|
United States37500 Posts
Updated thread title.
I was thinking national level for some reason too but that didn't really make sense. :X
Glad gay rights is progressing.
|
On February 09 2012 12:29 NekoFlandre wrote:
You know. I live in the damned state that Started this whole thing. GO MASSACHUSETTS!!!
I may not be gay or a lesbian but. Who the hell cares what sex you want to love or be with. Doesn't really matter as long as your happy.
Thank you Washington...for once..you do something right.
Me to. It's a step in the next direction for sure, I hope more states follow suite.
|
Heard the news last week that they got enough votes for this to pass. Glad this passed. Its good to see some progress in my states! State pride haha. Working to make the world a better place
|
On February 09 2012 13:02 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On February 09 2012 13:02 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +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.
You just said it exists in nature, but now it's going against nature? might want to reword your arguement there.
And err, the marriage you are referring to is largely religously based. This is a government-sponsered marriage, for governemnt benefits. Remember the whole Religion seperate from Government and vice cersa scpheel you learned about when you read the Constitution?
I don't think this law is forcing churches to marry gay people or anything.
|
On February 09 2012 13:02 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +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.
defilement of a marriage is being a scumbag and cheating on your wife, breaking your marriage vows, letting your kids down and bickering over who gets what in a divorce.
|
On February 09 2012 13:06 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I don't believe in religion. At all...
|
United States37500 Posts
On February 09 2012 13:02 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +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.
"Goes against nature" is such a terrible supporting point. Homosexuality actually does occur in nature.
As for what marriage means to you, that's your belief, sure. I also feel that our government shouldn't impose the majority's belief upon the minority.
|
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.
Old people can not reproduce naturally. Perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to get married as well.
If you live in the United States, there are many benefits to getting married to your partner. Taxes and credit being a big two. If a gay couple are living together they should be able to live the same lifestyle as a straight couple if they choose.
|
On February 09 2012 13:07 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +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. I don't believe in religion. At all...
So then how is two men getting married different in a biological sense (with regards to reproduction) from a sterile man marrying a women?
|
On February 09 2012 13:08 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:07 Yosho 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. I don't believe in religion. At all... So then how is two men getting married different in a biological sense from a sterile man marrying a women?
Where would you draw the line though? Man and women was clearly intended. Man and man, woman and woman wasn't. It just happens that the male or female couldn't reproduce. They were still meant to be.
|
Some states will continue to try and stop gay marriage as payback for reconstruction Those damn Yankees and the War of Northern Aggression.
I personally find the idea of polygamy much more interesting to debate than gay marriage.
|
On February 09 2012 13:07 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +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. I don't believe in religion. At all...
To quote metalocalypse, I think what you mean is that you don't believe in god. Because religion definitely exists.
|
On February 09 2012 13:09 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:08 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:07 Yosho 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. I don't believe in religion. At all... So then how is two men getting married different in a biological sense from a sterile man marrying a women? Where would you draw the line though? Man and women was clearly intended. Man and man, woman and woman wasn't. It just happens that the male or female couldn't reproduce. They were still meant to be.
No actually they were not. "Meant" implies some grand plan. If a man is sterile, he is not "meant" to have children simply because he can't have children. If the purpose of marriage is to reproduce then every marriage that cannot produce children should not be allowed. Why separate same sex marriages?
|
On February 09 2012 13:09 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:08 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:07 Yosho 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. I don't believe in religion. At all... So then how is two men getting married different in a biological sense from a sterile man marrying a women? Where would you draw the line though? Man and women was clearly intended. Man and man, woman and woman wasn't. It just happens that the male or female couldn't reproduce. They were still meant to be.
Intended by who? Meant to be by what standards?
|
On February 09 2012 13:09 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:08 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:07 Yosho 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. I don't believe in religion. At all... So then how is two men getting married different in a biological sense from a sterile man marrying a women? Where would you draw the line though? Man and women was clearly intended. Man and man, woman and woman wasn't. It just happens that the male or female couldn't reproduce. They were still meant to be.
Intended by who? You said you aren't religious and intentionality requires an agent. If you mean intended by nature, that evidently isn't true, because nature isn't a sentient entity. If you mean intended by the state/people, well it is intended now.
|
I live here. It's a few years overdue. We passed the "everything but marriage" bill a few years ago, and I blasted people for accepting such a consolation. But now real change. This is good. At least if you're not a homophobe or religious fanatic.
But guess what folks? My people (Washingtonians) are taking the bait AGAIN! The state passes something the majority of the state would agree with while they continually cut funds to education, parks, and cities. Basically, they're distracting us from the increased sorry condition of our state by throwing us a bone. Meanwhile, the sheer amounts of state government redundancy (ie, meaningless positions and agencies that absorb a lot of money) remains.
We have a large state debt and the same politicians that pass gay marriage are simultaneously fucking the have-nots by providing them with subpar education to ensure our children grow up to be idiots who will obey their televisions and politicians. I've lived here all my life, this is what they do. In my town, we have two middle schools, but they cut so much that they have ONE principle for the two schools! One person to manage two schools? Also, teacher positions for helping those with learning disabilities (dyslexia, etc.) have been cut to the point where now the school is relying on volunteers, and far less of them.
I'm glad that (monogamous) sexuality/gender is no longer in the definition of marriage here, but America still appears to be fucked on both the local and national scales.
|
Civil Unions do the exact same thing, and Marriage being a religious institution first should not have to be rewritten IMO to make people feel more secure in their relationships.
|
On February 09 2012 13:13 reincremate wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:09 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:08 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:07 Yosho 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. I don't believe in religion. At all... So then how is two men getting married different in a biological sense from a sterile man marrying a women? Where would you draw the line though? Man and women was clearly intended. Man and man, woman and woman wasn't. It just happens that the male or female couldn't reproduce. They were still meant to be. Intended by who? You said you aren't religious and intentionality requires an agent. If you mean intended by nature, that evidently isn't true, because nature isn't a sentient entity. If you mean intended by the state/people, well it is intended now.
No I mean intended as all through history reproduction is the largest rule. Nowhere in history or species besides self sex species are same sex who can pro create. Just like man man, woman woman. This isn't religious based. This is based on the fact that male and female reproduce and follow the law that is survival. Gay and lesbians seem to be the human race falling off it's primary function intended by evolution. Survival... reproduction. It's kind of silly in my eyes.
|
I don't want to involve myself in this debate because I'll be up all night and have an aneurysm, but I have to say that's it's really offensive to compare homosexuality to a birth defect like mental disabilities. It's offensive to homosexuals because there's no medical distinction between a homosexual and a heterosexual besides their behavior, which means that it's not a disorder/defect/etc. It's also offensive to those who were born with handicaps because you're essentially saying that being disabled (yes in this context you mean mentally but it's a slippery slope to physical handicaps too) means that you aren't entitled to the same rights as "normal" people.
Basically, if you think that gay people are born with some sort of congenital disorder, that's pretty damn homophobic, and even if you do think that, if you're a rational and compassionate person, you wouldn't have a problem denying them their right to happiness.
You don't have to bother replying to this (I'm gonna go to bed, don't expect a debate), but please try to consider what I said. I'm not even gay and I was pretty disgusted by what you're saying.
edit: should clarify that this is all directed at Yosho
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
