On May 30 2009 09:37 KurtistheTurtle wrote: I don't care about gay marriage in terms of "marriage," the church can keep that. The part I have a problem with is how gays aren't allowed the same domestic partnership and financial/social benefits as male/female couples. I think the church can refuse to "marry" two gay people, but they shouldn't be allowed to even have influence on whether or not these people share the benefits.
Basically, I think they should be allowed to "marry" without the title of "marriage."
My thoughts as well.
This is like telling a black he can ride the bus but he has to sit at the back.
Buses are a public service. The church is not. The state should have no (real) say as to what a church does, and the church should have no say in what the state does.
somehow I doubt a church is going to marry gay people....I also doubt that the majority of gay couples will want to get married in a church.
there are MANY churches that would...maybe not traditional ones but yes, there are MANY that do
On May 30 2009 08:02 scwizard wrote: I know numerous gay/bi/queer types. Sometimes it seems like half the girls I know are bi. I like these people and wish for their happiness, and that is why I oppose proposition 8.
So yeah that's my position, and that position makes me wonder, do people like houseurmusic know any gay people? Do they have any gay friends? Do they have any gay people that they admire?
I can be gay for all you know. There are many gays that are not for gay marraige.
Are you fucking kidding me.
I challenge teamliquid to find either of the following: 1. A person who is gay/bi and opposed to gay marriage. 2. A person who has a very close gay/bi friend and is opposed to gay marriage.
I won't believe such people exist unless there's evidence to the contrary.
On May 30 2009 09:37 KurtistheTurtle wrote: I don't care about gay marriage in terms of "marriage," the church can keep that. The part I have a problem with is how gays aren't allowed the same domestic partnership and financial/social benefits as male/female couples. I think the church can refuse to "marry" two gay people, but they shouldn't be allowed to even have influence on whether or not these people share the benefits.
Basically, I think they should be allowed to "marry" without the title of "marriage."
My thoughts as well.
This is like telling a black he can ride the bus but he has to sit at the back.
Buses are a public service. The church is not. The state should have no (real) say as to what a church does, and the church should have no say in what the state does.
Yes so the way it was, gays could get married if they found a church to marry them, the choice to marry even with heterosexual couples is up to the church, if you can't find a church you do it at a courthouse.
Prop 8 made it illegal for gays to marry even at court houses. Telling a gay person they can get married but not calling it marriage is even more insulting than saying they can't
Ok I wasn't all that versed in Prop 8. The first paragraph I completely agree with.
On May 30 2009 10:03 Diomedes wrote: Aegraen is posting offensive stereotype nonsense, in the bluntest most unconvincing manners, in almost every thread.
So surely you are wrong. Main problem is his intentions. I suspect he is some enbittered far left wing 'liberal' trying to make 'his opponents' look bad.
Try again, I'm a libertarian/conservative.
You call yourself that but your attitude and viewpoints are completely counter to libertarian/conservative ideals.
No, they are not.
The principles of Libertarianism are to maximize individual liberty, minimization of state power over individuals' personal and economic decisions, or for some libertarians (me), the abolition of the state.
So yes, your attitude that the state should be able to have control over who can and cannot get married is in direct conflict with libertarian ideals.
Marriage is not a right; I believe in Federalism. Therefore I am not against any tenants of libertarianism. Personally, if I had the choice I would abolish all state derived benefits associated with marriage and civil unions.
The abolition of the state, is called anarchy. You're an anarchist, not a libertarian.
You're right, I am. Guess what, anarchy is nothing more than an extreme form of libertarianism.
You're belief that without a state that you have maximum freedom and personal liberty is in reality, the opposite. Without some structure, you have no liberty or freedom, because anyone can come and take from you and kill you. There is no laws, to prevent this.
Anyways off topic.
There are no laws to prevent somebody from coming and killing me, but there are also no laws preventing me from defending myself, or even doing the same to them. Safety != liberty or freedom. However, this is completely off topic for this thread.
To make this relevant I'll address your continued assertion that marriage is not a right. You are correct, marriage is not a right. However allowing the government to decide who is capable of entering into the privilege of marriage is still counter to libertarian ideals.
You are arguing against things that are not happening. Nobody is trying to change the church's rights or definition of marriage. The problem is that there is a governmental institution of marriage, which is conducted by the state, and is being denied to individuals. You don't get to decide that somebody can't drive a car because you don't like the make of car they're driving. Likewise you shouldn't get to decide that a person cannot be married in a state sanctioned union because you dont' like the person they're marrying.
On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote: Please, homosexuals stop trying to impose your ideology onto others. It's getting a tad ridiculous. You aren't happy with having the same benefits in civil unions, you just want to the name 'marriage' and to impose your views on everyone.
I have heard from homosexuals that the homosexual agenda is to make gay marriage legal, so that homosexuality will begin to be considered something that's normal in our culture.
On May 30 2009 10:03 Diomedes wrote: Aegraen is posting offensive stereotype nonsense, in the bluntest most unconvincing manners, in almost every thread.
So surely you are wrong. Main problem is his intentions. I suspect he is some enbittered far left wing 'liberal' trying to make 'his opponents' look bad.
Try again, I'm a libertarian/conservative.
You call yourself that but your attitude and viewpoints are completely counter to libertarian/conservative ideals.
No, they are not.
The principles of Libertarianism are to maximize individual liberty, minimization of state power over individuals' personal and economic decisions, or for some libertarians (me), the abolition of the state.
So yes, your attitude that the state should be able to have control over who can and cannot get married is in direct conflict with libertarian ideals.
Marriage is not a right; I believe in Federalism. Therefore I am not against any tenants of libertarianism. Personally, if I had the choice I would abolish all state derived benefits associated with marriage and civil unions.
The abolition of the state, is called anarchy. You're an anarchist, not a libertarian.
You're right, I am. Guess what, anarchy is nothing more than an extreme form of libertarianism.
You're belief that without a state that you have maximum freedom and personal liberty is in reality, the opposite. Without some structure, you have no liberty or freedom, because anyone can come and take from you and kill you. There is no laws, to prevent this.
Anyways off topic.
There are no laws to prevent somebody from coming and killing me, but there are also no laws preventing me from defending myself, or even doing the same to them. Safety != liberty or freedom. However, this is completely off topic for this thread.
To make this relevant I'll address your continued assertion that marriage is not a right. You are correct, marriage is not a right. However allowing the government to decide who is capable of entering into the privilege of marriage is still counter to libertarian ideals.
You are arguing against things that are not happening. The nobody is trying to change the church's rights or definition of marriage. The problem is that there is a governmental institution of marriage, which is conducted by the state, and is being denied to individuals. You don't get to decide that somebody can't drive a car because you don't like the make of car they're driving. Likewise you shouldn't get to decide that a person cannot be married in a state sanctioned union because you dont' like the person they're marrying.
Who said I am against civil unions?
Secondly, I'd be perfectly happy abolishing all state derived benefits to both civil unions and marriage. I don't see why having a baby entitles you to tax cuts, and all sorts of other ludicrous bonus' over individuals. I shouldn't be subsidizing other's children.
On that point, we should repel the 16th amendment, and institute a fair tax. The rate at which is proposed now, is way too high (23%), more in line would be a 10-15% tax, and require 2/3 of house and senate to raise.
So you think that there shouldn't be a governmental institution of marriage? In that case wouldn't that mean that there's no formal institution of marriage?
How would custody battles be decided then if there's no such legal thing as marriage?
On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote: Please, homosexuals stop trying to impose your ideology onto others. It's getting a tad ridiculous. You aren't happy with having the same benefits in civil unions, you just want to the name 'marriage' and to impose your views on everyone.
I have heard from homosexuals that the homosexual agenda is to make gay marriage legal, so that homosexuality will begin to be considered something that's normal in our culture.
Truly this terrible agenda must be stopped :O
Homosexuality, isn't normal. Propagation of the species is hardcoded into all species. Something that a tiny minority of the country does, isn't normal. (I'm waiting for, but, but, animals have same-sex also!) I'll pay 50$ to the first person who can show me how two female non-humans can fuck. Also, while it may happen, and rarely at that, two males having sex in the wild (lions, zebra, spiders, what have you), is not the norm.
With the laws of propagation and nature out of the way, I don't care one iota what gays do in their lives. I'm for, civil unions. I also am for abolishment of state derived benefits to all parties. Gays have every single right entitled to them as citizens of the USA under the Bill of Rights, US Constitution, and Declaration of Independence (throwing this one here, just for the hell of it). The day that gays are denied one of the rights entitled to all citizens of this country, will be the day I'll stand up for them.
If marriage was a religious institution then they could do whatever the fuck they liked with it and nobody would have any right to tell them what to do because it would be theirs. But it's not, it's a social institution which effects people in a great many ways, most of them too minor to be included in civil partnerships because they're simply assumed. To give a basic example, visitation rights in a prison are assumed for spouses as they are for family members but are not the same for partners. It's a secular institution and one which is so entrenched within our society that entrenching a rival institution for gays to the same extent would be impossible. The only way to make it fair is to allow anyone who wants to get married to get married.
If the church then wants to make up their own thing which is for straight couples only then they can. After all, it's not like they invented marriage, it was a social institution, as it always had been, when they claimed that only they had the right to officiate in it.
On May 30 2009 11:05 scwizard wrote: So you think that there shouldn't be a governmental institution of marriage? In that case wouldn't that mean that there's no formal institution of marriage?
How would custody battles be decided then if there's no such legal thing as marriage?
No, government should not give benefits to those in civil unions or marriage. This includes, tax breaks, tax exemptions, etc.
There is a formal institution, you just wouldn't receive any benefits for being married.
The same way they are now. Whoever is the more fit parent receives custody.
On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote: Please, homosexuals stop trying to impose your ideology onto others. It's getting a tad ridiculous. You aren't happy with having the same benefits in civil unions, you just want to the name 'marriage' and to impose your views on everyone.
I have heard from homosexuals that the homosexual agenda is to make gay marriage legal, so that homosexuality will begin to be considered something that's normal in our culture.
Truly this terrible agenda must be stopped :O
Homosexuality, isn't normal. Propagation of the species is hardcoded into all species. Something that a tiny minority of the country does, isn't normal. (I'm waiting for, but, but, animals have same-sex also!) I'll pay 50$ to the first person who can show me how two female non-humans can fuck. Also, while it may happen, and rarely at that, two males having sex in the wild (lions, zebra, spiders, what have you), is not the norm.
With the laws of propagation and nature out of the way, I don't care one iota what gays do in their lives. I'm for, civil unions. I also am for abolishment of state derived benefits to all parties. Gays have every single right entitled to them as citizens of the USA under the Bill of Rights, US Constitution, and Declaration of Independence (throwing this one here, just for the hell of it). The day that gays are denied one of the rights entitled to all citizens of this country, will be the day I'll stand up for them.
At least we stopped calling it a right.
We're using normal to mean different things here. I'm using normal to mean: Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard So basically, something that's is part of the standard culture.
While you're using it to mean: Biology. Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.
Are you saying that nothing biologically unnatural should be culturally acceptable? Because that's a pretty absurd stance to take.
On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote: Please, homosexuals stop trying to impose your ideology onto others. It's getting a tad ridiculous. You aren't happy with having the same benefits in civil unions, you just want to the name 'marriage' and to impose your views on everyone.
I have heard from homosexuals that the homosexual agenda is to make gay marriage legal, so that homosexuality will begin to be considered something that's normal in our culture.
Truly this terrible agenda must be stopped :O
Homosexuality, isn't normal. Propagation of the species is hardcoded into all species. Something that a tiny minority of the country does, isn't normal. (I'm waiting for, but, but, animals have same-sex also!) I'll pay 50$ to the first person who can show me how two female non-humans can fuck. Also, while it may happen, and rarely at that, two males having sex in the wild (lions, zebra, spiders, what have you), is not the norm.
With the laws of propagation and nature out of the way, I don't care one iota what gays do in their lives. I'm for, civil unions. I also am for abolishment of state derived benefits to all parties. Gays have every single right entitled to them as citizens of the USA under the Bill of Rights, US Constitution, and Declaration of Independence (throwing this one here, just for the hell of it). The day that gays are denied one of the rights entitled to all citizens of this country, will be the day I'll stand up for them.
On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote: Please, homosexuals stop trying to impose your ideology onto others. It's getting a tad ridiculous. You aren't happy with having the same benefits in civil unions, you just want to the name 'marriage' and to impose your views on everyone.
I have heard from homosexuals that the homosexual agenda is to make gay marriage legal, so that homosexuality will begin to be considered something that's normal in our culture.
Truly this terrible agenda must be stopped :O
Homosexuality, isn't normal. Propagation of the species is hardcoded into all species. Something that a tiny minority of the country does, isn't normal. (I'm waiting for, but, but, animals have same-sex also!) I'll pay 50$ to the first person who can show me how two female non-humans can fuck. Also, while it may happen, and rarely at that, two males having sex in the wild (lions, zebra, spiders, what have you), is not the norm.
With the laws of propagation and nature out of the way, I don't care one iota what gays do in their lives. I'm for, civil unions. I also am for abolishment of state derived benefits to all parties. Gays have every single right entitled to them as citizens of the USA under the Bill of Rights, US Constitution, and Declaration of Independence (throwing this one here, just for the hell of it). The day that gays are denied one of the rights entitled to all citizens of this country, will be the day I'll stand up for them.
At least we stopped calling it a right.
We're using normal to mean different things here. I'm using normal to mean: Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard So basically, something that's is part of the standard culture.
While you're using it to mean: Biology. Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.
Are you saying that nothing biologically unnatural should be culturally acceptable? Because that's a pretty absurd stance to take.
No, what I'm saying is that trying to normalize something that a huge minority does, goes against what constitutes normalcy. Is pedophilia normal? Is murder, normal? Extremes, but it drives the point down, that at such huge minority, it cannot be constituted as something that is normal.
On May 30 2009 11:05 scwizard wrote: So you think that there shouldn't be a governmental institution of marriage? In that case wouldn't that mean that there's no formal institution of marriage?
How would custody battles be decided then if there's no such legal thing as marriage?
No, government should not give benefits to those in civil unions or marriage. This includes, tax breaks, tax exemptions, etc.
There is a formal institution, you just wouldn't receive any benefits for being married.
The same way they are now. Whoever is the more fit parent receives custody.
Ahh, ok. That is a very reasonable ground to take. It'll never catch on though. Heterosexuals won't accept it though, because it deprives them of benefits, and homosexuals will never accept it because it deprives them of the opportunity to have the government make their relationship something legitimate through calling it officially marriage.
On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote: Please, homosexuals stop trying to impose your ideology onto others. It's getting a tad ridiculous. You aren't happy with having the same benefits in civil unions, you just want to the name 'marriage' and to impose your views on everyone.
I have heard from homosexuals that the homosexual agenda is to make gay marriage legal, so that homosexuality will begin to be considered something that's normal in our culture.
Truly this terrible agenda must be stopped :O
Homosexuality, isn't normal. Propagation of the species is hardcoded into all species. Something that a tiny minority of the country does, isn't normal. (I'm waiting for, but, but, animals have same-sex also!) I'll pay 50$ to the first person who can show me how two female non-humans can fuck. Also, while it may happen, and rarely at that, two males having sex in the wild (lions, zebra, spiders, what have you), is not the norm.
With the laws of propagation and nature out of the way, I don't care one iota what gays do in their lives. I'm for, civil unions. I also am for abolishment of state derived benefits to all parties. Gays have every single right entitled to them as citizens of the USA under the Bill of Rights, US Constitution, and Declaration of Independence (throwing this one here, just for the hell of it). The day that gays are denied one of the rights entitled to all citizens of this country, will be the day I'll stand up for them.
On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote: Please, homosexuals stop trying to impose your ideology onto others. It's getting a tad ridiculous. You aren't happy with having the same benefits in civil unions, you just want to the name 'marriage' and to impose your views on everyone.
I have heard from homosexuals that the homosexual agenda is to make gay marriage legal, so that homosexuality will begin to be considered something that's normal in our culture.
Truly this terrible agenda must be stopped :O
Homosexuality, isn't normal. Propagation of the species is hardcoded into all species. Something that a tiny minority of the country does, isn't normal. (I'm waiting for, but, but, animals have same-sex also!) I'll pay 50$ to the first person who can show me how two female non-humans can fuck. Also, while it may happen, and rarely at that, two males having sex in the wild (lions, zebra, spiders, what have you), is not the norm.
With the laws of propagation and nature out of the way, I don't care one iota what gays do in their lives. I'm for, civil unions. I also am for abolishment of state derived benefits to all parties. Gays have every single right entitled to them as citizens of the USA under the Bill of Rights, US Constitution, and Declaration of Independence (throwing this one here, just for the hell of it). The day that gays are denied one of the rights entitled to all citizens of this country, will be the day I'll stand up for them.
At least we stopped calling it a right.
We're using normal to mean different things here. I'm using normal to mean: Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard So basically, something that's is part of the standard culture.
While you're using it to mean: Biology. Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.
Are you saying that nothing biologically unnatural should be culturally acceptable? Because that's a pretty absurd stance to take.
No, what I'm saying is that trying to normalize something that a huge minority does, goes against what constitutes normalcy.
How statistically prevalent does something need to be before it can be "normalized"?
On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote: Please, homosexuals stop trying to impose your ideology onto others. It's getting a tad ridiculous. You aren't happy with having the same benefits in civil unions, you just want to the name 'marriage' and to impose your views on everyone.
I have heard from homosexuals that the homosexual agenda is to make gay marriage legal, so that homosexuality will begin to be considered something that's normal in our culture.
Truly this terrible agenda must be stopped :O
Homosexuality, isn't normal. Propagation of the species is hardcoded into all species. Something that a tiny minority of the country does, isn't normal. (I'm waiting for, but, but, animals have same-sex also!) I'll pay 50$ to the first person who can show me how two female non-humans can fuck. Also, while it may happen, and rarely at that, two males having sex in the wild (lions, zebra, spiders, what have you), is not the norm.
With the laws of propagation and nature out of the way, I don't care one iota what gays do in their lives. I'm for, civil unions. I also am for abolishment of state derived benefits to all parties. Gays have every single right entitled to them as citizens of the USA under the Bill of Rights, US Constitution, and Declaration of Independence (throwing this one here, just for the hell of it). The day that gays are denied one of the rights entitled to all citizens of this country, will be the day I'll stand up for them.
At least we stopped calling it a right.
We're using normal to mean different things here. I'm using normal to mean: Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard So basically, something that's is part of the standard culture.
While you're using it to mean: Biology. Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.
Are you saying that nothing biologically unnatural should be culturally acceptable? Because that's a pretty absurd stance to take.
No, what I'm saying is that trying to normalize something that a huge minority does, goes against what constitutes normalcy. Is pedophilia normal? Is murder, normal? Extremes, but it drives the point down, that at such huge minority, it cannot be constituted as something that is normal.
The problem with this example is that pedophilia and murder are damaging to other people. Homosexuality affects nobody except the two people involved, who in my opinion are entitled to decide what is right for them as long as it is not affecting others. You can make the argument that gay marriage affects others by giving them tax benefits or whatnot, but as long as straight couples are entitled to those benefits then the state should not be able to deny homosexual couples those same benefits. As I said in my first post, the state sanctioned institution of marriage should not exist. Have a system of unions that allows for rights such as visitation, custody, etc and be done with it. But as long as the governmental institution of marriage exists it needs to be equal for everyone regardless of their sexual affiliation.
On May 30 2009 11:05 scwizard wrote: So you think that there shouldn't be a governmental institution of marriage? In that case wouldn't that mean that there's no formal institution of marriage?
How would custody battles be decided then if there's no such legal thing as marriage?
No, government should not give benefits to those in civil unions or marriage. This includes, tax breaks, tax exemptions, etc.
There is a formal institution, you just wouldn't receive any benefits for being married.
The same way they are now. Whoever is the more fit parent receives custody.
Ahh, ok. That is a very reasonable ground to take. It'll never catch on though. Heterosexuals won't accept it though, because it deprives them of benefits, and homosexuals will never accept it because it deprives them of the opportunity to have the government make their relationship something legitimate through calling it officially marriage.
Of course. It's all about money (Mostly in respect to homosexuals), for both parties.
Then again, you have to have some principles to turn down money. Say, like, what all states who cherish federalism should have done to all Stimulus money. Oh well.
On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote: Please, homosexuals stop trying to impose your ideology onto others. It's getting a tad ridiculous. You aren't happy with having the same benefits in civil unions, you just want to the name 'marriage' and to impose your views on everyone.
I have heard from homosexuals that the homosexual agenda is to make gay marriage legal, so that homosexuality will begin to be considered something that's normal in our culture.
Truly this terrible agenda must be stopped :O
Homosexuality, isn't normal. Propagation of the species is hardcoded into all species. Something that a tiny minority of the country does, isn't normal. (I'm waiting for, but, but, animals have same-sex also!) I'll pay 50$ to the first person who can show me how two female non-humans can fuck. Also, while it may happen, and rarely at that, two males having sex in the wild (lions, zebra, spiders, what have you), is not the norm.
With the laws of propagation and nature out of the way, I don't care one iota what gays do in their lives. I'm for, civil unions. I also am for abolishment of state derived benefits to all parties. Gays have every single right entitled to them as citizens of the USA under the Bill of Rights, US Constitution, and Declaration of Independence (throwing this one here, just for the hell of it). The day that gays are denied one of the rights entitled to all citizens of this country, will be the day I'll stand up for them.
On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote: Please, homosexuals stop trying to impose your ideology onto others. It's getting a tad ridiculous. You aren't happy with having the same benefits in civil unions, you just want to the name 'marriage' and to impose your views on everyone.
I have heard from homosexuals that the homosexual agenda is to make gay marriage legal, so that homosexuality will begin to be considered something that's normal in our culture.
Truly this terrible agenda must be stopped :O
Homosexuality, isn't normal. Propagation of the species is hardcoded into all species. Something that a tiny minority of the country does, isn't normal. (I'm waiting for, but, but, animals have same-sex also!) I'll pay 50$ to the first person who can show me how two female non-humans can fuck. Also, while it may happen, and rarely at that, two males having sex in the wild (lions, zebra, spiders, what have you), is not the norm.
With the laws of propagation and nature out of the way, I don't care one iota what gays do in their lives. I'm for, civil unions. I also am for abolishment of state derived benefits to all parties. Gays have every single right entitled to them as citizens of the USA under the Bill of Rights, US Constitution, and Declaration of Independence (throwing this one here, just for the hell of it). The day that gays are denied one of the rights entitled to all citizens of this country, will be the day I'll stand up for them.
Fucking means copulation. Two non-human females cannot fuck. I guess you fell for it.
Fucking is slang, you can't even try to fucking give it a definite definition.
The animal world is incredibly homosexual at times. Early civilisation had homosexuality. What you mean by "normal" is what is currently accepted by society. But society can be improved.
The only reasons for not letting gays marry are bigoted and cruel.
EPT
