|
On October 21 2011 12:59 Mr.Brightside wrote:I personally am for gay marriage, marriage I think is kind of trivial and you can be happy without it but there's no reason why anyone should not be allowed to have it if signing that piece of paper is what makes them happy. However, I absolutely despise all of the people that constantly shove the gay marriage should be acceptable rant in my face on every social site I go to. I understand that protesting about things you believe in can get things done in odd cases but don't go on about your preachy bullshit and smother me with it, I'm aware that it's an issue and I care about it but what you're doing is just making me angry and if I didn't care enough then I would vote against whatever it is that you are wanting. Does anyone else feel this way? Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post. I think this guy really was treading on eggshells trying not to piss anyone off because he knew his opinion could be offensive but you still banned him, kind of mean, especially since he said he was fine with gay marriage. He probably should have said I hope I dont offend anyone rather than I hope I dont get banned, it's a lot better if you show that you care about others rather than yourself.
I think that a majority of people who share your thought pattern really need to go out and meet some gay people, especially those in relationships and how difficult it is for them to do normal, every day things such as apply for houses, government assistance, bank loans or mortgages. You seem to be disconnected in the way that you don't realise that this is an issue for gay people every single day, in every facet of their lives. If you had a girlfriend (or boyfriend) and you desperately wanted to commit to them, in a way that is both honorable to your family and yourself, as well as legally recognised in all aspects of society, but you couldn't, well, just because, you would be protesting too. It's called empathy.
|
United States7483 Posts
On October 21 2011 12:59 Mr.Brightside wrote:I personally am for gay marriage, marriage I think is kind of trivial and you can be happy without it but there's no reason why anyone should not be allowed to have it if signing that piece of paper is what makes them happy. However, I absolutely despise all of the people that constantly shove the gay marriage should be acceptable rant in my face on every social site I go to. I understand that protesting about things you believe in can get things done in odd cases but don't go on about your preachy bullshit and smother me with it, I'm aware that it's an issue and I care about it but what you're doing is just making me angry and if I didn't care enough then I would vote against whatever it is that you are wanting. Does anyone else feel this way? Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post. I think this guy really was treading on eggshells trying not to piss anyone off because he knew his opinion could be offensive but you still banned him, kind of mean, especially since he said he was fine with gay marriage. He probably should have said I hope I dont offend anyone rather than I hope I dont get banned, it's a lot better if you show that you care about others rather than yourself.
He got banned for martyring himself and for having a lousy posting history. You're not allowed to post something possibly offensive and say "I'll probably get banned" or "I hope I don't get banned". Doing that gets you banned.
|
On October 21 2011 12:52 GettinMyFill wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 12:49 Probulous wrote:On October 21 2011 12:39 GettinMyFill wrote:On October 21 2011 12:34 Belisarius wrote:On October 21 2011 12:29 GettinMyFill wrote:On October 21 2011 12:25 sealpuncher wrote:
Honest question from an 18 year old: am I allowed to disagree with gay marriage on the basis of religious belief or is it only the majority who are not allowed to be bashed for their OPINION?
I personally believe that gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, think it's any worse than any of the sins other Christians commit. I don't judge gay people at all because they are worth the same as anyone else including other Christians. Is it wrong for me to have my own opinion? Yes, when you're opinion is completely wrong, based on fairy tales, myths and fables, and you voice it in an obnoxious and patronising manner, it makes it even worse. Christians do not value gay people on the same level as your average Christian, don't act like they do. Because you're obviously valuing Christians on the same level as your average non-Christian in your post... If it is a matter of social policy, human rights and natural, deserved equality, why would anyone value Christian doctrine when determining what is fair and right? Oh, right, politicians and people who are afraid of anyone who is different. That's why this debate is happening. Don't turn this around on me. you voice it in an obnoxious and patronising manner, it makes it even worse. The irony in you writing this line is something to behold. He was just voicing his opinion, you don't have to shove your down his throat. Opinions are individual and everyone ahs a right to them. Sure you may disagree but that doesn't gove you the right to straight out insult people. You have a valid point but the way you express just devalues what you say. So you have a Christian telling any gay person reading this thread that he thinks that they are immoral and wrong and are not allowed the basic social distinction and celebration of their love, but he backs it up by saying 'but it's only my OPINION!'. It's exactly the same thing as being racist, but by backing it up by saying 'No, no, it's okay, it's only my opinion, don't worry!' You are treating people who do not respect others with a higher level of respect. It's wrong.
Wow good investigative work Holmes... except for the fact that the next post I said that I have no problem with gay people getting the same rights as straight couples and calling it whatever they want. You know you should probably read actual posts before replying to them and all. Cause now you just sound like a dick who reads whatever they want out of a post to me. If you decided that in your religion that I will go to the forbidden forest and will have to retrieve the mastersword before dueling the beast of the wild and punished for eternity, I would let you believe whatever you want, because it's your opinion.
|
On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post.
I find it quite laughable to ban this guy for stating his opinion. People are entitled to their opinion and anyone who actually believes in the bible and sodom and gomora would be against this, but I guess you could just ban all Christians who actually believe in this, seeing as their opinions aren't politically correct or valid according to you.
Personally, I'm for homosexual marriage but am against ALL kinds of homosexual adoption and impregnation operations. I think children are entitled to a mother and a father, not uncle Bob and uncle Ted.
|
On October 21 2011 12:59 Mr.Brightside wrote:
I personally am for gay marriage, marriage I think is kind of trivial and you can be happy without it but there's no reason why anyone should not be allowed to have it if signing that piece of paper is what makes them happy. However, I absolutely despise all of the people that constantly shove the gay marriage should be acceptable rant in my face on every social site I go to. I understand that protesting about things you believe in can get things done in odd cases but don't go on about your preachy bullshit and smother me with it, I'm aware that it's an issue and I care about it but what you're doing is just making me angry and if I didn't care enough then I would vote against whatever it is that you are wanting. Does anyone else feel this way?
Marriage is not trivial to the people involved, but i understand your point. However, if you're not willing to read these rants, then don't click on the link. There's going to be a debate because it's important to a lot of people. It's your anger versus the potential mental health and anguish of thousands of people. The fact that some gays and lesbians still get segregated, bullied, and commit suicide means that people are not knowledgeable enough. To expand on someone else's comparison, it's like saying "i don't want to hear about all this racist discrimination stuff all the time. It makes me angry." It's just a little annoying which you can easily avoid by staying out of these debates. NOTE: of course, i'm not saying you are pro racism or against gay marriage (duh), but i just wanted to appeal to the fact that it is an important issue that affects a lot of people.
On October 21 2011 13:08 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post. I find it quite laughable to ban this guy for stating his opinion. People are entitled to their opinion and anyone who actually believes in the bible and sodom and gomora would be against this, but I guess you could just ban all Christians who actually believe in this, seeing as their opinions aren't politically correct or valid according to you. Personally, I'm for homosexual marriage but am against ALL kinds of homosexual adoption and impregnation operations. I think children are entitled to a mother and a father, not uncle Bob and uncle Ted.
The guy was banned because he was martyring, not because of his opinion (shared by a few in this thread, who did not get banned). Why are you against adoption/impregnation?
|
On October 21 2011 12:05 jdseemoreglass wrote:
What I've learned from this thread:
Most people who support gay marriage are outright hypocrites and still bigoted despite their arguments against bigotry. Most bigotry is a result of social conditioning, and because society is becoming accepting of gays, people are becoming accepting of gay marriage. It has nothing to do with logic or reason or morality or consistency, it's simply societies slowly becoming accustomed to homosexuality. Society has not become accustomed to many other sexual orientations through the media or education, and so people have no problem discriminating against those groups and and trying to distance them from homosexuality.
I guess that confirms what many of us already knew: That those who consider themselves most progressive and tolerant and enlightened are often nothing more than modern day traditionalists according to modern tastes, and that repetition of an idea will continue to be more powerful than the rationality behind it.
I think this post has a lot of truth in it, it's certainly how I feel about a lot of people that seem to all of a sudden support gay marriage and it pisses me off. Gay marriage imo should be accepted but the issue should not be used as a tool to gain power or popularity, or as a way to show that you're still in touch with what's cool in society.
|
On October 21 2011 13:08 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post. I find it quite laughable to ban this guy for stating his opinion. People are entitled to their opinion and anyone who actually believes in the bible and sodom and gomora would be against this, but I guess you could just ban all Christians who actually believe in this, seeing as their opinions aren't politically correct or valid according to you. Personally, I'm for homosexual marriage but am against ALL kinds of homosexual adoption and impregnation operations. I think children are entitled to a mother and a father, not uncle Bob and uncle Ted.
Who are you to decide what children are entitled to? Are children entitled to abusive fathers and alcoholic mothers too? What if a gay couple could provide what your regular male female parents couldn't?
Don't bring up Sodom and Gomorra, unless you love black slavery too.
|
On October 21 2011 13:03 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 12:54 Mohdoo wrote:
A question for those of you who would vote against allowing gay marriage: Do you think that gay marriage will always be illegal? Do you think that you and others who think like you will continue to be numerous enough to prevent it down the line? History certainly says otherwise. Absolutely, it's a total losing battle, and it's one I'm more or less happy to lose... provided something else comes of it. As an example, I receive regular emails from the ACL, which is the major Australian Christian politial lobbyist group, and I disagree with pretty much everything they do. I don't even know why I haven't unsubscribed yet. The reason I disagree is that they're trying to maintain Australian society as a Christian society, when it's very clearly not, when what they should be doing is fighting to retain the rights of Christians to make distinctions based on their own beliefs, while not forcing those distinctions on others who do not believe. What I'm harping on about regarding institutionalising a civil versus a christian definition of marriage comes into that. Once Christians give up the word, we'll never get it back. There's a window here in which we can transition into a society in which the two ideas can coexist side-by-side, and I will vote to delay blanket changes until I see that come about. We only get the one shot.
"Different but equal" never settles though. No one will *ever* settle for it being 2 different things. "Separate but equal" has a long history of never actually being equal, and there are quite a few people who, according to their religious beliefs, think that marriage is about love and not about sex. These people will fight till the end for it to be called *marriage*. It won't end up as separate but equal. It never, ever, ever has. I dunno, it just seems extremely unrealistic to hope that Christians will keep the word as they know it.
If the word "Marriage" has already changed so many times in history, why are you so fixated on this specific definition? Marriage used to be mean ownership of a woman. That changed. The current definition of marriage is one which people hundreds of years ago would go absolutely crazy over. The idea of a man not owning his woman he is married to would be repulsive to some of those people, similar to how some people view gay marriage. Don't you feel like you're getting too caught up in the current day and not seeing how things have developed?
|
On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post.
People don't seem to understand that martyring yourself is a free ban, even if the rest of your post is not.
Anyway, I'm a bit more interested in the political ramifications of this measure than the actual legislation itself. Not that I don't support gay marriage, but rather I'm a dumb American who really only cares about issues in other countries insofar as they spark entertaining political controversy.
On October 21 2011 07:08 DoubleReed wrote:I actually thought Austrailia wasn't as homophobic as America, simply because they've allowed open gays in their military service for a long time now. America only recently repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 06:59 NotSupporting wrote:
I am against gay marriage (I'm atheist, always have been)
1. The state should not care about setting rules for religion just as religion should not set rules for the state.
2. Offer gay people an agreement with the same rights as marriage but call it something else to cover all the legal purposes. (In Sweden we have marriage and partnership, in the eyes of the law they are exactly the same thing but on is for heterosexual relationships only)
Solves both problems - the religious and legal.
Last note, for me it's crazy and illogical for gay people to want to get married in the church anyway. The bible hates gay people, it's a sin, religious people have killed gays coldblooded through history, it's largely thanks to Christianity the view on gay people have been so bad for such a long time. For me it's as illogical as if a Jew would fight all his life to be a part of the nazi community, but they reject him. No, Jews and Christians disagree about homosexuality is a sin. Christians don't all get lumped together like that. Like any massive group of people, they disagree about everything. Not all churches hate gay people. And not all marriages are Christian anyway. Your stance makes very little sense to me. Why not just call everything partnerships and let marriage be a strictly religious thing? You're just calling it something different, which is just frankly insulting to homosexual relationships. Homosexuals want marriages just as much as heterosexuals do.
On this note: I feel the government should have the means of differentiating between a same sex and a heterosex couple for the purposes of tax breaks and benefits. Obviously next-of-kin laws should apply to gay couples, but I see no philosophical reason why a country with population concerns might want to offer tax breaks to heterosex couples as a way of fostering more economically favorable demographics.
I do agree in that I believe "marriage" should be a religious institution and the "union" should be a legal institution. I don't see how that institution should automatically be indivisible based on different types of unions.
|
On October 21 2011 13:08 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post. I find it quite laughable to ban this guy for stating his opinion. People are entitled to their opinion and anyone who actually believes in the bible and sodom and gomora would be against this, but I guess you could just ban all Christians who actually believe in this, seeing as their opinions aren't politically correct or valid according to you. Personally, I'm for homosexual marriage but am against ALL kinds of homosexual adoption and impregnation operations. I think children are entitled to a mother and a father, not uncle Bob and uncle Ted.
For the thousandth time he DID NOT GET BANNED FOR STATING HIS OPINION. Read the thread before posting.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=32696¤tpage=987#19742
Deekin[ was just banned by zatic.
That account was created on 2010-12-20 19:22:35 and had 1685 posts.
Reason: You history here + martyring = bye.
A gay couple can provide absolutely everything for a child that a straight couple can, they don't need a mother and father, they need a loving family, whatever that may consist of.
|
On October 21 2011 13:08 sealpuncher wrote:
Wow good investigative work Holmes... except for the fact that the next post I said that I have no problem with gay people getting the same rights as straight couples and calling it whatever they want. You know you should probably read actual posts before replying to them and all. Cause now you just sound like a dick who reads whatever they want out of a post to me. If you decided that in your religion that I will go to the forbidden forest and will have to retrieve the mastersword before dueling the beast of the wild and punished for eternity, I would let you believe whatever you want, because it's your opinion.
Nope, even if you support gay marriage rights, your belief that gay marriage is wrong is still wrong. Just like any person with any sense would say that that hypothetical religion about a forbidden forest and a master sword is wrong. Now, should we prosecute people purely for opinions? No, that's silly. But we can still criticize them and recognize them as what they are.
Even though you support gay rights on the legal level, your beliefs still contribute to the homophobic atmosphere of society that lead people to live their lives closeted, or go through mental anxiety trying to become straight, or commit suicide due to the anti-gay bullying of their peers who have been taught by their parents that gay kids are an abomination.
It's great that you recognize separation of church and state. But that doesn't mean that your church isn't indirectly doing harm to gay people, all because of the opinions of the people in it.
So, no, labeling something as an opinion does absolutely nothing to shield it from criticism.
|
On October 21 2011 12:48 reneg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 12:45 dtvu wrote:On October 21 2011 12:16 Belisarius wrote:On October 21 2011 10:58 ShatterStorm wrote:On October 21 2011 10:39 Belisarius wrote:
I've never quite understood the issue here. To my knowledge, there are no practical legal differences between a married heterosexual couple and a gay couple. The gay couple becomes a de facto partnership and are treated under the law as though they were married.
If I'm wrong, by all means correct me, but it it seems like this whole thing is an argument over the definition of a word. There's little legal discrimination left, even in Australia. If there is, I agree it should probably be removed... but what's wrong with a gay union being called something other than marriage?
Very good point here. If we redefine what it is that gay people want, then the argument makes more sense. Essentially, AFAIK gay people want to have the same LEGAL recognition as others with regard to entering into a "life partnership". So Why not give them that right ? It doesn't have to be called "Marriage" it could be called "Ooble Wooble" (or "Civil Union") for all I care, as long as a same sex couple can end up with the same LEGAL rights as a mixed sex couple with regard to their relationship. Let the churchies keep "Marriage" and relegate that to a purely religious ceremony with no recognition under law, or at least give it the same recognition as "Ooble Wooble" After all, the current situation is that after your "ceremony", you still need to sign some documentation and have it lodged with the Dept of Births, Deaths and Marriages for the Marriage to have any sort of Govt recognition. This is actually something that a lot of Christians want. One of CS Lewis's many good points was a call for a difference between civil marriage and marriage in the church, not just for gays but for heterosexual couples as well. There are a lot of things that the church disagrees with in the secular definition of marriage - for example, how easy it has become to get a divorce - and there are a lot of things the secular world disagrees with in the church system, like their stance on gay marriage. It would make a lot of sense to separate the two, and have a union under law that everyone could enter into, and a marriage under God that people committed to if they chose, with more stringent bindings and requirements in line with religious ideals. A vast portion of the confusion and anger in these kinds of debates stems from the fact that the two sides are arguing about two different things, and not realising that. Of course for the Christians, it would be nice if theirs was the version called "marriage," since it really was a religiously-defined word in the first place, but that's a completely secondary concern. Your arguments are very sound, if not inspirational. I wonder what the gay community think of your idea. I think there's a a need to separate Religion and State, so let Christians have their patent on the word marriage, as their definition for the rite between two Christians. This way everyone get what they want without interfering with State. But that's also part of the debate. Why should heterosexuals have a monopoly on the word "marriage"? Shouldn't they, as equal human beings, be allowed to use the same word in an extremely similar (almost identical) situation? It basically boils down to a notion of separate but equal for a lot of activists in the gay community. If you don't call it marriage, you're basically saying that it's slightly lower on the totem pole of society.
Why are moving onto social class though. We humans seem to like to classify everything - I guess this is why we have terms like middle-class, lower-class, blue-collar, white-collar. I thought the fight was for gay couple to be officially recognize by the law. If the law accepts you, why are you still upset over a word. Can't you be happy with Nuptial, Betrothment, Wedded, Wedlock etc. In terms of the law, they would all mean the same thing.
|
On October 21 2011 12:55 Brett wrote:
I'm all for homosexual unions which result in the couple receiving the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple, I just don't believe it should be called marriage... because it's not. Marriage, by definition, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Not everthing has to be the same. Equal but different is fine by me.
It's quite amusing how gay men and women want the right to partake in a ceremony steeped in religious tradition, given most religions are against homosexuality.
Agree with the above post. The main issues facing those in a homosexual relationship is society not accepting gay sexual practices, a deep affinity between those of the same sex.
Considering my first point, why has it become an obsession for homoesexuals to want their relationships to be labelled as marriage specifically?
Poor form on that ban, the comments were not out of line, everyone is entitled to an opinion, this place is far too heavily moderated, another prime example of political correctness gone mad...
User was warned for this post
|
On October 21 2011 13:08 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post. I find it quite laughable to ban this guy for stating his opinion. People are entitled to their opinion and anyone who actually believes in the bible and sodom and gomora would be against this, but I guess you could just ban all Christians who actually believe in this, seeing as their opinions aren't politically correct or valid according to you. Personally, I'm for homosexual marriage but am against ALL kinds of homosexual adoption and impregnation operations. I think children are entitled to a mother and a father, not uncle Bob and uncle Ted.
Why?
It's a simple question. Do you think single mothers and single fathers can't raise children? Why do you think that having two dads or two moms would have any kind of issue? It's a blatantly sexist argument that has no basis in reality. There is no indication that same-sex parents would be any worse than hetero-parents.
Reality matters. You don't just get to say "But but but you need a mother and father! That's the way it's supposed to be!" without any evidence.
|
On October 21 2011 13:09 GettinMyFill wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 13:08 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post. I find it quite laughable to ban this guy for stating his opinion. People are entitled to their opinion and anyone who actually believes in the bible and sodom and gomora would be against this, but I guess you could just ban all Christians who actually believe in this, seeing as their opinions aren't politically correct or valid according to you. Personally, I'm for homosexual marriage but am against ALL kinds of homosexual adoption and impregnation operations. I think children are entitled to a mother and a father, not uncle Bob and uncle Ted. Who are you to decide what children are entitled to? Are children entitled to abusive fathers and alcoholic mothers too? What if a gay couple could provide what your regular male female parents couldn't? Don't bring up Sodom and Gomorra, unless you love black slavery too.
Who are you to decide that children have no right to their mother and father?
The burden of proof isn't on conservatives to prove that the change they oppose is bad. The burden of proof is on liberals, to prove that the change they promote is for the good. That liberals have managed to switch it around, is their greatest strength, because almost all of the changes that liberalism has ever promoted have done irrepairable harm to its host society.
|
On October 21 2011 13:13 meatbox wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 12:55 Brett wrote:
I'm all for homosexual unions which result in the couple receiving the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple, I just don't believe it should be called marriage... because it's not. Marriage, by definition, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Not everthing has to be the same. Equal but different is fine by me. It's quite amusing how gay men and women want the right to partake in a ceremony steeped in religious tradition, given most religions are against homosexuality. Agree with the above post. The main issues facing those in a homosexual relationship is society not accepting gay sexual practices, a deep affinity between those of the same sex. Considering my first point, why has it become an obsession for homoesexuals to want their relationships to be labelled as marriage specifically? Poor form on that ban, the comments were not out of line, everyone is entitled to an opinion, this place is far too heavily moderated, another prime example of political correctness gone mad...
That just seems to be an arbitrary line (marriage =man and woman) which has been changed a lot over time. It's not about the religion tradition. It's about getting the legal rights, and getting acceptance. The argument boils down to "Why should they be treated differently when there is no reason to"? The differences are quite small and are just an evolution of "marriage."
he burden of proof isn't on conservatives to prove that the change they oppose is bad. The burden of proof is on liberals, to prove that the change they promote is for the good. That liberals have managed to switch it around, is their greatest strength, because almost all of the changes that liberalism has ever promoted have done irrepairable harm to its host society.
The proof has already been presented, through studies looking at the health and behaviours of gays and lesbians in our society, the effects of discrimination, as well as the results of children of homosexual parents. Your move.
|
On October 21 2011 12:52 GettinMyFill wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 12:49 Probulous wrote:On October 21 2011 12:39 GettinMyFill wrote:On October 21 2011 12:34 Belisarius wrote:On October 21 2011 12:29 GettinMyFill wrote:On October 21 2011 12:25 sealpuncher wrote:
Honest question from an 18 year old: am I allowed to disagree with gay marriage on the basis of religious belief or is it only the majority who are not allowed to be bashed for their OPINION?
I personally believe that gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, think it's any worse than any of the sins other Christians commit. I don't judge gay people at all because they are worth the same as anyone else including other Christians. Is it wrong for me to have my own opinion? Yes, when you're opinion is completely wrong, based on fairy tales, myths and fables, and you voice it in an obnoxious and patronising manner, it makes it even worse. Christians do not value gay people on the same level as your average Christian, don't act like they do. Because you're obviously valuing Christians on the same level as your average non-Christian in your post... If it is a matter of social policy, human rights and natural, deserved equality, why would anyone value Christian doctrine when determining what is fair and right? Oh, right, politicians and people who are afraid of anyone who is different. That's why this debate is happening. Don't turn this around on me. you voice it in an obnoxious and patronising manner, it makes it even worse. The irony in you writing this line is something to behold. He was just voicing his opinion, you don't have to shove your down his throat. Opinions are individual and everyone ahs a right to them. Sure you may disagree but that doesn't gove you the right to straight out insult people. You have a valid point but the way you express just devalues what you say. So you have a Christian telling any gay person reading this thread that he thinks that they are immoral and wrong and are not allowed the basic social distinction and celebration of their love, but he backs it up by saying 'but it's only my OPINION!'. It's exactly the same thing as being racist, but by backing it up by saying 'No, no, it's okay, it's only my opinion, don't worry!' You are treating people who do not respect others with a higher level of respect. It's wrong.
This has got absolutely nothing to do with racism. Racism is disciminating people on the basis of the colour of their skin.
Saying that you're not fond of homosexuality or think it is against your religion is an opinion. In addition, not all gay people are born gay, it's a choice they make so you can't compare it to a person's skin having a certain colour.
|
On October 21 2011 13:01 matjlav wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 12:55 Brett wrote:
I'm all for homosexual unions which result in the couple receiving the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple, I just don't believe it should be called marriage... because it's not. Marriage, by definition, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Not everthing has to be the same. Equal but different is fine by me. By whose definition? See, the funny thing about words is that their definitions are not set in stone by universal decree. And what would bother you so much about the word "marriage" being defined as the union between any two consenting adults? There's no denying that the word "marriage" has years of social value that you deny to homosexual couples when you give them the cold, stuffy label of a "civil union." You could make a lot of people happier by just giving them equal acknowledgement with the same title. Why not just do it? Your rhetoric all just ends up being a cover for heterosexism because the only reason to be concerned about the definition of the word "marriage" is if you're somehow concerned about being somehow tainted by the gays.
By definition of hundreds of years of experience and existence. By definition of legislation in this country: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/s5.html.
I already told you "why not just do it?". Because not everything has to be the same.
Don't put words in my mouth and build a convenient argument for yourself when there isn't one there.
|
On October 21 2011 13:09 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 13:03 Belisarius wrote:On October 21 2011 12:54 Mohdoo wrote:
A question for those of you who would vote against allowing gay marriage: Do you think that gay marriage will always be illegal? Do you think that you and others who think like you will continue to be numerous enough to prevent it down the line? History certainly says otherwise. Absolutely, it's a total losing battle, and it's one I'm more or less happy to lose... provided something else comes of it. As an example, I receive regular emails from the ACL, which is the major Australian Christian politial lobbyist group, and I disagree with pretty much everything they do. I don't even know why I haven't unsubscribed yet. The reason I disagree is that they're trying to maintain Australian society as a Christian society, when it's very clearly not, when what they should be doing is fighting to retain the rights of Christians to make distinctions based on their own beliefs, while not forcing those distinctions on others who do not believe. What I'm harping on about regarding institutionalising a civil versus a christian definition of marriage comes into that. Once Christians give up the word, we'll never get it back. There's a window here in which we can transition into a society in which the two ideas can coexist side-by-side, and I will vote to delay blanket changes until I see that come about. We only get the one shot. "Different but equal" never settles though. No one will *ever* settle for it being 2 different things. "Separate but equal" has a long history of never actually being equal, and there are quite a few people who, according to their religious beliefs, think that marriage is about love and not about sex. These people will fight till the end for it to be called *marriage*. It won't end up as separate but equal. It never, ever, ever has. I dunno, it just seems extremely unrealistic to hope that Christians will keep the word as they know it. If the word "Marriage" has already changed so many times in history, why are you so fixated on this specific definition? Marriage used to be mean ownership of a woman. That changed. The current definition of marriage is one which people hundreds of years ago would go absolutely crazy over. The idea of a man not owning his woman he is married to would be repulsive to some of those people, similar to how some people view gay marriage. Don't you feel like you're getting too caught up in the current day and not seeing how things have developed?
It never meant ownership of a woman, not in Christian terms. In some pre or post reformation societies, maybe it did, I'm not well enough versed in history to say, but I know what Christianity says and it isn't that.
I don't really want to get caught up in the side-argument, because verses like Paul's "wives, submit to your husbands; husbands, love your wives" are contentious even in religious circles, but any level of justification in Christian texts for men owning women in the legal sense is highly subjective, while the justification for gay marriage being something Christianity doesn't support is pretty unassailable if you treat the bible as an authoritative document.
The current definition of marriage is, you're absolutely right, not the christian one. I don't even want the current definition of marriage, I want our own back. But I think this is perhaps the last big thing to change before we lose it altogether.
Maybe it's not, I can certainly see people putting forward the same separation of church and state marriage argument in 50 years time when "marriage" has changed again, but why would I not fight the battle I have in front of me if I feel I can?
|
On October 21 2011 13:14 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 13:08 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post. I find it quite laughable to ban this guy for stating his opinion. People are entitled to their opinion and anyone who actually believes in the bible and sodom and gomora would be against this, but I guess you could just ban all Christians who actually believe in this, seeing as their opinions aren't politically correct or valid according to you. Personally, I'm for homosexual marriage but am against ALL kinds of homosexual adoption and impregnation operations. I think children are entitled to a mother and a father, not uncle Bob and uncle Ted. Why? It's a simple question. Do you think single mothers and single fathers can't raise children? Why do you think that having two dads or two moms would have any kind of issue? It's a blatantly sexist argument that has no basis in reality. There is no indication that same-sex parents would be any worse than hetero-parents. Reality matters. You don't just get to say "But but but you need a mother and father! That's the way it's supposed to be!" without any evidence.
Actually, single mothers can't raise children. The children of single mothers are far more likely to be criminal, have lower income, higher drug use, alcoholism, mental issues, obesity, etc, than the children of the traditional nuclear family, after controlling for earned and unearned income. We are not talking about 1% differences either. In some categories, its in orders of magnitude.
I have no idea how single fathers do, because there has been a presumption of maternal custody of children for the last 100 years.
While there are exceptions, they are the exceptions that prove the rule. Single parents are shit parents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
