|
On February 09 2012 21:11 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 20:51 Roe wrote:On February 09 2012 20:45 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 20:35 Rabbitmaster wrote: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. 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. On February 09 2012 20:31 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 20:12 zalz wrote:
Just when I thought the side against gay marriage could not get any creepier, they start proffessing their love for societal engineering. Because changing marriage from man + woman to man/woman + man/woman is not social engineering. Liberals are the greatest hypocrits in existence. You have been conducting social engineering for the past 200 years. Engineering implies conscious intention. And that is not what is going on here. 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). 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. Liberals. Consider the diversity project: heterogenous societies are considered to be postive. 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...
You realize Putnam argues that in the long term, diversity is beneficial. His data only covers short to mid term. His data compares metropolitan cities (which tend to be more diverse) to small towns (which tend to be less diverse). But there are other factors, like population density, that could explain the lack of trust. His sample size of diverse small towns is small and skews the results.
In truth, the most terrifying thing of all is the ability of people to act on half-information and conclude their own world-view to be correct.
|
On February 09 2012 20:39 Paperplane wrote:Show nested quote +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. Says who? God? Sorry but marriage existed way before christianity.
Yeah but the one in the law is based on christianity's version of marriage.
|
On February 09 2012 22:00 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 21:11 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 20:51 Roe wrote:On February 09 2012 20:45 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 20:35 Rabbitmaster wrote: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. 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. On February 09 2012 20:31 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 20:12 zalz wrote:
Just when I thought the side against gay marriage could not get any creepier, they start proffessing their love for societal engineering. Because changing marriage from man + woman to man/woman + man/woman is not social engineering. Liberals are the greatest hypocrits in existence. You have been conducting social engineering for the past 200 years. Engineering implies conscious intention. And that is not what is going on here. 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). 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. Liberals. Consider the diversity project: heterogenous societies are considered to be postive. 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... You realize Putnam argues that in the long term, diversity is beneficial. His data only covers short to mid term. His data compares metropolitan cities (which tend to be more diverse) to small towns (which tend to be less diverse). But there are other factors, like population density, that could explain the lack of trust. His sample size of diverse small towns is small and skews the results. In truth, the most terrifying thing of all is the ability of people to act on half-information and conclude their own world-view to be correct.
I know that he argues its beneficial in the long term. However, in the short to medium term, it is not. Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that it will ever improve. There is only hope.
I find it amusing, that you find it terrifying, when the left is responsible for acting on half information or no information at all, just ideology. After, conservatism by definition is biased towards preserving the status quo, when in doubt...
|
Seriously, this crap about marriage being 'sacred' or 'special' needs to stop. State-recognized marriage is a legal bonding between two people. Religious people do not own the act of bonding two people together. Religious marriage and state marriage are two different things.
Get this through your heads people. Gay marriage does not harm the integrity of your religious marriage in any way, shape or form. Your churches, mosques or whatever can still refuse to bond two gay people in a religious union.
|
On February 09 2012 22:03 Cubu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 20:39 Paperplane wrote: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. Says who? God? Sorry but marriage existed way before christianity. Yeah but the one in the law is based on christianity's version of marriage.
Uhm. No. There's nothing in the law that requires the marriage to be performed by a religious figure. Neither is it required to be a christian to get married. On the other hand, there's nothing in the bible or other religious texts about how your taxes change when you're married.
In a secular country (which the US should be according to its constitution), the legal concept of marriage and the concept of marriage by a religious faction should be completely separate. And this is a step towards that.
If you want to rename marriage to "civil union" or something like that because using different words suddenly doesn't bruise your religious ego any more, then by all means go for it. But the union between two people that gives all the legal and fiscal benefits of what is currently considered as "marriage", regardless of what name you want to put on it, should be open to any pair of consenting and sound-minded individuals.
|
On February 09 2012 22:03 Cubu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 20:39 Paperplane wrote: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. Says who? God? Sorry but marriage existed way before christianity. Yeah but the one in the law is based on christianity's version of marriage.
The seperation of church and state would make that illegal if it was true. Good thing it is not true.
|
People who insist on marriage being a Christian thing generally don't know a whole lot about Christianity.
In the very early days of Christianity, marriage was not encouraged, because Christianity has since its inception been a very apocalyptic religion; hence procreation in the current life was not considered as important, what with the apocalypse on your doorstep. Other monotheistic religions (I believe Judaism is one) have traditionally been much more supportive of marriage, and have started to consider it 'sacred' much earlier.
Within and outside of the Christian context, the definition of marriage has changed numerous times. Broadening it to include homosexuals and bisexuals wishing to marry someone of the same sex seems to be the next logical, and indeed, inevitable step.
Nothing I've seen so far has suggested to me that gay marriage isn't going to happen. 'Marriage' is and always has been a dynamic institution subject to many changes throughout history, and it's only a matter of time until opposing it will be viewed as outdated as opposing miscenegation.
(On a side note, I agree with what some of the other posters have said in that I really wish conservatives would stop using 'but then people will marry their dog! Or their shoes! Or kids!' as valid arguments. Animals, inanimate objects and kids aren't legally allowed to sign marriage papers or have all of the rights that an adult human being, including a gay one, has. Before you'd be allowed to enter into a legal marriage with your dog, it would first have to have the same legal rights as a human adult, and that's not going to happen. Probably ever).
|
Why would you actually oppose gay marriage? I can't see who's the victim?
|
what would happen if straight marriage became a minority?
|
On February 09 2012 22:33 Cubu wrote:
what would happen if straight marriage became a minority?
Not much. Also, I doubt it will happen unless marriage somehow goes out of fashion big time, at which point it hardly matters anymore who gets married and who doesn't.
|
On February 09 2012 22:33 Cubu wrote:
what would happen if straight marriage became a minority?
Well it won't, because on the contrary to popular fundamentalist beliefs, being around gay people DOES NOT make you gay, and the amount of gay people in society is around 10%
The arguments against this just seem to be getting more and more stupid
|
On February 09 2012 22:33 Cubu wrote:
what would happen if straight marriage became a minority?
Hanging around gay people will make you about as gay as hanging around tall people will make you tall.
Edit: 1Eris1, the gay population is usually estimated as being around 1% by conservative media outlets and as about 10% by liberal ones, so the scientific community usually goes with a moderate estimate of 5%. Either way, it doesn't negate your point. Just wanted to point it out.
|
On February 09 2012 12:55 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 12:49 bRiz wrote:
Don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, it's a positive answer to a problem being experienced in the GLT community, but I personally prefer to keep marriage between a man and a woman, though I don't think I'd vote for a restriction like that. Just a personal opinion. I wouldn't vote for this to pass but if I would vote to not let is pass. Although even in nature gay animals exist, I feel it's like any other deficiency that people / animals can be born with. One of the sole thing we rely on to define life is reproduction. You cannot do this naturally on gay people. Not to be rude but I don't count this as a step up, but as a step down.
"Not to be rude".
Well, it is rude. Government has never encouraged reproduction via marriage. If they did, we wouldn't allow people incapable of having children to marry, and if we were worried about quality of offspring we wouldn't allow those with genetic disabilities to marry. Such a bogus argument. Furthermore, marriage is not a Christian institution. It's a legal institution (giving legal benefits, and it's discrimination if homosexuals are not allow access to those benefits) and Christianity didn't even come up with the concept. They basically stole it and monopolized its practice.
Anyway, this is fantastic news to hear. I've always been disturbed by the fact that we talk about freedom so much in this country and yet we have so little of it in so many aspects of life.
|
I wonder if polygamy should be allowed.
|
On February 09 2012 23:01 Cheerio wrote:
I wonder if polygamy should be allowed.
I think unlike 'lol then people will marry dogs lololol' this one is actually a valid debate. Probably off-topic in this thread, though. There was a discussion topic on polygamy a while ago on tl.net, if you're interested: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=296092
|
For all those claiming marriage is a religious thing, historically it was a property agreement so it makes no sense to call it religious.
|
It's actually rather ironic that Christians argue that homosexuality is immoral when in fact the Bible offers marriage as a solution to sexual immorality:
1 Corinthians 7:1 It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman. 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 7&version=NIV
Those verses pretty much say that sex, in general, is bad. It's actually quite sad how many people still genuinely believe that the Bible is some sort of sacred word of God on which they should base their lives. If you look at the context, these are the types of marriages that occurred and were approved (if not altogether ignored) by their deity:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HcrGG.jpg)
|
I don't understand why they call it marriage. Marriage is and has always been a union of religion the only reason courts are even involved is because they decided they needed to marry couples for monetary reasons though who arn't religious or wish to not waste time with it (which is the whole point) I don't care if gays wanna "marry" and what not but don't call it marriage there's no major religion of the big 3-5 that advocate gays being wed and in the end that's what this is a religious issue that the government shouldn't have gotten its nose in. I wish gays who wish to be wed would call it something different hopefully they advocate civil unions or calling it something like that because it is not marriage in the traditional sense.
On February 09 2012 23:01 Cheerio wrote:
I wonder if polygamy should be allowed.
If your first wife says ya hell ya hook me up with some polygamy.
|
I grew up Southern Baptist. My mom was a Sunday School teacher and up until my parents divorce when I was 10 I wanted to be a preacher. That said, I've always had a certain amount of uncomfortableness with gay people from my upbringing. Even after leaving the church, no longer believing in god, and getting older I've always been a little on the homophobe side. It's shameful for me to admit though, I've never made fun of nor abused gay people I haven't defended them either. Even after I was married and had my own children I never outgrew it. To this day I still feel uncomfortable around gay people. I've always defended the debate that only Man+Woman=Marriage with no real logical reason for it other than my own upbringing. My older step-brother is gay and it still bothers me. For me, I don't think I'll ever be comfortable with it though I am trying very hard. I know that it's wrong to feel this way that gay=wrong because logically I know that there isn't anything wrong with it. I've tried growing up and acting like I don't care one way or the other. I've made gay friends, listened to their points of view and silently supported their way of life though never openly and even defended people who they have attacked their way of life by saying that they are as much allowed to oppose your way of life as you are to live it. This all changed just a few weeks ago.
My wife and I spend a lot of time with a lesbian couple that live nearby us. They call each other "wife" though they are not legally married. They fight, bicker, argue, and make up just like a "normal" couple. Recently one of them was diagnosed with cancer and started to go through treatment. The very real pain that her "wife" is feeling is very real. It was the first time I felt a real connection with anyone who was gay. I cried with them, tried to console and comfort them, and part way through realized that their relationship is no different than mine. They love, I mean truely deeply love each other on a level that only married people can understand. The pain and shock is no different than if a straight man or woman went through the same thing. It may seem basic or simple to many of you but for me it was a huge shock to realize it. I cried my eyes out, apologized for not giving my more vocal support and basically begged them to forgive me for not giving them a fair shake or taking their "marriage" seriously.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that we are all the same. Gay couples don't love each other any less than straight couples and in fact their relationships are pretty much the exact same. There is no difference at all. I support this bill. I want my kids to grow up and fall in love and get married whether it is a gay or straight marriage, I don't care.
|
The case for polygamy often dies out quickly when you suggest that women should be allowed to marry multiple men. For some reason, no frail male ego can entertain the notion.
I don't understand why they call it marriage. Marriage is and has always been a union of religion the only reason courts are even involved is because they decided they needed to marry couples for monetary reasons though who arn't religious or wish to not waste time with it (which is the whole point) I don't care if gays wanna "marry" and what not but don't call it marriage there's no major religion of the big 3-5 that advocate gays being wed and in the end that's what this is a religious issue that the government shouldn't have gotten its nose in. I wish gays who wish to be wed would call it something different hopefully they advocate civil unions or calling it something like that because it is not marriage in the traditional sense.
But government did get involved.
And the moment that the government started to give perks to being married, it ceased to be a religious ceremony.
Marriage can be religious-only if it has no perks attached to it and was not recognized by the state.
So, kind of like a mormon celestial marriage. Nobody is asking for gays to be allowed to be celestially married.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
