|
On October 21 2011 08:17 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 07:54 Phayze wrote:On October 21 2011 07:40 sevencck wrote:On October 21 2011 07:17 T0fuuu wrote:
Nyeah... I dont have anything against gay marriage but i wonder how open most supporters would be to polygamy. We have a pretty sizeable muslim pop in au now and maybe they should start pushing to have their multiple marriages officially recignised so they dont need to sneak off and do it illegally. If a marriage in this country is just a pairing of people that dont want to call it a civil union then may as well open it up a bit more. No, this is totally wrong, and you're obscuring the issue by introducing something that's irrelevant. Gay marriage is no different to straight marriage. In practical terms (the way it works in society) it is virtually identical. Polygamy is a totally different ball game, so you can't say that one opens the door to the other, unless you hope to undermine gay marriage efforts by bringing up negative aspects of polygamy (which is in itself a strawman). Fundamentally the difference is responsibility, where responsibility is about doing your thing without hurting other people or creating problems for others. Two gay people should be allowed to marry because they should have the freedom to responsibly experience their humanity. If nobody is reasonably being hurt then why not? Most of the issues associated with polygamy, however, arise due to the fact that people (most often women) are being exploited. It is often not about allowing the same adults in question the freedom to explore and experience their humanity. Sorry to say, but many of the proponents of polygamist relationships are not interested in being responsible in the same way. So, the stigma surrounding these two issues are for very different considerations, and can't be meaningfully compared. Inclusive policy should support people's responsible desire to live and experience, and it should condemn people's desires to live and experience at the cost of others as irresponsible. While polygamy can theoretically exist responsibly, the majority of it does not currently. If we're going to philosophize, then let's keep these two issues separate. If the defence for gay marriage is largely based off of freedom, then the same should apply to polygamy. If they're changing societal norms by making changes in the definition of marriage then there is no reason polygamy should also be restricted. People against gay marriage are biased against it, you're being biased against polygamy in the same way. I dont see why marriage is so important to cause this much controversy. And you don't need to, you only need to respect that it's important to others. I didn't say carte blanche freedom, I made a distinction. I'll also remind you that being critical of polygamy in the name of freedom makes more sense than supporting it in the name of freedom, because polygamy has done more to deny people freedom than it has to empower them. Straight marriage is OK, because we value the desires of a man and a woman to be together, therefore gay marriage should be OK because we should equally value the desires of a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) to be together. Yes this system of marriage can give rise to problems, abuse, violence etc. but it's fundamentally designed to empower two people to celebrate their love (barf). Polygamy as a system has become almost tailor made to give one person options, and leave others with none. I'm sorry but polygamy's track record on planet Earth is abysmal, and whether it can exist without all the exploitation is irrelevant, since we already know marriage between two (gay or straight) people can. Again, polygamy is irrelevant to this discussion. We already have a marital structure that works, and only needs to be made universally applicable to all people regardless of gender/orientation etc. Talking about a new marital system is beyond the scope of this discussion. It's in no way hypocritical to support gay marriage in the name of freedom while having reservations about polygamy.
I agree, you're not being hypocritical. Because your reason for legalizing gay marriage is that you "equally value the desires of a man and a man ... to be together". Which, for me, is a pretty weak argument, because it basically states that if the majority of the population does not value the desires of people of the same gender to marry, then it should be illegal.
Also, "polygamy has done more to deny people freedom than it has to empower them." Yeah? So have monogamous marriages. Traditionally, married women were denied all sorts of freedoms by their husbands, and were essentially household slaves. Until recently, wives were regarded by the law as the property of the husband. Women could not divorce their husbands, commence litigation alone, etc.
|
On October 21 2011 08:21 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +And? Many people that are monogymous have affairs and also divorce for someone else. You're not giving ANY viable reasons. "History" is completely friggin' irrelevant to someone's rights. Alcohol might increase the chances of domestic violence, and has a history with it. Are we going to ban people that drink alcohol from marrying? Associations are terrible arguments. I'm saying the issues are different, I'm not saying polygamy is inherently wrong in any way. I'm saying that when we have seen it in the past, it's been terrible. That is all.
And I'm saying that's hardly a viable argument. You can't even associate pedophilia with polygamy. There's nothing to even suggest if polygamy was made legal that it would suddenly abolish the age limit required for marriage. There's been also countless cases of polygamy that work super well - my entire anthro class in uni focused on successful polygamy cases for a week.
The negative associations are probably just highlighted more so because polygamy is already seen as bad.
|
On October 21 2011 08:27 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 08:21 DoubleReed wrote:And? Many people that are monogymous have affairs and also divorce for someone else. You're not giving ANY viable reasons. "History" is completely friggin' irrelevant to someone's rights. Alcohol might increase the chances of domestic violence, and has a history with it. Are we going to ban people that drink alcohol from marrying? Associations are terrible arguments. I'm saying the issues are different, I'm not saying polygamy is inherently wrong in any way. I'm saying that when we have seen it in the past, it's been terrible. That is all. And I'm saying that's hardly a viable argument. You can't even associate pedophilia with polygamy. There's nothing to even suggest if polygamy was made legal that it would suddenly abolish the age limit required for marriage. There's been also countless cases of polygamy that work super well - my entire anthro class in uni focused on successful polygamy cases for a week. The negative associations are probably just highlighted more so because polygamy is already seen as bad.
That's because I'm not arguing with you, dude. I'm just stating the facts. Okay, maybe polygamy has made sense in certain cases. Fine.
If you want polygamy legalized, you have to overcome all these other hurdles which gay marriage doesn't have.
That is my point. That is why they aren't the same issue.
|
Australia8532 Posts
On October 21 2011 08:13 GeyzeR wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 07:17 JudicatorHammurabi 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. Woah, why did he get banned for this? He basically said "Please don't ban me if my opinion happens to offend someone", not "I'm going to get banned for this so here I go". There's a huge difference... He got banned just for this phrase: "If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot." The rest is OK, being gay is unnatural indeed, because from the nature point of view you have to breed. "Please don't ban me" should be simply ignored, only what comes after matters. Maybe he meant "when I imagine gay sex...", not "being gay is disgusting". Consider that his English is far from perfect and that he says later that as long as gays are happy, it is OK. Anyway, ban for that is too much IMHO and there is huge probability that word "disgusting" refers to his feelings when he imagine gay sex, that maybe still not nice to express, but definitely not a ban. The guy is from a Slavic country, where it is relatively easy to find a nice women, and the gay culture is not popular at all. He did not realize how sensitive is this topic in the Western world. Consider everything above I suggest it is OK for TL community to replace the ban with temp ban for few days.
I am sorry but please don't spread misinformation. He got banned for martyring. Saying "I hope i don't get banned" or "i'll probably get banned" achieves the same purpose; while there is a difference in the phrase, it is still martyring. His opinion was not overly offensive (unless you are sensitive to the issue.)
The reason he was perm banned rather than temp banned is usually due to his poor post history. There is discussion about the ban in this thread:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=95875¤tpage=594#11882
On October 21 2011 08:21 Roe wrote:
I have a question: do jewish people have different marriages than christians? and muslims, hindus, etc? If so, then it should follow that a society/state can call their own marriage by that same name under a secular definition.
The ceremony is different yes. The problem is the majority of people associate marriage as a religious institution; and because said religions have a huge issue with homosexuality, therefore it is unnatural and forbidden.
However, it would be nice to live in a world where society has evolved beyond primitive religious beliefs 
|
I am against labelling Gay Marriage Gay Marriage, Marriage is Marriage as Football is Football
Word.
|
On October 21 2011 08:21 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 08:13 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 08:05 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:03 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:42 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 07:38 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:34 Thorakh wrote:On October 21 2011 07:32 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:25 Thorakh wrote:On October 21 2011 07:24 cLutZ wrote:
What is the point of marriage from the governments POV?
In other words, why does the government sponsor and endorse marriage?
Does gay marriage also further these goals?
This is a set of questions that I don't think have ever been adequately answered. Give two people legal advantages? See above. Of course. There you go. This is under the usual assumption that marriage means legal bonding, and not a religious bonding. Why does the government WANT to give a pair of people legal advantages over two single people? I'm assuming they don't want to but at this point it's too late to back out since the people would never accept not having marriage. They have to give everyone the same rights and as such gay marriage has to be legal. So does that means that tax breaks, etc are going to be rolled back for all married people? Technically, recognizing gay marriage is both a massive tax break and a massive increase in government expenditures. On October 21 2011 07:34 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 07:32 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:25 Thorakh wrote:On October 21 2011 07:24 cLutZ wrote:
What is the point of marriage from the governments POV?
In other words, why does the government sponsor and endorse marriage?
Does gay marriage also further these goals?
This is a set of questions that I don't think have ever been adequately answered. Give two people legal advantages? See above. Of course. There you go. This is under the usual assumption that marriage means legal bonding, and not a religious bonding. Why does the government WANT to give a pair of people legal advantages over two single people? Similar to how the Christian Church pushed for heterosexual marriage, as a means of procreation. How does that apply in the gay marriage context. It doesn't, that's the problem. The anti-gay marriage crowd will say shit like marriage is supposed to strengthen traditional family roles and further human procreation. Those were the reasons back in the dark ages, they no longer apply. So what rationales DO apply for state-recognized marriage? Other than losing half of the voting population, not much. The fear of losing votes stops politicians from taking away tax breaks and other advantages. That's not a justification. If you support gay marriage you need to demonstrate that if provides the same benefits to society that traditional marriage does. If your position is that neither provides benefits, or it provides some but not all, your justifications should be strong. Someone mentioned that it creates a stable society. If so, there is a justification. It seems to me that most of the benefits we want from marriage are actually more related to raising children and procreation. If we recognize gay marriage, all those benefits should be transferred exclusively to persons who actually have children (and probably do this anyways), so we don't let freeloaders on the rolls. Yes, we give incentives for married couples to have children. But homosexual couples can go through numerous ways to get a child. That is not justification for denying gay marriage. Your view is that we give benefits for those couples with child. If so, then you should also admit that hetero couples without child should not receive benefits either. The reason I support gay marriage is because hetero couples receive rights that gay couples currently do not. Since no one in power is willing to take away those rights from hetero couples, I support the alternative that gay couples receive those rights as well.
I agree, my position is simply that we need to eliminate the benefits before granting the rights. Otherwise the situation gets out of control, and I think Gay Marriage is way more susceptible to fraud than regular marriage. Chuck & Larry was a comedy, but it illustrates something that could happen pretty often, particularly with things like social security benefits.
|
On October 21 2011 08:33 bkrow wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 08:13 GeyzeR wrote:On October 21 2011 07:17 JudicatorHammurabi 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. Woah, why did he get banned for this? He basically said "Please don't ban me if my opinion happens to offend someone", not "I'm going to get banned for this so here I go". There's a huge difference... He got banned just for this phrase: "If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot." The rest is OK, being gay is unnatural indeed, because from the nature point of view you have to breed. "Please don't ban me" should be simply ignored, only what comes after matters. Maybe he meant "when I imagine gay sex...", not "being gay is disgusting". Consider that his English is far from perfect and that he says later that as long as gays are happy, it is OK. Anyway, ban for that is too much IMHO and there is huge probability that word "disgusting" refers to his feelings when he imagine gay sex, that maybe still not nice to express, but definitely not a ban. The guy is from a Slavic country, where it is relatively easy to find a nice women, and the gay culture is not popular at all. He did not realize how sensitive is this topic in the Western world. Consider everything above I suggest it is OK for TL community to replace the ban with temp ban for few days. I am sorry but please don't spread misinformation. He got banned for martyring. Saying "I hope i don't get banned" or "i'll probably get banned" achieves the same purpose; while there is a difference in the phrase, it is still martyring. His opinion was not overly offensive (unless you are sensitive to the issue.) The reason he was perm banned rather than temp banned is usually due to his poor post history. There is discussion about the ban in this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=95875¤tpage=594#11882Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 08:21 Roe wrote:
I have a question: do jewish people have different marriages than christians? and muslims, hindus, etc? If so, then it should follow that a society/state can call their own marriage by that same name under a secular definition. The ceremony is different yes. The problem is the majority of people associate marriage as a religious institution; and because said religions have a huge issue with homosexuality, therefore it is unnatural and forbidden. However, it would be nice to live in a world where society has evolved beyond primitive religious beliefs
Those "primitive religious beliefs" are essentially a set of guidelines on how to form a functioning community. Given their proven track record of success, I would be careful before discarding them wholesale. I do not want Australia to become an object lesson.
I am not only talking about homosexual marriage.
|
On October 21 2011 08:38 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 08:21 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:13 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 08:05 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:03 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:42 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 07:38 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:34 Thorakh wrote:On October 21 2011 07:32 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:25 Thorakh wrote:
[quote]Give two people legal advantages?
See above.
Of course.
There you go. This is under the usual assumption that marriage means legal bonding, and not a religious bonding.
Why does the government WANT to give a pair of people legal advantages over two single people? I'm assuming they don't want to but at this point it's too late to back out since the people would never accept not having marriage. They have to give everyone the same rights and as such gay marriage has to be legal. So does that means that tax breaks, etc are going to be rolled back for all married people? Technically, recognizing gay marriage is both a massive tax break and a massive increase in government expenditures. On October 21 2011 07:34 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 07:32 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:25 Thorakh wrote:
[quote]Give two people legal advantages?
See above.
Of course.
There you go. This is under the usual assumption that marriage means legal bonding, and not a religious bonding.
Why does the government WANT to give a pair of people legal advantages over two single people? Similar to how the Christian Church pushed for heterosexual marriage, as a means of procreation. How does that apply in the gay marriage context. It doesn't, that's the problem. The anti-gay marriage crowd will say shit like marriage is supposed to strengthen traditional family roles and further human procreation. Those were the reasons back in the dark ages, they no longer apply. So what rationales DO apply for state-recognized marriage? Other than losing half of the voting population, not much. The fear of losing votes stops politicians from taking away tax breaks and other advantages. That's not a justification. If you support gay marriage you need to demonstrate that if provides the same benefits to society that traditional marriage does. If your position is that neither provides benefits, or it provides some but not all, your justifications should be strong. Someone mentioned that it creates a stable society. If so, there is a justification. It seems to me that most of the benefits we want from marriage are actually more related to raising children and procreation. If we recognize gay marriage, all those benefits should be transferred exclusively to persons who actually have children (and probably do this anyways), so we don't let freeloaders on the rolls. Yes, we give incentives for married couples to have children. But homosexual couples can go through numerous ways to get a child. That is not justification for denying gay marriage. Your view is that we give benefits for those couples with child. If so, then you should also admit that hetero couples without child should not receive benefits either. The reason I support gay marriage is because hetero couples receive rights that gay couples currently do not. Since no one in power is willing to take away those rights from hetero couples, I support the alternative that gay couples receive those rights as well. I agree, my position is simply that we need to eliminate the benefits before granting the rights. Otherwise the situation gets out of control, and I think Gay Marriage is way more susceptible to fraud than regular marriage. Chuck & Larry was a comedy, but it illustrates something that could happen pretty often, particularly with things like social security benefits.
Marriage fraud already happens with hetero marriages.
|
On October 21 2011 07:03 sevencck wrote:
The reason I'd say this isn't progressive is that the Australian govt. doesn't want to face the backlash associated with taking a position on this issue, so it's going to weasel out of its duty by letting the public decide (which will likely vote nay). I'd have to call this a failure on almost every level.
Discussion has moved away from this somewhat, but I'd just like to point out that a conscience vote is a vote in parliament, not a public vote. That would be a referendum, I believe...
|
On October 21 2011 08:33 bkrow wrote:However, it would be nice to live in a world where society has evolved beyond primitive religious beliefs
^ So incredibly true.
Love is love regardless of the gender of the two people. They deserve their rights.
|
I totally don't care, and therefor I'm for it. As long as people are happy I guess? It's not like their.. uhh.. gayness intrude on others.
|
On October 21 2011 08:38 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 08:33 bkrow wrote:On October 21 2011 08:13 GeyzeR wrote:On October 21 2011 07:17 JudicatorHammurabi 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. Woah, why did he get banned for this? He basically said "Please don't ban me if my opinion happens to offend someone", not "I'm going to get banned for this so here I go". There's a huge difference... He got banned just for this phrase: "If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot." The rest is OK, being gay is unnatural indeed, because from the nature point of view you have to breed. "Please don't ban me" should be simply ignored, only what comes after matters. Maybe he meant "when I imagine gay sex...", not "being gay is disgusting". Consider that his English is far from perfect and that he says later that as long as gays are happy, it is OK. Anyway, ban for that is too much IMHO and there is huge probability that word "disgusting" refers to his feelings when he imagine gay sex, that maybe still not nice to express, but definitely not a ban. The guy is from a Slavic country, where it is relatively easy to find a nice women, and the gay culture is not popular at all. He did not realize how sensitive is this topic in the Western world. Consider everything above I suggest it is OK for TL community to replace the ban with temp ban for few days. I am sorry but please don't spread misinformation. He got banned for martyring. Saying "I hope i don't get banned" or "i'll probably get banned" achieves the same purpose; while there is a difference in the phrase, it is still martyring. His opinion was not overly offensive (unless you are sensitive to the issue.) The reason he was perm banned rather than temp banned is usually due to his poor post history. There is discussion about the ban in this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=95875¤tpage=594#11882On October 21 2011 08:21 Roe wrote:
I have a question: do jewish people have different marriages than christians? and muslims, hindus, etc? If so, then it should follow that a society/state can call their own marriage by that same name under a secular definition. The ceremony is different yes. The problem is the majority of people associate marriage as a religious institution; and because said religions have a huge issue with homosexuality, therefore it is unnatural and forbidden. However, it would be nice to live in a world where society has evolved beyond primitive religious beliefs Those "primitive religious beliefs" are essentially a set of guidelines on how to form a functioning community. Given their proven track record of success, I would be careful before discarding them wholesale. I do not want Australia to become an object lesson. I am not only talking about homosexual marriage.
They're one set of guidelines that have worked. Whether they worked because of those guidelines or it's just one big coincidence is up for debate. There are also many other guidelines out there that do no involve blatant bigotry and fearmongering.
|
On October 21 2011 08:38 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 08:33 bkrow wrote:On October 21 2011 08:13 GeyzeR wrote:On October 21 2011 07:17 JudicatorHammurabi 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. Woah, why did he get banned for this? He basically said "Please don't ban me if my opinion happens to offend someone", not "I'm going to get banned for this so here I go". There's a huge difference... He got banned just for this phrase: "If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot." The rest is OK, being gay is unnatural indeed, because from the nature point of view you have to breed. "Please don't ban me" should be simply ignored, only what comes after matters. Maybe he meant "when I imagine gay sex...", not "being gay is disgusting". Consider that his English is far from perfect and that he says later that as long as gays are happy, it is OK. Anyway, ban for that is too much IMHO and there is huge probability that word "disgusting" refers to his feelings when he imagine gay sex, that maybe still not nice to express, but definitely not a ban. The guy is from a Slavic country, where it is relatively easy to find a nice women, and the gay culture is not popular at all. He did not realize how sensitive is this topic in the Western world. Consider everything above I suggest it is OK for TL community to replace the ban with temp ban for few days. I am sorry but please don't spread misinformation. He got banned for martyring. Saying "I hope i don't get banned" or "i'll probably get banned" achieves the same purpose; while there is a difference in the phrase, it is still martyring. His opinion was not overly offensive (unless you are sensitive to the issue.) The reason he was perm banned rather than temp banned is usually due to his poor post history. There is discussion about the ban in this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=95875¤tpage=594#11882On October 21 2011 08:21 Roe wrote:
I have a question: do jewish people have different marriages than christians? and muslims, hindus, etc? If so, then it should follow that a society/state can call their own marriage by that same name under a secular definition. The ceremony is different yes. The problem is the majority of people associate marriage as a religious institution; and because said religions have a huge issue with homosexuality, therefore it is unnatural and forbidden. However, it would be nice to live in a world where society has evolved beyond primitive religious beliefs Those "primitive religious beliefs" are essentially a set of guidelines on how to form a functioning community. Given their proven track record of success, I would be careful before discarding them wholesale. I do not want Australia to become an object lesson. I am not only talking about homosexual marriage.
What? You want slavery and nonequality for women's rights? Death Penalty for Gays? Death Penalty by stoning?
Modern morals do not align with those primitive religious beliefs at all.
|
Hey, Australia isn't that homophobic and bigoted. Lots of us support gay rights.
|
|
|
Australia8532 Posts
On October 21 2011 08:38 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 08:33 bkrow wrote:On October 21 2011 08:13 GeyzeR wrote:On October 21 2011 07:17 JudicatorHammurabi 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. Woah, why did he get banned for this? He basically said "Please don't ban me if my opinion happens to offend someone", not "I'm going to get banned for this so here I go". There's a huge difference... He got banned just for this phrase: "If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot." The rest is OK, being gay is unnatural indeed, because from the nature point of view you have to breed. "Please don't ban me" should be simply ignored, only what comes after matters. Maybe he meant "when I imagine gay sex...", not "being gay is disgusting". Consider that his English is far from perfect and that he says later that as long as gays are happy, it is OK. Anyway, ban for that is too much IMHO and there is huge probability that word "disgusting" refers to his feelings when he imagine gay sex, that maybe still not nice to express, but definitely not a ban. The guy is from a Slavic country, where it is relatively easy to find a nice women, and the gay culture is not popular at all. He did not realize how sensitive is this topic in the Western world. Consider everything above I suggest it is OK for TL community to replace the ban with temp ban for few days. I am sorry but please don't spread misinformation. He got banned for martyring. Saying "I hope i don't get banned" or "i'll probably get banned" achieves the same purpose; while there is a difference in the phrase, it is still martyring. His opinion was not overly offensive (unless you are sensitive to the issue.) The reason he was perm banned rather than temp banned is usually due to his poor post history. There is discussion about the ban in this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=95875¤tpage=594#11882On October 21 2011 08:21 Roe wrote:
I have a question: do jewish people have different marriages than christians? and muslims, hindus, etc? If so, then it should follow that a society/state can call their own marriage by that same name under a secular definition. The ceremony is different yes. The problem is the majority of people associate marriage as a religious institution; and because said religions have a huge issue with homosexuality, therefore it is unnatural and forbidden. However, it would be nice to live in a world where society has evolved beyond primitive religious beliefs Those "primitive religious beliefs" are essentially a set of guidelines on how to form a functioning community. Given their proven track record of success, I would be careful before discarding them wholesale. I do not want Australia to become an object lesson. I am not only talking about homosexual marriage.
I am not talking about every religious idea or religion in general (which to be honest isn't such a bad idea if you look at the amount of terrible things religion has been used as an excuse for) - i am strictly referring to gay marriage. Legalizing gay marriage will not send our country into a spiral of doom or cause an apocalypse - it is simply recognising equal rights for all.
You are basically saying:
religion says no to gay marriage because it is a "sin"
religion seems to have worked in the past
therefore we should all say no to gay marriage
That just isn't enough for me; and it shouldn't be enough for anyone that is using logic (as opposed to belief and faith)
|
On October 21 2011 08:38 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 08:33 bkrow wrote:On October 21 2011 08:13 GeyzeR wrote:On October 21 2011 07:17 JudicatorHammurabi 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. Woah, why did he get banned for this? He basically said "Please don't ban me if my opinion happens to offend someone", not "I'm going to get banned for this so here I go". There's a huge difference... He got banned just for this phrase: "If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot." The rest is OK, being gay is unnatural indeed, because from the nature point of view you have to breed. "Please don't ban me" should be simply ignored, only what comes after matters. Maybe he meant "when I imagine gay sex...", not "being gay is disgusting". Consider that his English is far from perfect and that he says later that as long as gays are happy, it is OK. Anyway, ban for that is too much IMHO and there is huge probability that word "disgusting" refers to his feelings when he imagine gay sex, that maybe still not nice to express, but definitely not a ban. The guy is from a Slavic country, where it is relatively easy to find a nice women, and the gay culture is not popular at all. He did not realize how sensitive is this topic in the Western world. Consider everything above I suggest it is OK for TL community to replace the ban with temp ban for few days. I am sorry but please don't spread misinformation. He got banned for martyring. Saying "I hope i don't get banned" or "i'll probably get banned" achieves the same purpose; while there is a difference in the phrase, it is still martyring. His opinion was not overly offensive (unless you are sensitive to the issue.) The reason he was perm banned rather than temp banned is usually due to his poor post history. There is discussion about the ban in this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=95875¤tpage=594#11882On October 21 2011 08:21 Roe wrote:
I have a question: do jewish people have different marriages than christians? and muslims, hindus, etc? If so, then it should follow that a society/state can call their own marriage by that same name under a secular definition. The ceremony is different yes. The problem is the majority of people associate marriage as a religious institution; and because said religions have a huge issue with homosexuality, therefore it is unnatural and forbidden. However, it would be nice to live in a world where society has evolved beyond primitive religious beliefs Those "primitive religious beliefs" are essentially a set of guidelines on how to form a functioning community. Given their proven track record of success, I would be careful before discarding them wholesale. I do not want Australia to become an object lesson. I am not only talking about homosexual marriage.
That's the thing, they're guidelines, and they're old. Even though many of us may not have been born into a religious family, we were still able to come up with a perfectly reasonable moral code for ourselves. Things like 'thou shalt not steal' and 'treat others as you wish to be treated' and such and such, are lessons that many of us learned when we were growing up. Following the Bible might have been a shortcut, but I think we learn more by making those mistakes ourselves (with the exception of obvious ones like 'thou shalt not kill'). And even worse, I think by not making mistakes, one does not grow as a person. You don't appreciate the wisdom of it, you just do it because you've been told to do it.
Modern society, with a growing atheist population, has proven that we don't need implicit trust in a book to generate our own set of values and morals. It's still useful for a set of guidelines and a moral compass for those that choose to follow it, but many of us don't need it. Two-thousand years later, many parts of the Bible can be handidly thrown out as outdated ideas (submit to your husband, and yada yada), because they're simply no longer relevant and over-time, even more will be.
|
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 don't understand why this user was banned for his opinion.
|
On October 21 2011 08:39 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 08:38 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 08:21 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:13 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 08:05 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:03 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:42 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 07:38 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:34 Thorakh wrote:On October 21 2011 07:32 cLutZ wrote:
[quote]
Why does the government WANT to give a pair of people legal advantages over two single people?
I'm assuming they don't want to but at this point it's too late to back out since the people would never accept not having marriage. They have to give everyone the same rights and as such gay marriage has to be legal. So does that means that tax breaks, etc are going to be rolled back for all married people? Technically, recognizing gay marriage is both a massive tax break and a massive increase in government expenditures. On October 21 2011 07:34 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 07:32 cLutZ wrote:
[quote]
Why does the government WANT to give a pair of people legal advantages over two single people?
Similar to how the Christian Church pushed for heterosexual marriage, as a means of procreation. How does that apply in the gay marriage context. It doesn't, that's the problem. The anti-gay marriage crowd will say shit like marriage is supposed to strengthen traditional family roles and further human procreation. Those were the reasons back in the dark ages, they no longer apply. So what rationales DO apply for state-recognized marriage? Other than losing half of the voting population, not much. The fear of losing votes stops politicians from taking away tax breaks and other advantages. That's not a justification. If you support gay marriage you need to demonstrate that if provides the same benefits to society that traditional marriage does. If your position is that neither provides benefits, or it provides some but not all, your justifications should be strong. Someone mentioned that it creates a stable society. If so, there is a justification. It seems to me that most of the benefits we want from marriage are actually more related to raising children and procreation. If we recognize gay marriage, all those benefits should be transferred exclusively to persons who actually have children (and probably do this anyways), so we don't let freeloaders on the rolls. Yes, we give incentives for married couples to have children. But homosexual couples can go through numerous ways to get a child. That is not justification for denying gay marriage. Your view is that we give benefits for those couples with child. If so, then you should also admit that hetero couples without child should not receive benefits either. The reason I support gay marriage is because hetero couples receive rights that gay couples currently do not. Since no one in power is willing to take away those rights from hetero couples, I support the alternative that gay couples receive those rights as well. I agree, my position is simply that we need to eliminate the benefits before granting the rights. Otherwise the situation gets out of control, and I think Gay Marriage is way more susceptible to fraud than regular marriage. Chuck & Larry was a comedy, but it illustrates something that could happen pretty often, particularly with things like social security benefits. Marriage fraud already happens with hetero marriages.
No one disagrees with that assertion. That is not central to the discussion.
You can marginalize every argument against gay marriage individually, and say "see its not a big deal." When you deal with them cumulatively it is much harder. That is why pro-gay marriage people never do it.
I don't really care about anything other than eliminating the incentives altogether, but the questions are never answered.
Can they raise children? Yes, but is harder.
Is it more susceptible to fraud? It would appear, on its face, to be.
Do they convey the same benefits? No.
Would it create substantial new burdens? Yes.
Etc.
|
Suprising to hear. My understanding Australian politics is that they tend to be rather more conservative than other commonwealth countries (UK, Canada, NZ) - though not as conservative as the US. Would that be an accurate thing to say?
On October 21 2011 08:49 MaverickSC 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 don't understand why this user was banned for his opinion.
He wasn't necessarily. The "I hope I dont get banned" is martyring and is frowned on by our TL overlords.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
