|
On February 09 2012 23:44 CajunMan wrote: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. Show nested quote +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.
There are Christians that disagree on this point though. Really all this says is if you don't think gay unions are marriage, then YOU should not get gay married. We do have religious freedom in this country so I can religiously marry whatever I want anyway.
If the word marriage is the only issue, then really your argument comes down to pointlessly insulting the dignity of other peoples relationships. Unless you're arguing that they shouldn't get marriage benefits either.
|
Very good. I fully support everyone's right to express their sexuality as they deem necessary as long as it does not hurt anybody else.
This is a big step forward.
|
On February 09 2012 14:47 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 14:29 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 14:22 danl9rm wrote:On February 09 2012 13:06 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:02 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:00 1Eris1 wrote:On February 09 2012 12:55 Yosho wrote: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. You say they are born with it, than why does it matter if they can get married? It's not like you're going to convince one of them to turn straight, and thus reproduce anyways. I figure it goes against nature. Why support it further? Mentally ill people who are born with deficiency's also should be restricted on what they can and can't do. I would not like a mentally handicapped person to operate extremely heavy machinery. And I don't think gay people should marry. I feel it's a defilement of what marriage is. Is menopause a deficieny? Cause if not why should women who can't reproduce be allowed to get married? Hell what about sterile men? Honestly this deficiency bullshit is just cover for bigotted religious views. The sword cuts both ways... Calling someone deficient because of your ignorant world view is bigotted. No-one has provided me with a reasonable explanation why gays are fundamentally different than straight people with regards to marriage other than those with religious views. Hence why I believe people who claim to oppose gay marriage on non-religious grounds are full of shit. Sure I probably should have left out the religious bit but that is my opinion. I wasn't going to jump in here. I usually don't. But, after such a great post, I cannot help myself. First, let me say, that I completely agree with you. Well, on your main point. That, "people who claim to oppose gay marriage on non-religious ground [use flawed logic]." The only reason I oppose gay marriage is because God tells me it's wrong. It's his universe, he gets to make the rules. If you don't believe in God, the God of the bible, then why would you oppose such a thing? I believe God created us, and that Adam and Eve laid claim to the very first marriage on earth. In them we were showed what was meant to be. Of course, they screwed up and lived far from perfectly, but that's not the point here. If you don't believe that, and you believe in, let's just choose an alternative, evolution, then why do you care if gay marriage exists? What if homosexuality is evolution's solution to over-population? What if they are just more evolved than we are? Or, what if they are the "3rd gender?" If the bible was not true, I would absolutely vote for gay marriage, not because I don't think it harms the child(ren), but because I would have no moral ground to stand on. We would all just be making stuff up as we go along. It would be majority vote. Moral relativism. And, that is just a war on logic.
If this isn't religious "zealotry" , then i don't know what is..
You talk like your beliefs about God are a fixed state that everyone , even non -believers, must submit too. You talk about the Bible like it are proven facts, while in many people's opinion it is just another book and God doesn't exist.
Do they attack you for your beliefs or deny you in practising them?
Why would you oppose them from marriage then? it's not like are going to, or want to , marry for your "church"'
|
If the bible was not true, I would absolutely vote for gay marriage, not because I don't think it harms the child(ren), but because I would have no moral ground to stand on. We would all just be making stuff up as we go along. It would be majority vote. Moral relativism. And, that is just a war on logic.
Not trying to derail the thread, but atheism does not imply morals are relative. You can still have moral objectivity, you just have to figure it out. Just because morals arent explicitly said doesnt mean they dont exist. I'm not really sure where this attitude comes from because it just seems like non sequitur to me.
Look up some Sam Harris who suggests that science can actually say a lot about morality.
Edit: not gonna lie MagicMike, your post depressed me. It seems to be a theme that people wont fight for gay marriage unless they are forced to recognize that gays are the same as everyone else. I'm glad you changed your mind, and I hope you'll be more open minded about other things as well.
|
On February 09 2012 23:58 RetroAspect wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 14:47 danl9rm wrote:On February 09 2012 14:29 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 14:22 danl9rm wrote:On February 09 2012 13:06 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:02 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:00 1Eris1 wrote:On February 09 2012 12:55 Yosho wrote: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. You say they are born with it, than why does it matter if they can get married? It's not like you're going to convince one of them to turn straight, and thus reproduce anyways. I figure it goes against nature. Why support it further? Mentally ill people who are born with deficiency's also should be restricted on what they can and can't do. I would not like a mentally handicapped person to operate extremely heavy machinery. And I don't think gay people should marry. I feel it's a defilement of what marriage is. Is menopause a deficieny? Cause if not why should women who can't reproduce be allowed to get married? Hell what about sterile men? Honestly this deficiency bullshit is just cover for bigotted religious views. The sword cuts both ways... Calling someone deficient because of your ignorant world view is bigotted. No-one has provided me with a reasonable explanation why gays are fundamentally different than straight people with regards to marriage other than those with religious views. Hence why I believe people who claim to oppose gay marriage on non-religious grounds are full of shit. Sure I probably should have left out the religious bit but that is my opinion. I wasn't going to jump in here. I usually don't. But, after such a great post, I cannot help myself. First, let me say, that I completely agree with you. Well, on your main point. That, "people who claim to oppose gay marriage on non-religious ground [use flawed logic]." The only reason I oppose gay marriage is because God tells me it's wrong. It's his universe, he gets to make the rules. If you don't believe in God, the God of the bible, then why would you oppose such a thing? I believe God created us, and that Adam and Eve laid claim to the very first marriage on earth. In them we were showed what was meant to be. Of course, they screwed up and lived far from perfectly, but that's not the point here. If you don't believe that, and you believe in, let's just choose an alternative, evolution, then why do you care if gay marriage exists? What if homosexuality is evolution's solution to over-population? What if they are just more evolved than we are? Or, what if they are the "3rd gender?" If the bible was not true, I would absolutely vote for gay marriage, not because I don't think it harms the child(ren), but because I would have no moral ground to stand on. We would all just be making stuff up as we go along. It would be majority vote. Moral relativism. And, that is just a war on logic. If this isn't religious "zealotry" , then i don't know what is.. You talk like your beliefs about God are a fixed state that everyone , even non -believers, must submit too. You talk about the Bible like it are proven facts, while in many people's opinion it is just another book and God doesn't exist. Do they attack you for your beliefs or deny you in practising them? Why would you oppose them from marriage then? it's not like are going to, or want to , marry for your "church"'
This isn't zealotry at all. What he said is that there is no reason to oppose gay marriage other than religion and if you don't have a religion that you can't really oppose gay marriage.
|
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around.
|
On February 10 2012 00:09 DoubleReed wrote:
Edit: not gonna lie MagicMike, your post depressed me. It seems to be a theme that people wont fight for gay marriage unless they are forced to recognize that gays are the same as everyone else. I'm glad you changed your mind, and I hope you'll be more open minded about other things as well.
Sadly, most people, myself included are largely victims of their upbringing and will never change the ideals their parents raised them with barring drastic occurances in their life.
|
On February 10 2012 00:28 VediVeci wrote:
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around.
At the end of the day, history will call those who opposed gay marriage bigots. Just as history calls those who opposed interracial marriage racists. After reading this discussion, I'm totally okay with that.
|
Faith in America restored  hope the rest of the states follow this example!
|
On February 09 2012 23:44 CajunMan wrote: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. Show nested quote +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.
Historically, marriage has been a legal matter. Religion only monopolized its practice later. It has definitely not always been a religious issue.
|
good step... let people marry so they are happy. no one gets hurt, just more people are happy. why the fuck do people mind so much if other people marry each other. will they go to hell? i just dont understand
|
On February 10 2012 00:49 Rainmaker21 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 00:28 VediVeci wrote:
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around. At the end of the day, history will call those who opposed gay marriage bigots. Just as history calls those who opposed interracial marriage racists. After reading this discussion, I'm totally okay with that.
I think there are two discussions happening simultaneously here. One about gay-rights and one about the exact definition of marriage. If you oppose gay marriage because you think marriage is a heterosexual institution but support an equivalent one for homosexuality, then you are not necessarily bigoted. If you oppose gay marriage because you don't think gays should have rights, then you are (almost certainly) bigoted. I hope history recognizes that nuance, but I am more inclined to think that you're correct.
|
Gays should get marriage benefits, but not the title of marriage, sorry gays.
|
On February 10 2012 01:44 VediVeci wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 00:49 Rainmaker21 wrote:On February 10 2012 00:28 VediVeci wrote:
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around. At the end of the day, history will call those who opposed gay marriage bigots. Just as history calls those who opposed interracial marriage racists. After reading this discussion, I'm totally okay with that. I think there are two discussions happening simultaneously here. One about gay-rights and one about the exact definition of marriage. If you oppose gay marriage because you think marriage is a heterosexual institution but support an equivalent one for homosexuality, then you are not necessarily bigoted. If you oppose gay marriage because you don't think gays should have rights, then you are (almost certainly) bigoted. I hope history recognizes that nuance, but I am more inclined to think that you're correct.
Its still being bigoted because it is someone saying that their definition of marriage should be the one that all other people must live their lives by. Its pushing their views on the personal lives of other people. Religious terms vary a lot from religion to religion. People don't necessarily agree on that definition and people should be allowed to live their lives based on their own definitions of spiritual terms.
Even despite all of this, the term marriage has managed to migrate to government matters as well. There is nothing unnatural or unheard of for a religious term to eventually make its way into non-religious situations. A marriage license is a legal document. Marriage is no longer a religious-exclusive term.
|
On February 10 2012 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 01:44 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 00:49 Rainmaker21 wrote:On February 10 2012 00:28 VediVeci wrote:
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around. At the end of the day, history will call those who opposed gay marriage bigots. Just as history calls those who opposed interracial marriage racists. After reading this discussion, I'm totally okay with that. I think there are two discussions happening simultaneously here. One about gay-rights and one about the exact definition of marriage. If you oppose gay marriage because you think marriage is a heterosexual institution but support an equivalent one for homosexuality, then you are not necessarily bigoted. If you oppose gay marriage because you don't think gays should have rights, then you are (almost certainly) bigoted. I hope history recognizes that nuance, but I am more inclined to think that you're correct. Its still being bigoted because it is someone saying that their definition of marriage should be the one that all other people must live their lives by. Its pushing their views on the personal lives of other people. Religious terms vary a lot from religion to religion. People don't necessarily agree on that definition and people should be allowed to live their lives based on their own definitions of spiritual terms. Even despite all of this, the term marriage has managed to migrate to government matters as well. There is nothing unnatural or unheard of for a religious term to eventually make its way into non-religious situations. A marriage license is a legal document. Marriage is no longer a religious-exclusive term.
Marriage as a heterosexual institution has been around for thousands of years. It is possible to be simultaneously for preserving the traditional definition of marriage and for giving gays equal rights. If all we are talking about is an issue of semantics (what is the exact definition of marriage), then it isn't an issue of bigotry. You call people from Africa and Asia African and Asian not because they don't have equal rights but because Africa and Asia aren't the same thing. That doesn't mean you are discriminating against either group. It (can be) the same thing with gay rights. If there is an equivalent institution to marriage available to homosexuals, that's not necessarily discriminatory, and those calling for it aren't ipso facto bigoted.
Edited conclusion
|
On February 10 2012 02:04 VediVeci wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2012 01:44 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 00:49 Rainmaker21 wrote:On February 10 2012 00:28 VediVeci wrote:
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around. At the end of the day, history will call those who opposed gay marriage bigots. Just as history calls those who opposed interracial marriage racists. After reading this discussion, I'm totally okay with that. I think there are two discussions happening simultaneously here. One about gay-rights and one about the exact definition of marriage. If you oppose gay marriage because you think marriage is a heterosexual institution but support an equivalent one for homosexuality, then you are not necessarily bigoted. If you oppose gay marriage because you don't think gays should have rights, then you are (almost certainly) bigoted. I hope history recognizes that nuance, but I am more inclined to think that you're correct. Its still being bigoted because it is someone saying that their definition of marriage should be the one that all other people must live their lives by. Its pushing their views on the personal lives of other people. Religious terms vary a lot from religion to religion. People don't necessarily agree on that definition and people should be allowed to live their lives based on their own definitions of spiritual terms. Even despite all of this, the term marriage has managed to migrate to government matters as well. There is nothing unnatural or unheard of for a religious term to eventually make its way into non-religious situations. A marriage license is a legal document. Marriage is no longer a religious-exclusive term. Marriage as a heterosexual institution has been around for thousands of years. It is possible to be simultaneously for preserving the traditional definition of marriage and for giving gays equal rights. If all we are talking about is an issue of semantics (what is the exact definition of marriage), then it isn't an issue of bigotry. You call people from Africa and Asia African and Asian not because they don't have equal rights but because Africa and Asia aren't the same thing. That doesn't mean you are discriminating against either group. It (can be) the same thing with gay rights. If there is an equivalent institution to marriage available to homosexuals, that's not necessarily discriminatory, and those calling for it aren't ipso facto bigoted. Edited conclusion
The reason it's bigotry isn't what they want it's why they want it. There are no reasons to be against gay marriage that aren't bigotry at some point.
|
Marriage as a heterosexual institution has been around for thousands of years. It is possible to be simultaneously for preserving the traditional definition of marriage and for giving gays equal rights. If all we are talking about is an issue of semantics (what is the exact definition of marriage), then it isn't an issue of bigotry. You call people from Africa and Asia African and Asian not because they don't have equal rights but because Africa and Asia aren't the same thing. That doesn't mean you are discriminating against either group.
Perhaps not exactly bigoted but definitely authoritarian and theocratic though.
I mean what's the point of calling something different if it's the same. All it does is insult and degrade the dignity of their relationships. Human dignity does count for something in my book.
|
On February 10 2012 01:50 Saltydizzle wrote:
Gays should get marriage benefits, but not the title of marriage, sorry gays.
I don't understand why this bothers you? Why does the title of marriage matter to you... that some gay should not recieve it? Is it a word that dictates hetrosexuality. No. So therefore we should give it to them...
Origins of the word(wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage) : + Show Spoiler +The modern English word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 C.E. This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married. (The adjective marīt-us -a, -um meaning matrimonial or nuptial could also be used in the masculine form as a noun for "husband" and in the feminine form for "wife."
- There is no necessary conditions of which both people have to be of opposite sexs.
C'mon, Let's beat this stigma. As a race, we are better than this. It's a rediculious notion not to allow homosexuals marriage, especially for those whose faith does not require stupidity and bigotry. If you're God is not telling you that this is wrong, then don't precieve it to be wrong, you never know, in a billion years time we may have evolved so that homosexuality actually allows reproduction. For what is evolution, random "mutation" followed by natural selection. What if people being born homosexual is just that next step, obviously there are flaws with that concept, but It was just to get you thinking.
If you're God is telling you that it is wrong. Then get a new God.. or even better, non at all. To be honest, anyone against this to me is a bigot, and somebody who needs to look at themselves, and why they have this social stigma. It's not promoting people to go against reproduction (seen that argument in here). Hey, I've got nothing wrong with gay marriage, but it doesn't mean I now like boys... Especially with that argument the biggest problem with stopping reproduction is actually the emancipation of women. The fact that in the 20th and 21st century woman have started to want to get a career and not be a housewife has lead to a lot of marriages leading to having no children at all, or very late. So if you're worried about our species dying out... Well why don't you go chain your wife to the kitchen, make her cook you a sandwhich and then give you babies, but nobody in there right mind these days thinks like that seriously, and it should be the same for homosexuals.
I sigh with relief after reading this thread, seeing that America is slowly becoming a place of rationality and freedom, something it told its people they had on its creation.
I also think the starcraft community especially could learn a lesson or two from not being homophobic, the amount of people, especially on NA server who use "fag" as a BM term... I feel like we're still living in the 50's. But I guess i am not really used to it as normally its just the uneducated here in Britian whom say such things as religion doesn't play as big a role in our country as America.
Sorry for the TL;DR post.
<3 Gay rights.
|
Seperate but equal. Lol.
History really does seem to repeat itself at times.
|
On February 10 2012 02:04 VediVeci wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2012 01:44 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 00:49 Rainmaker21 wrote:On February 10 2012 00:28 VediVeci wrote:
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around. At the end of the day, history will call those who opposed gay marriage bigots. Just as history calls those who opposed interracial marriage racists. After reading this discussion, I'm totally okay with that. I think there are two discussions happening simultaneously here. One about gay-rights and one about the exact definition of marriage. If you oppose gay marriage because you think marriage is a heterosexual institution but support an equivalent one for homosexuality, then you are not necessarily bigoted. If you oppose gay marriage because you don't think gays should have rights, then you are (almost certainly) bigoted. I hope history recognizes that nuance, but I am more inclined to think that you're correct. Its still being bigoted because it is someone saying that their definition of marriage should be the one that all other people must live their lives by. Its pushing their views on the personal lives of other people. Religious terms vary a lot from religion to religion. People don't necessarily agree on that definition and people should be allowed to live their lives based on their own definitions of spiritual terms. Even despite all of this, the term marriage has managed to migrate to government matters as well. There is nothing unnatural or unheard of for a religious term to eventually make its way into non-religious situations. A marriage license is a legal document. Marriage is no longer a religious-exclusive term. Marriage as a heterosexual institution has been around for thousands of years. It is possible to be simultaneously for preserving the traditional definition of marriage and for giving gays equal rights. If all we are talking about is an issue of semantics (what is the exact definition of marriage), then it isn't an issue of bigotry. You call people from Africa and Asia African and Asian not because they don't have equal rights but because Africa and Asia aren't the same thing. That doesn't mean you are discriminating against either group. It (can be) the same thing with gay rights. If there is an equivalent institution to marriage available to homosexuals, that's not necessarily discriminatory, and those calling for it aren't ipso facto bigoted. Edited conclusion
It being around for thousands of years as a form of reasoning is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. You can't use that in an argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
There was also opposition to blood transfusions and pain medications in the past because it was considered playing god. It was too big of a change from how things used to be, but that isn't a good reason. Your example of African vs Asian is not comparable because its not like we would fight to refer to them as that. If Africans wanted to be known as something else, we wouldn't fight it. Sure, call yourselves whatever you want. What outlawing gay marriage does is remove someone's capability to recognize their personal relationship as what they wish to.
Legal recognition is also seen as a sign of respect and acceptance, which is of course important to someone. Obviously a lack of legal recognition is a sign of the opposite when legal recognition is given to others. I'm not homosexual, so I can't give a first hand account, but I would imagine it feels very secluded/shunned and disrespectful to be told your expression of love is not legally recognized, while most people you know have no such problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
