| Blogs > DTK-m2 |
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4427 Posts
and open the gates to legalize other forms of marriage, each one of which will further violate the sanctity of marriage. Examples? Because i have never heard this argument before. It is usually just religous beliefs or personal moral beliefs that i hear people talk about on this issue. Personally i am against gay marriage. | ||
|
Scorcher2k
United States802 Posts
On February 10 2011 23:00 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Examples? Because i have never heard this argument before. It is usually just religous beliefs or personal moral beliefs that i hear people talk about on this issue. Personally i am against gay marriage. Why are you against gay marriage? Are you also against interracial marriage? Are you also against inter-religion marriage? I don't understand why you would care about what other people do when it isn't anything that is causing harm to someone. | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
On February 10 2011 23:00 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Examples? Because i have never heard this argument before. It is usually just religous beliefs or personal moral beliefs that i hear people talk about on this issue. Personally i am against gay marriage. Would you support purging marriage from law and replacing it (in law) with civil unions equal for both gay and straight unions? Marriage would still exist, of course, but only in the realm of religion / personal life. | ||
|
TwoToneTerran
United States8841 Posts
On February 10 2011 22:39 schaf wrote: hmm.... liberty and justice for all do in my opinion say that all citizens are equal - why treat 2 people who want to have their relationship become official and sealed for a lifetime different than 2 other people? + Show Spoiler + source: here The pledge is not an institution and any letter of law is completely removed from religion, or at the very least is intended to be, despite the efforts of fundamentalists who are not interested in equality, anyhow. You clearly didn't understand what I said and are grasping at straws to diss the, admittedly flawed, USA institute. | ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
| ||
|
schaf
Germany1326 Posts
On February 10 2011 23:20 TwoToneTerran wrote: + Show Spoiler + On February 10 2011 22:39 schaf wrote: hmm.... liberty and justice for all do in my opinion say that all citizens are equal - why treat 2 people who want to have their relationship become official and sealed for a lifetime different than 2 other people? + Show Spoiler + source: here The pledge is not an institution and any letter of law is completely removed from religion, or at the very least is intended to be, despite the efforts of fundamentalists who are not interested in equality, anyhow. You clearly didn't understand what I said and are grasping at straws to diss the, admittedly flawed, USA institute. I'm not, it's an example of how religion IS present in politics. but we should get back to topic as I'm clearly not the expert on this (not even living in the USA) and after all we're on the same page concerning the OP's thoughts. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
legalize it instead of wasting everyone's time. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32157 Posts
On February 10 2011 23:26 bonifaceviii wrote: All legal benefits should be stripped from marriage, as it is a religious/cultural institution. It has no place in legislation. I think it would be better to keep the legal perks (tax, visitation in hospital, whatever) but stop pretending that the church has a monopoly on the word | ||
|
DoubleZee
Canada556 Posts
| ||
|
YejinYejin
United States1053 Posts
On February 11 2011 00:20 schaf wrote: I'm not, it's an example of how religion IS present in politics. but we should get back to topic as I'm clearly not the expert on this (not even living in the USA) and after all we're on the same page concerning the OP's thoughts. Religion is only present in politics insofar as most politicians are religious, which is a result of our American culture where a significant majority of people are Christian, and feel more comfortable with a Christian politician as their representative. Very few politicians flaunt their atheism while campaigning, because it's a suicide move. Also, the phrase "under God" was added to the pledge in 1954, during an era of scare tactics like McCarthyism. You don't think it's an attempt to appeal to the fears of the Christian demographic? "Oh dear, if we don't put under God, then America will be godless, and that's incredibly awful because then we'll be like those awful, awful communists and we don't want to be awful! Let's cling onto religion!" Also, there really is no topic. I didn't mean for this blog to turn into a debate on gay marriage, because frankly, it's going to go nowhere. People who support it have their reasons, and people who are against gay marriage have it so deeply ingrained in their mindset that no amount of reasoning will sway them. I was really just posting a musing on why you can never argue with a "slippery slope" against the nth step of a slippery slope, where n>1. | ||
|
NotSupporting
Sweden1998 Posts
On February 10 2011 22:03 TwoToneTerran wrote: You completely misunderstand the issue. I'll just make a list: A) There can be no "sacred" institute in government, at the very least in the USA's government, which seems to be the topic of the conversation. It has been fiercely stated time and time again since the government's inception that there can be no religious involvement in government institute, and anything being referred to as "sacred," clearly violates that. B) Gay marriage is not so gays can get married in churches. I don't know why you think that's the issue -- it's about being seen as equal to heterosexual couples in the eyes of the goverment. There's no blessed ceremony, there's no inclination of necessary tradition. It's purely equality. C) A "parternship" is not the same as a "marriage," -- even if in paper it seems exact. We USA folk have, in recent memory, had an issue of two institutions that were separated, but considered "equal," and it was one of the gravest travesties of inequality since slavery was abolished. You cannot call two things equal and give them different titles, the different titles imply something inequal about the two, and this will ALWAYS lead to discrimination. Giving it a different title is quite clearly giving ground to bigotry, which leads me to-- D) Saying you're quite liberal in your ways does not justify what you're saying when you oppose the rights of homosexuals to marry. It's almost identical to the argument of, "I've got a lot of black friends so I'm not racist!" -- you may be the most liberal, rights supporting person of all time in every other subject, but if you oppose the rights of homosexuals to be seen as completely and genuinely equal, then you are erring on the side of bigotry. You pointed out that things are different and, presumably, less hostile in Sweden. I do not have the context of how Sweden has been as a society and how relevant the separate but equal thing is, but as I clearly don't understand Sweden's context, you clearly don't understand America's context. What you suggest has been done before and was disgustingly criminal, and it is almost entirely because of that that you can't cede ground at let the bigots force you to define your partnership as something separate from theirs. You don't give ground to bigots because all it does is encourage more bigotry. Oh, sorry if I misunderstood it then, in Sweden we actually have this right now as we speak. Marriage and Partnership is EXACTLY the same thing here, same rights, viewed the same by government only difference is the name. I though USA had the same thing... | ||
|
DeckOneBell
United States526 Posts
Therefore, it's use as an argument is invalid. This isn't to say there aren't any arguments against gay marriage, but that's not at all what the main point of the thread is. And slippery slope is also only a logical fallacy, which means that it doesn't necessarily hold to be true. So it could be true, and if a person believes it to be true, then that person probably has all the evidence he or she needs. But if we're talking formal logic, then yeah, that doesn't hold. Then again, in typical American politics, you meet logical fallacies all over the place. Ad Hominem, or attacking a person instead of attacking the argument, is used repeatedly, same with sweeping generalizations, irrelevant conclusions... and everything else. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy I suggest reading up if you're interested in the topic. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4427 Posts
On February 10 2011 23:19 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: Would you support purging marriage from law and replacing it (in law) with civil unions equal for both gay and straight unions? Marriage would still exist, of course, but only in the realm of religion / personal life. no Why are you against gay marriage? Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. Are you also against interracial marriage? Are you also against inter-religion marriage? I don't understand why you would care about what other people do when it isn't anything that is causing harm to someone. As long as it is between a man and a woman then i don't care. | ||
|
Comeh
United States18919 Posts
On February 11 2011 07:12 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: no Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. As long as it is between a man and a woman then i don't care. You're applying your values of a right between two people upon others. Though its a silly comparison, it wasn't too long ago that black people weren't legally considered people (well, sorta) in the united states. Should we impress our beliefs of something upon others? Or, ultimately, who are you to say that marriage is between a man and a woman? Why is your opinion correct over others? Hasn't there been other things that have been true for many years that is now not seen as being true (woman as being the care takers of the house)? Should it stay true forever just because its true now? AKA logical flaw. | ||
|
YejinYejin
United States1053 Posts
I mean, he basically just said, "Why am I against marriage that's not between a man and a woman? Because marriage is between a man and a woman." I'm going to start applying this to every argument from now on. Why is Flash a worse Terran than Fantasy? Because Fantasy is better than Flash. Why is Bisu the best Protoss ever? Because he is the best Protoss ever. Why are all genres of music outside of Korean pop illegitimate? Because Korean pop is the only legitimate genre of music. GG no re, all arguments. Win at life. | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
Uh why not? Reasoning please? | ||
|
holy_war
United States3590 Posts
| ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
On February 11 2011 14:28 holy_war wrote: While I am against gay marriage, I pro civil union that grants the couple equal spousal rights. My favorite pro-gay marriage argument is "We should allow gay marriages so they can enjoy the joys of divorce." I'll ask you the same question I asked the other anti-gay-marriage guy, would you support purging "marriage" from law? | ||
|
holy_war
United States3590 Posts
On February 11 2011 14:36 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: I'll ask you the same question I asked the other anti-gay-marriage guy, would you support purging "marriage" from law? No I would not because I think the term "marriage" is still highly regarded in our society. Are you arguing for "marriage" to be purged in favor of "civil union" from a legal standpoint? | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4427 Posts
On February 11 2011 07:40 Comeh wrote: Though its a silly comparison, it wasn't too long ago that black people weren't legally considered people (well, sorta) in the united states. Should we impress our beliefs of something upon others? So you would allow men to marry more than one woman as in other countries? After all who are you to impose your belief system upon others? Or, ultimately, who are you to say that marriage is between a man and a woman? Why is your opinion correct over others? Hasn't there been other things that have been true for many years that is now not seen as being true (woman as being the care takers of the house)? Should it stay true forever just because its true now? I do not think tradition is a bad thing. I know a few gay guys and what might surprise you is hardly any of them actually want gay marriage to be allowed , they are happy with the way things are now. | ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
IPSL
Dragon vs Ret
Patches Events
RSL Revival
Solar vs Rogue
Maru vs NightMare
Sparkling Tuna Cup
IPSL
Bonyth vs Hawk
GSL
Replay Cast
WardiTV Weekly
The PondCast
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
