|
On October 21 2011 09:15 dtvu wrote:
As far as I can see, there aren't many aspects of society that will be affected gay marriages. What will happen is that the public will see more gay weddings, gay people openly kissing/hugging/holding hands on the street. While there's nothing wrong with this, the one group of people that will greatly be affected are our children. Children often imitate our behaviours, so the question is that are we comfortable with our children seeing this as the norm and imitating it. Will the child believe he/she is gay because his/her parents are gay?
Most people know from a very young age if they are gay or straight, seeing gay people kiss wont make you think you're gay if you have interest in people of the opposite sex.
|
United States7483 Posts
On October 21 2011 08:56 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:really fucked up century if you ask me sometimes i wish i lived in 19th century or somethink , next thing you know people will marry computers dogs cats etc ;(
This argument is nearly the biggest piece of shit in the history of logical arguments.
Let me break this down for you:
Firstly, in no way shape or form is marrying another human of the same gender a step towards marrying inanimate objects or non-humans. That doesn't make even one iota of sense.
Secondly, even if it were a step in that direction (WHICH IT ISN'T), it doesn't mean it will get that far, and there's no reason to think it will. It's called a slippery slope argument, and it's invalid. In other words, it's a shitty argument.
Thirdly, this argument is nothing more than a scare tactic to try to get people to think "oh shit, this really bad thing might happen if we allow this, better stop it." No, that's not acceptable, and no, it's not a good argument.
You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it.
As far as I can see, there aren't many aspects of society that will be affected gay marriages. What will happen is that the public will see more gay weddings, gay people openly kissing/hugging/holding hands on the street. While there's nothing wrong with this, the one group of people that will greatly be affected are our children. Children often imitate our behaviours, so the question is that are we comfortable with our children seeing this as the norm and imitating it. Will the child believe he/she is gay because his/her parents are gay?
100% of legitimate scientific studies on the issue all agree that no, this won't and doesn't happen. The same studies also show that statistically, two gay parents are more likely to raise happy and well adjusted children.
So, no, I don't see the problem.
|
I am for gay marriage.
The only reasonable excuse for not allowing gay marriage is because marriage is a religious matramony, and obviously christianity is against homosexuality.
However religion is a dying tradition, and gay marriage will eventually be allowed. its only a matter of time
|
I don't think there should be Gay Marriage ... but before you flame me as a bigot, read on...
What I think they should do is separate out the concepts of a "civil union" and "marriage".
A Civil Union should be a "legal condition" entered into by two parties and is registered & recognized by the government. The Union should be between only two people at a time, should be available for any two consenting adults REGARDLESS OF SEX. This means both Homo and Hetero can enter into a civil union.This Union entitles the participants to all the rights and obligations traditionally enjoyed by a "married couple" (ie, combined assets, separation of assets in event of separation, equal right to children, next of kin in event of emergency etc).
A "Marriage" should be relegated to the realm of the religious or the traditionalist. A Marriage should have no recognition in law and should only be a ceremony engaged in to satisfy spiritual needs, the religious community or the traditions of your culture. In order to get married, you need to satisfy the requirements of the organisation performing the ceremony. I.e If you want a christian ceremony, you need to follow christian guidelines (i.e no Gay Marriage), but if you are of the Mormon faith, then you could have multiple Wives through Marriage... but not have Multiple Civil Union Partners.
If this was adopted by a government, it would be one step further towards separation of Church and State. You Can have a Legally recognized Union, a church recognized Marriage, or Both... but they are two separate things each with their own entry and exit conditions.
There could be many advantages to this system. For example any couple (Gay or Straight) would achieve legal equality under a civil union, since in order to be legally recognized EVERYONE must have a Civil Union Registration in place. However the religious groups would be satisfied that the "sanctity of marriage" was being upheld as only those living in "church approved" circumstances would be allowed to get "married".
If a Church approved couple got "Married" but wanted it to be legal, then they must ALSO sign a Civil Union contract and have it registered.
If a Gay couple wanted to not only have a Civil Union but ALSO become "Married", then they need to find an organisation willing to perform the ceremony (which may or may not be problematic.)
But I'm not sure why a Gay couple would want to be "Joined under god" since the concept of a Christian Homosexual is kinda hypocritical in any case.
|
On October 21 2011 09:28 Champi wrote:
The only reasonable excuse for not allowing gay marriage is because marriage is a religious matramony, and obviously christianity is against homosexuality.
I guess my parent's marriage don't count then, bummer.
|
On October 21 2011 09:24 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 08:56 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:On October 21 2011 07:33 Klyberess wrote:
WTF, what century is this? really fucked up century if you ask me sometimes i wish i lived in 19th century or somethink , next thing you know people will marry computers dogs cats etc ;( This argument is nearly the biggest piece of shit in the history of logical arguments. Let me break this down for you: Firstly, in no way shape or form is marrying another human of the same gender a step towards marrying inanimate objects or non-humans. That doesn't make even one iota of sense. Secondly, even if it were a step in that direction (WHICH IT ISN'T), it doesn't mean it will get that far, and there's no reason to think it will. It's called a slippery slope argument, and it's invalid. In other words, it's a shitty argument. Thirdly, this argument is nothing more than a scare tactic to try to get people to think "oh shit, this really bad thing might happen if we allow this, better stop it." No, that's not acceptable, and no, it's not a good argument. You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it. Show nested quote +
As far as I can see, there aren't many aspects of society that will be affected gay marriages. What will happen is that the public will see more gay weddings, gay people openly kissing/hugging/holding hands on the street. While there's nothing wrong with this, the one group of people that will greatly be affected are our children. Children often imitate our behaviours, so the question is that are we comfortable with our children seeing this as the norm and imitating it. Will the child believe he/she is gay because his/her parents are gay?
100% of legitimate scientific studies on the issue all agree that no, this won't and doesn't happen. The same studies also show that statistically, two gay parents are significantly more likely to raise happy and well adjusted children. So, no, I don't see the problem.
As for the last: citation please. From what I recall, the only study to deal with that was self reporting early and mid childhood outcomes.
What I want to see, is if two gay parents are more/less likely to raise productive and law abiding adult citizens, than the traditional nuclear family (controlling for income). Frankly, I don't give a shit if children are happier or not from ages 5-12, if from 18 onwards they are lazy, narcissistic pricks.
|
On October 21 2011 09:24 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 08:56 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:On October 21 2011 07:33 Klyberess wrote:
WTF, what century is this? really fucked up century if you ask me sometimes i wish i lived in 19th century or somethink , next thing you know people will marry computers dogs cats etc ;( This argument is nearly the biggest piece of shit in the history of logical arguments. Let me break this down for you: Firstly, in no way shape or form is marrying another human of the same gender a step towards marrying inanimate objects or non-humans. That doesn't make even one iota of sense. Secondly, even if it were a step in that direction (WHICH IT ISN'T), it doesn't mean it will get that far, and there's no reason to think it will. It's called a slippery slope argument, and it's invalid. In other words, it's a shitty argument. Thirdly, this argument is nothing more than a scare tactic to try to get people to think "oh shit, this really bad thing might happen if we allow this, better stop it." No, that's not acceptable, and no, it's not a good argument. You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it.
Why are you discriminating against people who love animals or objects? Just because society has indoctrinated you to be a bigot doesn't mean the government should discriminate against people who love such things. Is homosexual love superior to non-human love? Shouldn't such people be afforded the same rights we afford to hetero- and homo-sexuals?
I don't understand how you can support discriminating against these people just because they feel something different than what you are used to.
You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it.
|
On October 21 2011 09:32 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 09:24 Whitewing wrote:On October 21 2011 08:56 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:On October 21 2011 07:33 Klyberess wrote:
WTF, what century is this? really fucked up century if you ask me sometimes i wish i lived in 19th century or somethink , next thing you know people will marry computers dogs cats etc ;( This argument is nearly the biggest piece of shit in the history of logical arguments. Let me break this down for you: Firstly, in no way shape or form is marrying another human of the same gender a step towards marrying inanimate objects or non-humans. That doesn't make even one iota of sense. Secondly, even if it were a step in that direction (WHICH IT ISN'T), it doesn't mean it will get that far, and there's no reason to think it will. It's called a slippery slope argument, and it's invalid. In other words, it's a shitty argument. Thirdly, this argument is nothing more than a scare tactic to try to get people to think "oh shit, this really bad thing might happen if we allow this, better stop it." No, that's not acceptable, and no, it's not a good argument. You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it. Why are you discriminating against people who love animals or objects? Just because society has indoctrinated you to be a bigot doesn't mean the government should discriminate against people who love such things. Is homosexual love superior to non-human love? Shouldn't such people be afforded the same rights we afford to hetero- and homo-sexuals? I don't understand how you can support discriminating against these people just because they feel something different than what you are used to. You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it.
I don't think he said anything against marriage to inanimate objects or children/animals.
|
On October 21 2011 09:24 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 08:56 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:On October 21 2011 07:33 Klyberess wrote:
WTF, what century is this? really fucked up century if you ask me sometimes i wish i lived in 19th century or somethink , next thing you know people will marry computers dogs cats etc ;( This argument is nearly the biggest piece of shit in the history of logical arguments. Let me break this down for you: Firstly, in no way shape or form is marrying another human of the same gender a step towards marrying inanimate objects or non-humans. That doesn't make even one iota of sense. Secondly, even if it were a step in that direction (WHICH IT ISN'T), it doesn't mean it will get that far, and there's no reason to think it will. It's called a slippery slope argument, and it's invalid. In other words, it's a shitty argument. Thirdly, this argument is nothing more than a scare tactic to try to get people to think "oh shit, this really bad thing might happen if we allow this, better stop it." No, that's not acceptable, and no, it's not a good argument. You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it. Show nested quote +
As far as I can see, there aren't many aspects of society that will be affected gay marriages. What will happen is that the public will see more gay weddings, gay people openly kissing/hugging/holding hands on the street. While there's nothing wrong with this, the one group of people that will greatly be affected are our children. Children often imitate our behaviours, so the question is that are we comfortable with our children seeing this as the norm and imitating it. Will the child believe he/she is gay because his/her parents are gay?
100% of legitimate scientific studies on the issue all agree that no, this won't and doesn't happen. The same studies also show that statistically, two gay parents are significantly more likely to raise happy and well adjusted children. So, no, I don't see the problem.
scietific studies proves that two gay parents are significantly more likely to raise happy and well adjusted children? are you kidding me?how its possible to make study like that...im afraid that with studies like this its soon will be bad to be heterosexual if you want happy kid...omg
|
It's a mark of international shame that it isn't legal everywhere. Our grandchildren will laugh at us for our bigotry.
Good luck Aussie brothers and sisters.
|
United States7483 Posts
On October 21 2011 09:32 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 09:24 Whitewing wrote:On October 21 2011 08:56 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:On October 21 2011 07:33 Klyberess wrote:
WTF, what century is this? really fucked up century if you ask me sometimes i wish i lived in 19th century or somethink , next thing you know people will marry computers dogs cats etc ;( This argument is nearly the biggest piece of shit in the history of logical arguments. Let me break this down for you: Firstly, in no way shape or form is marrying another human of the same gender a step towards marrying inanimate objects or non-humans. That doesn't make even one iota of sense. Secondly, even if it were a step in that direction (WHICH IT ISN'T), it doesn't mean it will get that far, and there's no reason to think it will. It's called a slippery slope argument, and it's invalid. In other words, it's a shitty argument. Thirdly, this argument is nothing more than a scare tactic to try to get people to think "oh shit, this really bad thing might happen if we allow this, better stop it." No, that's not acceptable, and no, it's not a good argument. You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it. Why are you discriminating against people who love animals or objects? Just because society has indoctrinated you to be a bigot doesn't mean the government should discriminate against people who love such things. Is homosexual love superior to non-human love? Shouldn't such people be afforded the same rights we afford to hetero- and homo-sexuals? I don't understand how you can support discriminating against these people just because they feel something different than what you are used to. You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it.
Firstly, I said absolutely nothing against love between people and animals or people and inanimate objects, I said that in no way shape or form does that result logically follow from gay marriage, so your entire post is nonsensical and shows poor reading skills.
Secondly, there's a big difference here: marriage between two consenting adults who are rationally capable of entering into such an agreement and marriage between one adult and an animal or object which can't consent is a pretty big distinction.
|
On October 21 2011 09:32 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 09:24 Whitewing wrote:On October 21 2011 08:56 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:On October 21 2011 07:33 Klyberess wrote:
WTF, what century is this? really fucked up century if you ask me sometimes i wish i lived in 19th century or somethink , next thing you know people will marry computers dogs cats etc ;( This argument is nearly the biggest piece of shit in the history of logical arguments. Let me break this down for you: Firstly, in no way shape or form is marrying another human of the same gender a step towards marrying inanimate objects or non-humans. That doesn't make even one iota of sense. Secondly, even if it were a step in that direction (WHICH IT ISN'T), it doesn't mean it will get that far, and there's no reason to think it will. It's called a slippery slope argument, and it's invalid. In other words, it's a shitty argument. Thirdly, this argument is nothing more than a scare tactic to try to get people to think "oh shit, this really bad thing might happen if we allow this, better stop it." No, that's not acceptable, and no, it's not a good argument. You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it. Why are you discriminating against people who love animals or objects? Just because society has indoctrinated you to be a bigot doesn't mean the government should discriminate against people who love such things. Is homosexual love superior to non-human love? Shouldn't such people be afforded the same rights we afford to hetero- and homo-sexuals? I don't understand how you can support discriminating against these people just because they feel something different than what you are used to. You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it.
- Animals and objects can't consent. How can they get married if one of the partners in the marriage never agrees to it?
- Gay couples can
|
On October 21 2011 09:37 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 09:24 Whitewing wrote:On October 21 2011 08:56 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:On October 21 2011 07:33 Klyberess wrote:
WTF, what century is this? really fucked up century if you ask me sometimes i wish i lived in 19th century or somethink , next thing you know people will marry computers dogs cats etc ;( This argument is nearly the biggest piece of shit in the history of logical arguments. Let me break this down for you: Firstly, in no way shape or form is marrying another human of the same gender a step towards marrying inanimate objects or non-humans. That doesn't make even one iota of sense. Secondly, even if it were a step in that direction (WHICH IT ISN'T), it doesn't mean it will get that far, and there's no reason to think it will. It's called a slippery slope argument, and it's invalid. In other words, it's a shitty argument. Thirdly, this argument is nothing more than a scare tactic to try to get people to think "oh shit, this really bad thing might happen if we allow this, better stop it." No, that's not acceptable, and no, it's not a good argument. You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it.
As far as I can see, there aren't many aspects of society that will be affected gay marriages. What will happen is that the public will see more gay weddings, gay people openly kissing/hugging/holding hands on the street. While there's nothing wrong with this, the one group of people that will greatly be affected are our children. Children often imitate our behaviours, so the question is that are we comfortable with our children seeing this as the norm and imitating it. Will the child believe he/she is gay because his/her parents are gay?
100% of legitimate scientific studies on the issue all agree that no, this won't and doesn't happen. The same studies also show that statistically, two gay parents are significantly more likely to raise happy and well adjusted children. So, no, I don't see the problem. scietific studies proves that two gay parents are significantly more likely to raise happy and well adjusted children? are you kidding me?how its possible to make study like that...im afraid that with studies like this its soon will be bad to be heterosexual if you want happy kid...omg
Like, omg, I don't research this topic myself, so, like, I don't understand what we're talking about, so, like, omg, I'll just use logical fallacies to make myself superior, omg.
|
On October 21 2011 09:33 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 09:32 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 21 2011 09:24 Whitewing wrote:On October 21 2011 08:56 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:On October 21 2011 07:33 Klyberess wrote:
WTF, what century is this? really fucked up century if you ask me sometimes i wish i lived in 19th century or somethink , next thing you know people will marry computers dogs cats etc ;( This argument is nearly the biggest piece of shit in the history of logical arguments. Let me break this down for you: Firstly, in no way shape or form is marrying another human of the same gender a step towards marrying inanimate objects or non-humans. That doesn't make even one iota of sense. Secondly, even if it were a step in that direction (WHICH IT ISN'T), it doesn't mean it will get that far, and there's no reason to think it will. It's called a slippery slope argument, and it's invalid. In other words, it's a shitty argument. Thirdly, this argument is nothing more than a scare tactic to try to get people to think "oh shit, this really bad thing might happen if we allow this, better stop it." No, that's not acceptable, and no, it's not a good argument. You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it. Why are you discriminating against people who love animals or objects? Just because society has indoctrinated you to be a bigot doesn't mean the government should discriminate against people who love such things. Is homosexual love superior to non-human love? Shouldn't such people be afforded the same rights we afford to hetero- and homo-sexuals? I don't understand how you can support discriminating against these people just because they feel something different than what you are used to. You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it. I don't think he said anything against marriage to inanimate objects or children/animals.
Pretty sure he didn't.
jdseemoreglass tried to be clever and it didn't work.
|
|
|
United States7483 Posts
On October 21 2011 09:31 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 09:24 Whitewing wrote:On October 21 2011 08:56 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:On October 21 2011 07:33 Klyberess wrote:
WTF, what century is this? really fucked up century if you ask me sometimes i wish i lived in 19th century or somethink , next thing you know people will marry computers dogs cats etc ;( This argument is nearly the biggest piece of shit in the history of logical arguments. Let me break this down for you: Firstly, in no way shape or form is marrying another human of the same gender a step towards marrying inanimate objects or non-humans. That doesn't make even one iota of sense. Secondly, even if it were a step in that direction (WHICH IT ISN'T), it doesn't mean it will get that far, and there's no reason to think it will. It's called a slippery slope argument, and it's invalid. In other words, it's a shitty argument. Thirdly, this argument is nothing more than a scare tactic to try to get people to think "oh shit, this really bad thing might happen if we allow this, better stop it." No, that's not acceptable, and no, it's not a good argument. You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it.
As far as I can see, there aren't many aspects of society that will be affected gay marriages. What will happen is that the public will see more gay weddings, gay people openly kissing/hugging/holding hands on the street. While there's nothing wrong with this, the one group of people that will greatly be affected are our children. Children often imitate our behaviours, so the question is that are we comfortable with our children seeing this as the norm and imitating it. Will the child believe he/she is gay because his/her parents are gay?
100% of legitimate scientific studies on the issue all agree that no, this won't and doesn't happen. The same studies also show that statistically, two gay parents are more likely to raise happy and well adjusted children, and that children raised by such couples are not worse off. So, no, I don't see the problem. As for the last: citation please. From what I recall, the only study to deal with that was self reporting early and mid childhood outcomes. What I want to see, is if two gay parents are more/less likely to raise productive and law abiding adult citizens, than the traditional nuclear family (controlling for income). Frankly, I don't give a shit if children are happier or not from ages 5-12, if from 18 onwards they are lazy, narcissistic pricks.
Here are some sources:
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids
http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/200214.aspx
I haven't researched this in a while, but if you need some more sources, I'm sure I can dig some up.
|
On October 21 2011 09:44 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 09:31 vetinari wrote:On October 21 2011 09:24 Whitewing wrote:On October 21 2011 08:56 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:On October 21 2011 07:33 Klyberess wrote:
WTF, what century is this? really fucked up century if you ask me sometimes i wish i lived in 19th century or somethink , next thing you know people will marry computers dogs cats etc ;( This argument is nearly the biggest piece of shit in the history of logical arguments. Let me break this down for you: Firstly, in no way shape or form is marrying another human of the same gender a step towards marrying inanimate objects or non-humans. That doesn't make even one iota of sense. Secondly, even if it were a step in that direction (WHICH IT ISN'T), it doesn't mean it will get that far, and there's no reason to think it will. It's called a slippery slope argument, and it's invalid. In other words, it's a shitty argument. Thirdly, this argument is nothing more than a scare tactic to try to get people to think "oh shit, this really bad thing might happen if we allow this, better stop it." No, that's not acceptable, and no, it's not a good argument. You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it.
As far as I can see, there aren't many aspects of society that will be affected gay marriages. What will happen is that the public will see more gay weddings, gay people openly kissing/hugging/holding hands on the street. While there's nothing wrong with this, the one group of people that will greatly be affected are our children. Children often imitate our behaviours, so the question is that are we comfortable with our children seeing this as the norm and imitating it. Will the child believe he/she is gay because his/her parents are gay?
100% of legitimate scientific studies on the issue all agree that no, this won't and doesn't happen. The same studies also show that statistically, two gay parents are more likely to raise happy and well adjusted children, and that children raised by such couples are not worse off. So, no, I don't see the problem. As for the last: citation please. From what I recall, the only study to deal with that was self reporting early and mid childhood outcomes. What I want to see, is if two gay parents are more/less likely to raise productive and law abiding adult citizens, than the traditional nuclear family (controlling for income). Frankly, I don't give a shit if children are happier or not from ages 5-12, if from 18 onwards they are lazy, narcissistic pricks. Here are some sources: http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kidshttp://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/200214.aspx
Disregard science -> read bible.
All the facts in the world wont change a bigot's opinion, its quite sad 
|
re: polygamy argument -- i think you are understanding, if not with the best articulation, one of the problems with the gay marriage issue and why a lot of people in the LGBT community don't really care for the direction of it. what's trying to be sold is the freedom at the expense of other freedoms--the attempt is to force a largely heteronormative lifestyle on a public that has existed as an opposing force to that normativity. we should be focusing on establishing fair domestic partnerships, not enforcing conjugality or marriage licenses as a determinant for benefits, as freedom to marry is being given at the expense of the freedom to construct your household. http://beyondmarriage.org/ is on the right track!
still though, i guess i'm on board.
|
That's an interesting study, and I wish I could read it for free, but from the abstract, it implies that they did not use families of two homosexual women or two homosexual men in the studies. Only single mothers, heterosexual couples, and single mothers with one or more father figures.
|
On October 21 2011 07:12 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 06:42 PanoRaMa wrote:Anyway, Australians, what is the % likelihood that gay marriage is allowed? In California we felt pretty good about Prop 8 getting turned down (at least in my geodemographic) but we lost by a bit What do you mean? We felt pretty good about Prop 8 getting turned down but we lost by a bit? Completely confused .
Prop 8 in California was the proposition to keep Gay Marriage banned in California, and the opposing argument would vote no to this prop. There was huge support NOT in favor of prop 8, which was quite radical at the time (this was before New York allowed gay marriage), but afaik we lost by 46-54 or somewhere thereabouts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
