|
On February 11 2012 09:50 W2 wrote:
extreme religious folks are against it because it tarnishes the name of "marriage". Just call it something else, while keeping the same benefits, like a civil union, that way both sides are happy. This is debated way too much, it seems social issues are how politicians separate themselves nowadays
I'm a tiny bit homophobic but I'll never understand why some people feel they can devoid rights of others.
Getting married is deeply personal and emotional decision. Marriage is, and has been for a very, very long time, the ultimate symbol that you love someone and that you want to live the rest of your life with him/her. "civil union" does in NO way have the same emotional weight as marriage.
|
On February 11 2012 09:50 W2 wrote:
extreme religious folks are against it because it tarnishes the name of "marriage". Just call it something else, while keeping the same benefits, like a civil union, that way both sides are happy. This is debated way too much, it seems social issues are how politicians separate themselves nowadays
I'm a tiny bit homophobic but I'll never understand why some people feel they can devoid rights of others.
No, let's not call it something else. Marriage is not a religious institution, and so religious nuts don't get to define it. If they don't want gays to get married in their bigoted churches, okay, fine. There are other places you can get married.
|
I don't see what all the fuss is about being allowed to be married. I'd be pushing for a change in Civil Union so that it confers all the same benefits and protections of a marriage. They're trying to change something that is very well established for what appears to be liking the word marriage.
|
On February 11 2012 09:54 Undrass wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 09:50 W2 wrote:
extreme religious folks are against it because it tarnishes the name of "marriage". Just call it something else, while keeping the same benefits, like a civil union, that way both sides are happy. This is debated way too much, it seems social issues are how politicians separate themselves nowadays
I'm a tiny bit homophobic but I'll never understand why some people feel they can devoid rights of others. Getting married is deeply personal and emotional decision. Marriage is, and has been for a very, very long time, the ultimate symbol that you love someone and that you want to live the rest of your life with him/her. "civil union" does in NO way have the same emotional weight as marriage.
then just call it marriage but dont make it christian.
end of story.
|
On February 11 2012 01:54 Jrocker152 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 19:15 VTPerfect wrote:
Long ago all people once had 4 hands, 4 arms, 4 legs 2 heads and so on, they were very powerful beings. Zeus fearing their power decided to split these beings in half. Ever since people have been spending all their lives trying to find their other half, because of this great loss, that we might one day be reunited. Whether Male/Female, Male/Male, or Female/Female its all the same. This looks like a troll. I disagree. It does make a difference. (If only because homosexual tendencies are unnatural. That does not mean any more than that, by the way.) Eh, kind of opened pandora's box there. Basically we all do unnatural things, the point in saying homosexual things are unnatural is not to attack homosexual people. It is to state fact, the natural purpose of sex is procreation. Since you cannot naturally reproduce homosexually as a human being, homosexuality is unnatural for humans. If we legally forbade every unnatural thing we do we would always be cited for Purposeful cliffhanger sentence^^. Long mundane list you can imagine. I don't want to get into it, I'm not wrong. This is too easily misunderstood and I won't argue with people who agree with me and don't realize it or are so far gone politically that they will deny what they know to be true as a hoax. And I am not going to defend any strawmans of this.
So I assume that you have had the intent on getting your partner pregnant each time you have had sex then?
|
On February 11 2012 10:10 gruff wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 01:54 Jrocker152 wrote:On February 10 2012 19:15 VTPerfect wrote:
Long ago all people once had 4 hands, 4 arms, 4 legs 2 heads and so on, they were very powerful beings. Zeus fearing their power decided to split these beings in half. Ever since people have been spending all their lives trying to find their other half, because of this great loss, that we might one day be reunited. Whether Male/Female, Male/Male, or Female/Female its all the same. This looks like a troll. I disagree. It does make a difference. (If only because homosexual tendencies are unnatural. That does not mean any more than that, by the way.) Eh, kind of opened pandora's box there. Basically we all do unnatural things, the point in saying homosexual things are unnatural is not to attack homosexual people. It is to state fact, the natural purpose of sex is procreation. Since you cannot naturally reproduce homosexually as a human being, homosexuality is unnatural for humans. If we legally forbade every unnatural thing we do we would always be cited for Purposeful cliffhanger sentence^^. Long mundane list you can imagine. I don't want to get into it, I'm not wrong. This is too easily misunderstood and I won't argue with people who agree with me and don't realize it or are so far gone politically that they will deny what they know to be true as a hoax. And I am not going to defend any strawmans of this. So I assume that you have had the intent on getting your partner pregnant each time you have had sex then?
He's not going to entertain your argument, because he already knows he's right... didn't you read?
|
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.
Terrible, old argument. By this logic people who want to get married but don't want children should also not be allowed.
Anyway, completely logically obsolete oppositions aside, good job Washington.
|
about time, no reason why gay marriage should be illegal
|
mod edit - asshole thing to do.
User was banned for this post.
|
On February 11 2012 09:50 W2 wrote:
extreme religious folks are against it because it tarnishes the name of "marriage". Just call it something else, while keeping the same benefits, like a civil union, that way both sides are happy. This is debated way too much, it seems social issues are how politicians separate themselves nowadays
I'm a tiny bit homophobic but I'll never understand why some people feel they can devoid rights of others.
Marriage is NOT a religious institution. It existed before long before Christianity especially. When will this stupid argument stop coming up in this debate?
|
On February 11 2012 12:48 Greater Spire wrote:
mod edit
Wow, that's on the disturbing side.
And he seriously argued that he wasn't trying to impose his views on others??!!!11!!
|
|
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
I wish we could just treat everyone equally. If a person or a group of people feels another group of people is somehow different to an extent that they shouldn't enjoy these rights, the onus is on them to prove why this would be so. Waving an ancient book written by bronze age illiterate goatherds who thought the world was as big as the desert they lived in won't do. Sad to have to read this time and time again, and from a civilised country like the USA to boot. Humanity still has a long way to go - especially if the bigoted frontrunners keep cherry-picking the old testament to spread hatred. Makes me sad 
edit: I should actually be way more positive now that one more state has joined the cause lol. Yay Washington!
|
I'm a former doubter who has been converted to supporting gay marraige, however there is one fronteir I'm not really OK with. I've never really objected to gay marraige as a social blight or anything like that. I've always felt that an individual should be able to do what they want etc., etc..... however at some point we must look towards science. Two issues I take up with the push made by the extremely liberal side:
1. I've never liked that we call it "marraige." I know a lot of the homosexual community hates the term civil union because it feels second class, but the fact remains that marraige is a VERY loaded religious term. It has a special meaning to the religious in America, and therefore to allow it to be attached to something they vehemently disagree with, is... welll, insulting to the religious people. Legally, marraige for both normal and gay should be labelled something that isn't so insulting to the religious... I think this would help placate much of the more moderate religious folk in America. I've felt that many of them object because it's government fiddling with their own religious customs, not because they personally object to the practice of it by others.
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid,
|
On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
1. I've never liked that we call it "marraige." I know a lot of the homosexual community hates the term civil union because it feels second class, but the fact remains that marraige is a VERY loaded religious term. It has a special meaning to the religious in America, and therefore to allow it to be attached to something they vehemently disagree with, is... welll, insulting to the religious people. Legally, marraige for both normal and gay should be labelled something that isn't so insulting to the religious... I think this would help placate much of the more moderate religious folk in America. I've felt that many of them object because it's government fiddling with their own religious customs, not because they personally object to the practice of it by others.
The concept of marriage existed long before modern religions emerged and there is nothing religious about government-sanctioned marriages.
|
On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
1. I've never liked that we call it "marraige." I know a lot of the homosexual community hates the term civil union because it feels second class, but the fact remains that marraige is a VERY loaded religious term. It has a special meaning to the religious in America, and therefore to allow it to be attached to something they vehemently disagree with, is... welll, insulting to the religious people. Legally, marraige for both normal and gay should be labelled something that isn't so insulting to the religious... I think this would help placate much of the more moderate religious folk in America. I've felt that many of them object because it's government fiddling with their own religious customs, not because they personally object to the practice of it by others.
You argue that marriage is very important to religious people. This is true. But they're not alone in that. Marriage is very important to a lot of people, religious or not. It's important to many christians, it's important to many atheists, it's important to many straight people and it's important to many gays.
Regardless of how you twist it, one faction is going to have their feelings hurt. Lets gays marry and the religious folks cry foul. Don't let gays marry (this includes calling it something else) and they will be upset.
But since marriage, at its core, is *not* a religious concept, we should take the moral highground and treat everyone equally. Marriage is the bond between two people that have decided to spend the rest of their lives together (or, for the average US couple: the next few years  ) and this should be open to everyone.
In the end, noone is forcing the churches to perform gay marriages (there are those that already do so voluntarily, btw). It's between the government and the couples. Religion is out of the picture here.
|
Not letting them marry doesn't stop them from still being gay, homophobes.
And letting them marry themselves would mean, the gay-gene pool will actually decrease! Isn't that what you actually want?
Some bigots are just stupid. LOL
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
1. I've never liked that we call it "marraige." I know a lot of the homosexual community hates the term civil union because it feels second class, but the fact remains that marraige is a VERY loaded religious term. It has a special meaning to the religious in America, and therefore to allow it to be attached to something they vehemently disagree with, is... welll, insulting to the religious people. Legally, marraige for both normal and gay should be labelled something that isn't so insulting to the religious... I think this would help placate much of the more moderate religious folk in America. I've felt that many of them object because it's government fiddling with their own religious customs, not because they personally object to the practice of it by others.
You can say "marriage is a religious thing" all you want but it simply isn't true. The definition is made up by the state and it's recognized by the constitution which is, through seperation of state and church, a non-religious thing. Don't claim it as something inherently Christian, did people not get married before Jesus came along? Marriage should be the overarching word for matrimony ins general - if you want a sacred Christian subset version of it maybe you guys can give it your own word?
On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid,
This isn't a single point. First you argue evolutionary coherency and then you bring up social merits. The first, ban-same-sex-marriage in the name of evolution doesn't make sense. We don't care about evolution and evolution doesn't care about us. Evolution is just something that happened and we don't live our lives to appease it. I'd go as far to that we've since developed such understanding and moral awareness that we even make choices that would counteract natural selection. On the other side, using evolution to defend marriage as a monogamous institute at all is nonsensical.
The social merits is not a good argument either, I have no idea how you say you're not a social conservative but then still bring this up.
As to the raising of kids, maybe you can watch this. I found it very inspirational.
|
On February 11 2012 01:54 Jrocker152 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 19:15 VTPerfect wrote:
Long ago all people once had 4 hands, 4 arms, 4 legs 2 heads and so on, they were very powerful beings. Zeus fearing their power decided to split these beings in half. Ever since people have been spending all their lives trying to find their other half, because of this great loss, that we might one day be reunited. Whether Male/Female, Male/Male, or Female/Female its all the same. This looks like a troll. I disagree. It does make a difference. (If only because homosexual tendencies are unnatural. That does not mean any more than that, by the way.) Eh, kind of opened pandora's box there. Basically we all do unnatural things, the point in saying homosexual things are unnatural is not to attack homosexual people. It is to state fact, the natural purpose of sex is procreation. Since you cannot naturally reproduce homosexually as a human being, homosexuality is unnatural for humans. If we legally forbade every unnatural thing we do we would always be cited for Purposeful cliffhanger sentence^^. Long mundane list you can imagine. I don't want to get into it, I'm not wrong. This is too easily misunderstood and I won't argue with people who agree with me and don't realize it or are so far gone politically that they will deny what they know to be true as a hoax. And I am not going to defend any strawmans of this.
So you draw a line between the natural and the unnatural just where you see fit. Evolution has no purpose. We procreate because things that procreate last a lot longer. There is no design of humans to procreate, simply the beings that produce well will pass on their genetics. There is no natural purpose of sex.
You are wrong.
|
oh god, i hope this law does not actually come to fruition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
