosexual couples are vastly different from heterosexual couples.
Do you often invent data to suit your weird morals?
|
I really don't understand where people hope to get with these "meaning of the word" arguments. "We would distort the meaning of the word"? "We have to acknowledge the differences between the two types of couples"? Who gives a fuck?
Gays should be allowed to marry. Anything but completely equal recognition by the government only serves to deliberately exclude and marginalize gay couples. The arguments of anyone saying otherwise are flimsy semantics that all lead back to "gay people weird me out."
|
Such a fucking waste of time and energy to be against gay marriage. It enrages me that people give a shit about gay people getting married. There is absolutely no reason to be against it other then religious ones and those are not valid reasons.
|
For those opposed to allowing gays and lesbians to legally marry:
What purpose of marriage can all heterosexual couples fulfill, that no same-sex couple can?
Most people go with the procreation argument when trying to answer this question, but: Not all heterosexual couples are capable of, or desire to have children. Many same-sex couples do have and raise children (lesbian couples go the artificial insemination or adoption route, gay couples can do the adoption or (rarely done) surrogacy route) -- and the children that many same-sex couples already do have would benefit from having married parents and the legal protection that that provides.
No heterosexuals are barred from the institution of marriage on account of their lack of ability or lack of desire to have or raise children. And if you're not going to bar heterosexuals from the institution for that reason, then you shouldn't be barring gays and lesbians for that reason either.
Furthermore, it's just absurd to think that a marriage is only of value if it results in procreation. Nobody actually thinks this is true -- unless of course they're talking about a marriage of same-sex couple. If your grandfather died and your 70-year-old grandmother remarried... would you scold her for entering into a marriage that was utterly useless to society? Would you accuse her devaluing the word "marriage" itself and making a mockery of the institution?
I hope not.
And that's because you realize that marriage isn't just about procreation -- it's about love, commitment, and companionship. Marriage is good with or without children. It's good for people to have someone to love, to be loved by, to care, and to be cared for. People are better off for having those things, and when individuals are better off, so is society.
Marriage gives couples the legal tools and protections they need to take care of one another (and their children, if any). Things like family leave to take care of a sick partner or child, the ability to add your spouse and children to your health insurance policy, to make medical decisions on your partner's behalf, and plenty of other things too numerous to mention... And if one spouse were to die, marriage provides for being able to inherit your partner's assets without paying taxes (imagine losing your home after your spouse died because you couldn't pay the taxes on the inheritance), and collecting social security death benefits.
Marriage makes people more financially and emotionally secure because they have these legal tools and protection.
Marriage is not just a private commitment -- it's a private commitment made in public. And that's one of the major strengths of marriage. A couple doesn't just promise to take care of each other to one another, they make that promise in front of their friends, family, and community, and that commitment is recognized by the state.
And for every person that has someone that is first in line to care for them (and that's what marriage means), that's a burden removed from friends, family, and the state. That's one of the primary benefits that marriage has for society, and it applies equally to same-sex or opposite-sex married couples.
|
I'm okay with marriage, as long as they don't get kids. Other than that I'm fine.
|
On June 29 2010 05:52 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
I'm okay with marriage, as long as they don't get kids. Other than that I'm fine.
That's like saying single parents should have their children taken away from them. There's no reason parents of a single sex shouldn't be able to properly raise children. Your statement is just as discriminatory as saying that they shouldn't get married in the first place.
|
On June 29 2010 05:52 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
I'm okay with marriage, as long as they don't get kids. Other than that I'm fine.
Why?
In the US, gay people can adopt as individuals in 49 out of 50 states... what is the sense in prohibiting adoption as a couple? (As they can in many states already, with what's called 2nd-parent adoption). But in states where gays and lesbians are not allowed to do 2nd-parent adoption, what that means is they're being raised by 2 parents, but only 1 is legally recognized. Who the hell does that benefit? Not the couple, not the kids.
|
How are you people possibly calling this an opinion?
They're FUCKING PEOPLE. Let them have rights too! Is it really that damn difficult?
|
On June 29 2010 05:56 Fontong wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 05:52 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
I'm okay with marriage, as long as they don't get kids. Other than that I'm fine. That's like saying single parents should have their children taken away from them. There's no reason parents of a single sex shouldn't be able to properly raise children. Your statement is just as discriminatory as saying that they shouldn't get married in the first place.
Once again, traditional values. People are going to be against something if you don't ease them into it (*cough cough* STEM CELL RESEARCH *cough cough*) and sometimes it takes more than logic and equal rights to get someone to see something.
|
On June 28 2010 20:44 LaLuSh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 18:05 Masamune wrote:On June 28 2010 17:41 Severedevil wrote:
It's not really a problem for the first-generation inbreds. (Having kids when you're past 35 is a greater risk of birth defects than incest, IIRC. Although presumably they stack.) The main damage comes from multiple generations of inbreeding. You are recalling wrong. A woman aged 44 has around an 8% chance of conceiving a child with general birth defects. Down Syndrome is the most common birth defect in children to older mothers, and a woman aged 45 has a around a 4% chance of this occurring. These figures are significantly lower than the minimal estimate of a 25% chance of birth defects shared between sibling couples or parent/child couples. The main damage actually comes from shared mutations due to common ancestry. Minimal estimate of 25%? Where are you getting those figures from? Sibling and parent/child offspring will statistically share 25% identical genome. Sharing identical genome =/= birth defects. Statistical evidence shows the risk for birth defects in first cousin couples to be around 4% (about 2% higher than normal). Their offspring, however, should share 6.25% of the same genome. Anyway. I don't really think there's any statistical data available to settle this. Though, it's probably safe to say sibling and parent/child offspring will suffer a significantly higher risk of being born with birth defects than children of 40+ y.o mothers.
Disregarding spontaneous mutation, everyone has recessive mutations in their genome.
When comparing the closest related relatives (aside from identical twins) of parents/siblings, there is bound to be at least one common mutation shared among them, hence the 25% chance of this recessive mutation being homozygous in an offspring. When you factor in multiple common mutations, the figure becomes higher, hence the minimal estimate.
Obviously you won't have much empirical evidence of defects due to incestuous relationships in immediate relatives, but from certain cases, you will realize that equalizing the risk to older mothers having children is ridiculous.
For example, in 2008, a British man in Sheffield was discovered who had physically and sexually abused his two daughters over the course of 25 years. According to reports, between 1988 and 2002 his two daughters became pregnant 19 times, with 10 of these pregnancies being aborted/miscarried due to genetic disorders, 2 babies being stillborn and 2 of the surviving 7 having severe physical disabilities.
|
On June 29 2010 03:32 kzn wrote:Not to mention gay people _can_ get married. They just cant get the tax benefits associated with official recognition of the marriage.
Hah, please show me these "tax benefits" for marriage, because I'm not seeing them. They call it a "marriage penalty" for a reason.
|
|
|
I really don't understand people within my own religion (Christianity) and how they have a problem with gay marriage, but not a marriage between two atheists not under God, they are the same thing in the fact you don't believe God supports them. At the end of the day Jesus, who is supposed to be an example to Christians, didn't try and change the law and condemn the non religious all the time for not abiding by the bible, he tried to convert, it makes no sense to impose Christian morals on the non Christian population what so ever, its pathetic. You can only hold other Christians to the morals, becuase they are supposed to live by them, if they don't believe in your darn religion what the hell does it matter? So should Christians now try and make lying illegal, as that is not a victim less crime unlike homosexuality, or how about cheating? I mean homosexuality is not even one of the 10 commandments and it doesn't hurt anyone (apart from maybe themselves but it's their choice, and if your no religious it doesn't hurt anyone). As PanN said:
How are you people possibly calling this an opinion?
They're FUCKING PEOPLE. Let them have rights too! Is it really that damn difficult?
|
On June 29 2010 06:30 UdderChaos wrote:
I mean homosexuality is not even one of the 10 commandments and it doesn't hurt anyone
Regarding the rest of what you wrote, if all christians thought the way you do, we'd be much better off. On the other hand, it is true that homosexuality isn't mentioned in the 10 commandments but if you read them, there's other stuff that many christians don't live by. I don't think it's a good guideline.
|
Speaking of Christianity and homosexuality, my mind goes back to Religulous...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
