|
On February 09 2012 13:17 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:13 reincremate wrote: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.
Don't go blaming your eyes for something that's entirely in your head. 
|
On February 09 2012 13:17 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:13 reincremate wrote: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.
You have not answered my question
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?
What is different between a menopausal women marrying a man and two lesbians getting married in terms of reproduction? Nothing, neither marriage will produce children, so why is one allowed whilst the other isn't? It cannot be on reproduction grounds.
|
I'm not homophobic, but shoving "gay marriage" down the throats of religious groups is hardly a "right step foward." I do agree with the idea that gays should have equally binding civil unions, but calling it marriage is a slap in the face to many
|
On February 09 2012 13:21 rapidash88 wrote:
I'm not homophobic, but shoving "gay marriage" down the throats of religious groups is hardly a "right step foward." I do agree with the idea that gays should have equally binding civil unions, but calling it marriage is a slap in the face to many
he he that's a little hypocritical. How many marriages are a slap in the face to religious communities? I cite the enormous divorce rate and the presence of drive through chapels as evidence. If marriage is based on love, surely gays ahve just as much right to fuck up marriage as straight people?
|
On February 09 2012 13:17 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:13 reincremate wrote: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.
Evolution isn't an external intentional agent, but rather the change of populations of species over time via natural selection. Homo sapiens are not anywhere near extinction (unless we do it through our own means, which is another matter), and thus homosexuality is not a maladaptive trait. Even if 50% of the population were homosexuals, we would still have no trouble surviving. As a matter of fact, at this point not reproducing would be beneficial for us, as were putting a massive strain on our resources.
|
On February 09 2012 13:21 rapidash88 wrote:
I'm not homophobic, but shoving "gay marriage" down the throats of religious groups is hardly a "right step foward." I do agree with the idea that gays should have equally binding civil unions, but calling it marriage is a slap in the face to many
Again, no one is forcing religious groups/churches to marry same sex couples. This is a government function, not a religious one.
Stop getting the two mixed up
|
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.
Stop with the "definition of marriage" No one culture/ideology owns what defines it. People who are against it bring up all this shit about that its supposed to be between a man and a woman but thats just one definition and if thats yours then whatever but you can't go around telling other people that your right and they are wrong. What gives you the authority to justify that? Because your cultural group has traditionally done so? Religion? Because none of those things should affect the power of the government to regulate marriage between two people.
|
Yay Washington! This makes me so happy that people are realizing that we should treat each other as equals with equal rights.
On February 09 2012 13:02 Yosho wrote:
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.
As for this, what is marriage to you? Your definition must be different than mine. To me, marriage has always been about a civil union between two people that love each other, devoid of a religion connotation or gender. People get married to gain "couple's" rights, share finances, and most important show their love as a commitment to one an other. Sure, marriage can be a religious sacrament, but only between people that are religious themselves. Otherwise people on the outside need to stop viewing everything through religious goggles and getting all bent out of shape over something that doesn't effect them. We have separation of church and state for a reason. Denying gay people the opportunity to get these rights and experience the joy of marriage is a bigger defilement of what marriage is, in my opinion, mainly because discrimination is disgusting to me.
|
On February 09 2012 13:23 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:21 rapidash88 wrote:
I'm not homophobic, but shoving "gay marriage" down the throats of religious groups is hardly a "right step foward." I do agree with the idea that gays should have equally binding civil unions, but calling it marriage is a slap in the face to many he he that's a little hypocritical. How many marriages are a slap in the face to religious communities? I cite the enormous divorce rate and the presence of drive through chapels as evidence. If marriage is based on love, surely gays ahve just as much right to fuck up marriage as straight people?
Gays DO have just as much rights to be with the people they love. However, I think that gay marriage would be a lot easier for a lot of its opponents to handle if it was simply a civil union with all of the same legal ramification of a marriage. In my opinion, that would have allowed it to pass in my home state (where it failed by referendum very narrowly). Some religious people, myself included, don't hate gays. I just believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I voted against the proposal. If it had been worded differently (that little of a difference) I wouldve voted yes.
|
This shouldn't even be an issue. If two people want to get married why should any one have the right to tell them they can't.
|
On February 09 2012 13:28 rapidash88 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:23 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:21 rapidash88 wrote:
I'm not homophobic, but shoving "gay marriage" down the throats of religious groups is hardly a "right step foward." I do agree with the idea that gays should have equally binding civil unions, but calling it marriage is a slap in the face to many he he that's a little hypocritical. How many marriages are a slap in the face to religious communities? I cite the enormous divorce rate and the presence of drive through chapels as evidence. If marriage is based on love, surely gays ahve just as much right to fuck up marriage as straight people? Gays DO have just as much rights to be with the people they love. However, I think that gay marriage would be a lot easier for a lot of its opponents to handle if it was simply a civil union with all of the same legal ramification of a marriage. In my opinion, that would have allowed it to pass in my home state (where it failed by referendum very narrowly). Some religious people, myself included, don't hate gays. I just believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I voted against the proposal. If it had been worded differently (that little of a difference) I wouldve voted yes.
Ok that is reasonable. Can I ask, what is your definition of marriage?
|
On February 09 2012 13:28 rapidash88 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:23 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:21 rapidash88 wrote:
I'm not homophobic, but shoving "gay marriage" down the throats of religious groups is hardly a "right step foward." I do agree with the idea that gays should have equally binding civil unions, but calling it marriage is a slap in the face to many he he that's a little hypocritical. How many marriages are a slap in the face to religious communities? I cite the enormous divorce rate and the presence of drive through chapels as evidence. If marriage is based on love, surely gays ahve just as much right to fuck up marriage as straight people? Gays DO have just as much rights to be with the people they love. However, I think that gay marriage would be a lot easier for a lot of its opponents to handle if it was simply a civil union with all of the same legal ramification of a marriage. In my opinion, that would have allowed it to pass in my home state (where it failed by referendum very narrowly). Some religious people, myself included, don't hate gays. I just believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I voted against the proposal. If it had been worded differently (that little of a difference) I wouldve voted yes.
Except religion doesn't own the concept. If you want fine they can't get married in whatever church doesn't approve of it but they can't claim the concept of marriage.
My grandma said almost the same thing "give them exactly what marriage is just don't call it marriage".....Wha?
|
On February 09 2012 13:18 corpuscle wrote:
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
Well I didn't mean to spark this much a debate ^^ I will let you guys carry on. Although I still stand strongly by my view this isn't the place for the debate at the moment. ^^
|
On February 09 2012 13:31 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:18 corpuscle wrote:
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 Well I didn't mean to spark this much a debate ^^ I will let you guys carry on. Although I still stand strongly by my view this isn't the place for the debate at the moment. ^^
Hey matey, can you PM your answer to my question? Thanks!
|
On February 09 2012 13:21 rapidash88 wrote:
I'm not homophobic, but ...
Homophobe detected.
User was warned for this post
|
Washington voter. Voting for it. Go team?
It doesn't seem like it should be huge news. The backwards thing is that this requires voting.
|
So proud to live in a state that now supports gay marriage. <3
|
Good for you guys, I support gay marriage.
|
The myth of the "gay gene," or some sort of psychological anomaly that makes people tend towards "gayness" is just one more way of labeling them as abnormal while simultaneously "excusing" their behavior. It's not really their fault. Fault? It plays both sides of the field.
Marriage has been around far longer than certain homophobic monotheistic religions. So if it is proven to be a religious institution, it's probably not the religion you wish it would be.
|
On February 09 2012 13:33 MountainDewJunkie wrote:Homophobe detected.
That's no way to hold a discussion. These guys are clearly in the minority and this attitude won't help them see reason. Honestly the best bet to get people to change their views on things like this is to make the logic clear. Calling someone a homophobe (be they one or not) is unlikely to change their mind.
Edit: Atrocious spelling and grammar, for shame...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
