|
On May 30 2009 13:51 Nadagast wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 13:47 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 13:43 Nadagast wrote:On May 30 2009 13:41 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 13:40 Nadagast wrote:On May 30 2009 13:33 jeppew wrote:On May 30 2009 13:31 Nadagast wrote:On May 30 2009 13:28 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 13:26 D10 wrote:
And btw, what the hell does gay marriage has to do with pephilia, poligamia and zoophilia or anything else for that matter.
If law can be as specific as to how much %of a substance you can trow in the air it can be specific in this.
And marriage being between 2 consenting HUMAN adults is nothing far fetched or that suggests base for none of those things Because a right is universal to all groups, not specific groups. Is voting a right? I'm pretty sure we don't let felons vote, right? Not making any moral equivalences, just saying, rights aren't necessarily shared by 100% of the population felons have their rights removed because they commited a crime, this isn't a fair comparison by any standard. I know and I'd say that for much the same reason, a 40 year old man has no right to marry a 10 year old girl, because sometimes rights aren't 100% 'do-whatever-you-want' universal Well that's what he would say to a man trying to marry a man Yeah except there is informed consent in the adult man + adult man case, in the 10 year old + 40 year old case, the 10 year old can't give informed consent Well that's what I would respond. Then he would tell you about how it endangers society and how it's unnatural. And how they already have rights. It doesn't endanger society at all; gay people are already living together and having relationships and the world hasn't exploded. 'Unnatural'? As if that's a good argument that anything is bad, and it's not even true... Heh. I know you aren't making these points, but I wanted to reply to hypothetical-Aegraen
Basically, marriage is important because it allows society to form monogamies which are important for society to exist (this is actually true, i can argue this one)
Essentially if gays are allowed to marry somehow it distorts the purpose of marriage since the point of marriage is to reproduce.
Also marriage is a religious ceremony at its roots and therefore you cannot force religion to bend to others wills.
"Although I am very liberal I am concerned about the institution of marraige. Marraige is the foundation to a proper family. Almost all these sacred bonds between a man and a women yield children. These children will have the best chance for survival if their parents are in love and don't stray. This is true from a Darwinian point of view, being in love means there is less chance of straying to another partner because of chemical reactions tricking our minds into believing the one we are with is the best possible choice. However, this chemical reaction isn't enough. Humans are a very social species and even in the most primitive cultures there was the idea of this sacred bond between men and women. People who loved, and cultures that had this bond were the groups that had the best chance of survival, and thus went on reproducing to lead to us."
Some dude earlier on
|
On May 30 2009 13:52 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 13:51 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 13:49 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 13:48 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 13:48 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 13:32 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 13:28 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 13:26 D10 wrote:
And btw, what the hell does gay marriage has to do with pephilia, poligamia and zoophilia or anything else for that matter.
If law can be as specific as to how much %of a substance you can trow in the air it can be specific in this.
And marriage being between 2 consenting HUMAN adults is nothing far fetched or that suggests base for none of those things Because a right is universal to all groups, not specific groups. No its not. legally it isn't, but morally I agree with aegraen ? please explain What right should not extend to all groups? Well what do you mean by morally? Voting is arguable. Although I think it should go to everyone. The right to bear arms? ok well I guess you are right heh. I didn't consider some things. the penal system and children are examples where this breaks down but I think that most rights should be extended to all groups
Of course, I think you are right there. The system of rights would break down otherwise.
|
On May 30 2009 13:53 2nd1rst wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 13:47 keV. wrote:On May 30 2009 13:46 2nd1rst wrote:
I am a christian and I am not sure what to think about prop 8. According to my religion Homosexuality is a sin, but so are a lot of of other things. To me gay marriage is not a big deal because it does not really hurt me. But it pisses me off to see people call proponents of prop 8 "disgusting trash" and acting like if you believe gay marriage is wrong you are a troll or an idiot. It is not unreasonable to be concerned with the effects gay marriage could have on society and your children. I don't see how this is pure discrimination when domestic partnerships have the same legal rights and privileges as marriages in California. Domestic partnerships ARE NOT THE SAME THING as marriages. They are regulated by state and sometimes not even recognized period. If you don't see the issue with that, then you are a god damn idiot. I don't care if you are religious or not. What do you mean they are "regulated by state and sometimes not even recognized period." Can you give a few examples. I am genuinely interested in this, because as i stated in my post I am not sure what to think of prop 8.
Marriage is recognized by the federal government. Which means that EVERYONE who is legally married regardless of where they live (in the USA) is entitled to the benefits marriage provide. Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships are NOT recognized by the federal government, they are regulated by the STATE. IE
I get married to Tom in Massachusetts and we totally love anal sex, then Tom gets a job offer that can change our life, but its in Tennessee, so our "marriage" is meaningless there and we lose all of our benefits. Is that fair?
Religion should not even be included in the argument period.
|
Kev, you raise a valid point about the civil union not being accepted in other states. However, there in lie the problem, other states.... So is not your problem with other states?
|
On May 30 2009 14:00 2b-Rigtheous wrote:
Kev, you raise a valid point about the civil union not being accepted in other states. However, there in lie the problem, other states.... So is not your problem with other states?
??
edit: the more states with gay marriage the more places it's recognized
|
why don't other states accept the civil union?
|
On May 30 2009 14:00 2b-Rigtheous wrote:
Kev, you raise a valid point about the civil union not being accepted in other states. However, there in lie the problem, other states.... So is not your problem with other states?
or the judiciary that fails to apply the full faith and credit clause and allows a marriage in one state to not be recognized in another.
:|
|
On May 30 2009 14:03 2b-Rigtheous wrote:
why don't other states accept the civil union?
Well if its illegal there, then that means their people don't want it. Meaning the don't have to recognize it because its a state thing.
|
On May 30 2009 14:00 2b-Rigtheous wrote:
Kev, you raise a valid point about the civil union not being accepted in other states. However, there in lie the problem, other states.... So is not your problem with other states?
No.
These civil unions and domestic partnerships are also different in every state. Even if all the states had a gay marriage policy they would all be regulated separately with different clauses/discrepancies.
In my eyes, the only way to make it fair, is to recognize some form of gay union at the federal level, that carries with it ALL of the benefits that legally married people receive.
|
children are physically different from adults, as in brain development is still going on. Giving them the responsibility and penalty of an adult is not right because they do not have their full arsenal of brain power yet to make a well thought out choice.
^ argument to justify giving children different rights thn adults
|
is awesome32274 Posts
On May 30 2009 13:55 DamageControL wrote:
Essentially if gays are allowed to marry somehow it distorts the purpose of marriage since the point of marriage is to reproduce.
Since when it's the purpose of marriage to reproduce? When did it become a requirement to be married to reproduce? You still live in the 1800's?
Marriage is not even needed to raise a kid. Lots of 'modern' couples raise kids in concubinage.
|
of course I agree wholeheartedly with sentiment of gay union on a federal level. However, my problem is with normalizing homosexuality, not the rights that homosexuals are entitled to receive. So Prop 8 or not, it doesn't solve the problem in other states. It just forces them to travel to Cali to get married. Kind of like a loop hole.
|
On May 30 2009 14:06 IntoTheWow wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 13:55 DamageControL wrote:
Essentially if gays are allowed to marry somehow it distorts the purpose of marriage since the point of marriage is to reproduce.
Since when it's the purpose of marriage to reproduce? When did it become a requirement to be married to reproduce? You still live in the 1800's? Marriage is not even needed to raise a kid. Lots of 'modern' couples raise kids in concubinage.
Well yeah that's a major hole in the argument
ITW I actually am for gay marriage btw so please dont think these are my opinions. Not sure whether you did or not, this is just a disclaimer T_T
|
On May 30 2009 14:08 2b-Rigtheous wrote:
of course I agree wholeheartedly with sentiment of gay union on a federal level. However, my problem is with normalizing homosexuality, not the rights that homosexuals are entitled to receive. So Prop 8 or not, it doesn't solve the problem in other states. It just forces them to travel to Cali to get married. Kind of like a loop hole.
What's wrong with normalizing homosexuality?
And even without prop 8 you can't just go to Cali to get married? because other states don't recognize it.
|
On May 30 2009 14:08 2b-Rigtheous wrote:
of course I agree wholeheartedly with sentiment of gay union on a federal level. However, my problem is with normalizing homosexuality, not the rights that homosexuals are entitled to receive. So Prop 8 or not, it doesn't solve the problem in other states. It just forces them to travel to Cali to get married. Kind of like a loop hole.
you still don't know what prop 8 did?
ffs
|
is awesome32274 Posts
On May 30 2009 14:09 DamageControL wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 14:06 IntoTheWow wrote:On May 30 2009 13:55 DamageControL wrote:
Essentially if gays are allowed to marry somehow it distorts the purpose of marriage since the point of marriage is to reproduce.
Since when it's the purpose of marriage to reproduce? When did it become a requirement to be married to reproduce? You still live in the 1800's? Marriage is not even needed to raise a kid. Lots of 'modern' couples raise kids in concubinage. Well yeah that's a major hole in the argument ITW I actually am for gay marriage btw so please dont think these are my opinions. Not sure whether you did or not, this is just a disclaimer T_T
I know, sorry if i come off as attacking you. I'm not against you, i'm just trying to prove right what I think through logic...
|
The idea that prop 8 was created for anything other than morons embracing their bigoted faith is a lie. Don't insult the intelligence of this board with those kind of arguments.
|
On May 30 2009 14:05 keV. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 14:00 2b-Rigtheous wrote:
Kev, you raise a valid point about the civil union not being accepted in other states. However, there in lie the problem, other states.... So is not your problem with other states? No. These civil unions and domestic partnerships are also different in every state. Even if all the states had a gay marriage policy they would all be regulated separately with different clauses/discrepancies. In my eyes, the only way to make it fair, is to recognize some form of gay union at the federal level, that carries with it ALL of the benefits that legally married people receive.
So does prop 8 not mean much in the grand scheme of things? If prop 8 had failed would other states be required to recognize gay marriages in California?
|
On May 30 2009 14:11 IntoTheWow wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 14:09 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 14:06 IntoTheWow wrote:On May 30 2009 13:55 DamageControL wrote:
Essentially if gays are allowed to marry somehow it distorts the purpose of marriage since the point of marriage is to reproduce.
Since when it's the purpose of marriage to reproduce? When did it become a requirement to be married to reproduce? You still live in the 1800's? Marriage is not even needed to raise a kid. Lots of 'modern' couples raise kids in concubinage. Well yeah that's a major hole in the argument ITW I actually am for gay marriage btw so please dont think these are my opinions. Not sure whether you did or not, this is just a disclaimer T_T I know, sorry if i come off as attacking you. I'm not against you, i'm just trying to prove right what I think through logic...
Oh no, its fine, I was just making sure you didn't think I was an idiot.
I think the idea is that the basis of marriage is to reproduce even if you don't actually. And being gay eliminates that possibility.
|
On May 30 2009 13:55 DamageControL wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 13:51 Nadagast wrote:On May 30 2009 13:47 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 13:43 Nadagast wrote:On May 30 2009 13:41 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 13:40 Nadagast wrote:On May 30 2009 13:33 jeppew wrote:On May 30 2009 13:31 Nadagast wrote:On May 30 2009 13:28 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 13:26 D10 wrote:
And btw, what the hell does gay marriage has to do with pephilia, poligamia and zoophilia or anything else for that matter.
If law can be as specific as to how much %of a substance you can trow in the air it can be specific in this.
And marriage being between 2 consenting HUMAN adults is nothing far fetched or that suggests base for none of those things Because a right is universal to all groups, not specific groups. Is voting a right? I'm pretty sure we don't let felons vote, right? Not making any moral equivalences, just saying, rights aren't necessarily shared by 100% of the population felons have their rights removed because they commited a crime, this isn't a fair comparison by any standard. I know and I'd say that for much the same reason, a 40 year old man has no right to marry a 10 year old girl, because sometimes rights aren't 100% 'do-whatever-you-want' universal Well that's what he would say to a man trying to marry a man Yeah except there is informed consent in the adult man + adult man case, in the 10 year old + 40 year old case, the 10 year old can't give informed consent Well that's what I would respond. Then he would tell you about how it endangers society and how it's unnatural. And how they already have rights. It doesn't endanger society at all; gay people are already living together and having relationships and the world hasn't exploded. 'Unnatural'? As if that's a good argument that anything is bad, and it's not even true... Heh. I know you aren't making these points, but I wanted to reply to hypothetical-Aegraen Essentially if gays are allowed to marry somehow it distorts the purpose of marriage since the point of marriage is to reproduce.
According to who? If you asked most people what the purpose of marriage was, I bet that most people wouldn't give that answer.
Marriage is a human invention, a cultural concept, and it can change over time. Some of the cultural changes are effected by court rulings and passings of law.
The word "marriage" means a lot more to people than what marriages mean legally. Marriages conjure up images of lifelong relationships, raising children together, weddings, the union of families. I think it's important that gay marriage be recognized legally, and not merely gay "civil unions", because saying that gays are allowed to marry says a number of other things as well, such as:
1. It's ok for two people of the same gender to raise children together. Who could object to a married couple raising a child?
2. It's ok for two people of the same gender to have sex with each other. Who could object to a married couple having sex?
3. A gay relationship is a real relationship. Who could say that a marriage "isn't a real relationship"?
4. Attempting to breaking appart a married couple is wrong. It would be especially inconceivable to religious folk who consider marriage sacred to some degree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
