Washington State Votes to Approve Gay Marriage - Page 11

On February 09 2012 20:25 Cubu wrote:
Marriage is a formal union between a man and WOman. It really takes the integrity of marriage away.

On February 09 2012 20:35 Rabbitmaster wrote:


No, marriage is a word. Which in the past, very homophobic, western culture (i wont speak for other cultures in not as familiar with) meant a union between a man and a woman. However society and morals evolve with time, despite the efforts of many. Do you belive that a man and a woman should both be stoned if they have sex during her period? Or being stoned for working on the sabbath? (i mean stoned as in execution, not as in "get high" btw). You need to mind your own business, and let people do what the fuck they want. No one is gonna force unwilling churches to marry people.



Engineering implies conscious intention. And that is not what is going on here.

On February 09 2012 20:25 Cubu wrote:
Marriage is a formal union between a man and WOman. It really takes the integrity of marriage away.

On February 09 2012 20:45 vetinari wrote:


Because changing things without having any clue about what might be the consequences of your actions is somehow any better?

I don't object to social engineering. I just object to the liberal variety, since I believe that liberals do not place proper weight on loyalty, order or beauty, which cannot help but cause a worse society in the long run (even if its better in the short run. Its like running a car 3000 revs over the redline. It will be great for a bit, but then it breaks).

On February 09 2012 20:40 zalz wrote:


You don't understand the term "social engineering."

That isn't a bad thing, but don't pretend that you do when it is incredibly obvious that you don't.


And to answer your question/confusion.

No, that is indeed, not social engineering.

On February 09 2012 19:02 HypnotyZ wrote:
I live in Seattle and will be voting against gay marriage on this prop... For the record, I'm for gays in the military. I have nothing against gay people, I'm not religious, nor am I homophobic in the least. My political views are mostly liberal.

I think that marriage is something special between a man and a woman. A man and a woman are supposed to take their wedding vows to their grave. Society has begun to accept divorice as a perfectly normal and acceptable thing. It used to always be shunned. Often spouses are quick to file for divorice, without trying to work out their marital issues. It's becoming increasingly common for couples to get married way too early in their relationships without figuring out if they're truly compatable with their mate. It seems to be especially true amongst celebrities, which sets a sickening example for society. Thanks Kim Kardashian and the countless others. I really do hope that this is only a phase.

I believe the average length of a male homosexual relationship is around 1 month. It's common knowledge amongst the community that they don't last for long. I have a bisexual female friend that has been hooking up with only girls for around 6 years now. She has a new girlfriend every 6-12 months. So my point is, if a vast majority of homosexual relationships are shortlived, why do they want to get married in the first place? I understand the "Just so we can" reason, but really? If you've been with your partner for 5+ years and want to get married I could understand why. But a fraction of a percent of homosexual relationships last that long. I think if gay marriage is passed then homosexuals will get married and divoriced like it's absolutely nothing. Like Kim Kardashians. That's just harmful to the concept of marriage.

Marriage has become way too loose with it's standards. I believe that if society allows homosexuals to partake in traditional marriage then the fundamental meaning of marriage would be devalued further. I would recommend calling it something else but that would be discrimination and unconstitutional. The way marriage works now is not discriminatory, as the definition of marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Just because two homosexuals love each other and would like to spend the rest of their lives together doesnt mean they're entitled to marriage, because that's simply not what marriage is. Homosexual marriage would alter the true meaning of marriage, and I am against that.

Lastly I'd like to make the point of the loophole that gay marriage would create. Let's say I'm young, tight on my budget, and share an apartment with a friend. What prevents me from filing a marriage with my buddy so that we can reap the financial benefits that are given to married couples? Then once we move out of the apartment a year or 2 later we file divorice. Seems like just about everyone could do that right? How special is marriage now? Seriously. And the reason male+female friends don't abuse this with each other is because they realize that marriage is supposed to be special.

Gay marriage would simply make marriage even more meaningless than it already is. We need to be heading in the other direction, not completely throw out the sanctity of marriage altogether.

On February 09 2012 20:51 Roe wrote:


Who has no clue about the consequences?
Again, you're spewing nonsense. Order, beauty, those are as subjective as you can get. Loyalty is something anyone can have to anyone else. It's just so telling how you have no grasp of any of these 3 ideas if you need to segregate marriage in order to have them.
I know freedom makes you anxious, but you've gotta practice what you preach.

On February 09 2012 20:55 vetinari wrote:


"Social engineering" = efforts to influence societal attitudes and behaviours on a large scale. . .

I don't object to social engineering. I just object to the liberal variety, since I believe that liberals do not place proper weight on loyalty, order or beauty, which cannot help but cause a worse society in the long run (even if its better in the short run. Its like running a car 3000 revs over the redline. It will be great for a bit, but then it breaks).

On February 09 2012 19:21 OuchyDathurts wrote:


You can't actually believe that can you?

So if they made it legal you and your buddies would just start marrying the hell out of each other. But you don't do it now with a female friend because of R-E-S-P-E-C-T?

You honestly believe it's going to turn into thunderdome?

I'm sorry but that has to be the absolute worst excuse I've ever heard. My mind can't even comprehend.

On February 09 2012 21:09 Iyerbeth wrote:
These threads always make me sad, though at least the important bit (Approval of gay marriage) is through, just a shame about some of the responses. A couple of responses to themes in the thread anyway:

2: Historical opinion is no basis for deciding how things ought to be. The world isn't flat.

3: You have no right to other people's reproductive organs, whether is be forcing them to have children or be in heterosexual marriages, the abortion debate, or flat out homophobic 'reprogramming' camps. The 'continuation of the species' is not a forced duty.

4: People not married are also capable of having children just fine, you don't *need* marriage to force heterosexual couples to reproduce. Most people get married because they love their partner. 'Bastards' are children too and deserve to be treated the exact same, regardless of how you view society.

On February 09 2012 21:11 vetinari wrote:


Liberals. Consider the diversity project: homogenous societies are considered to be goods. Its just a shame that one of the formost liberal researches has found that ethnic and racial diversity are incredibly bad for the community and the happiness of all members of society . ( see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam for an overview of his work.)

Oops. Too late.

Just one example of many...

In truth, the freedom of liberals is the most terrifying thing of all. No attempt to reflect on the consequences of your actions, just a naive belief that people are naturally good and that more freedom will make everything better...

Liberals. Consider the diversity project: homogenous societies are considered to be goods.

On February 09 2012 21:19 vetinari wrote:


2: Why not? Do the people who built a society have no right to have their views considered? After all, they entrusted you to take care of the society they made, not to change it beyond all recognition.

3: Why not? You have the freedom to leave society if you don't like the rules. Why is societal requirement of reproductive effort illegitimate, while societal requirement of physical and cognitive effort legitimate (we call this taxation).

4: Sorry, but people not married are not capable of having children "just fine". The data points to exactly the opposite. Bastards are children too, but that does not mean they deserve to be treated exactly the same. They deserve nothing at all. Its why we have abortions, after all.

On February 09 2012 21:11 zalz wrote:


*Someone claims I don't understand the word Social Engineering.

*Quote Wikipedia to prove them wrong



What are you even talking about.

You switch between random and gibberish...

On February 09 2012 21:33 vetinari wrote:


You might want to put at least some content into your post...

I have no doubt that you did not even attempt to understand anything that I have posted. So I will advise you to look up theories of morality, and leave it at that.

On February 09 2012 21:26 Roe wrote:


No you're right, I mean (and keep cherry picking my posts for ones you think you can beat) religious idiocy will always poison society if they are free to take hold of government or the minds of the people. This is exactly the case with homosexuality: there's nothing wrong with it but ancient ideas keep their grip on the mind of humanity, keeping it in an infant stage. I just love how conservatives always spew hypocritical nonsense about family values that don't even work and in turn destroy our western society. You still haven't given me any reasoning behind your arguments (and that study is terrible, any first year social science major would detect the BS right away, but your conservative agenda is keeping you from realizing how bad the study is), for example, what the hell does this mean?


Maybe English isn't your first language, but even on the reasoning behind the statement you're wrong. The more diverse a society is, the stronger it is. This is true all the way from biology to sociology. It's true, people break down and kill each other because they can't handle anyone that isn't the same as them. But I'm not going to give in to barbarism and zealotry.

On February 09 2012 21:39 zalz wrote:


Its like talking to a wall...

Just because you copy paste some pseudo-science that anyone with a degree rejects, doesn't mean you are "informed."


But keep talking about Dandelion and Orchid children. Maybe write a piece on the benefits of re-alligning your chakras with an energy crystal? Don't forgot to act outraged when people point out that all your "theories" are ridiculous and without any basis in reality.

But of course, Liberals don't value beauty. I think if you would ask people their biggest problem with liberalism, its that they don't value beauty enough.


Pseudo-scientists are even worse then conspiracy theorists.

On February 09 2012 21:41 vetinari wrote:


Putnam is quite possibly the most highly regarded political scientist in america and he is most definitely NOT conservative.

Alien hand syndrome. It happens. And you are wrong. I wish that the liberal dream worked. But it is doomed to failure, just as communism failed, fascism failed, laissez faire capitalism failed. Hell, just as conservatism was killed by decadence.