EPTFight for Civil Unions not Marriage. You morons.
Washington State Votes to Approve Gay Marriage - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
RodrigoX
United States645 Posts
Fight for Civil Unions not Marriage. You morons. | ||
|
Froadac
United States6733 Posts
On February 09 2012 14:16 Romantic wrote: Shoes can't get married because they can't sign legal contracts, thats a pretty reasonable line to be made for marriage The real question is why polygamy is illegal if all loving and consenting adults should be allowed to be married. Haha, of course. Just quoting something he said in a debate. Polygamy gets very messy, for the lack of a better term. The only problem I have is when people say "why did you not vote yes, marriage is only a word" I think it's good to vote for it, but if one truly believes that marriage is only between a man and a woman, they too should be able to vote no without getting massive harassment. (if we go down that line of thought). After all, it's only a word. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On February 09 2012 14:19 Froadac wrote: Haha, of course. Just quoting something he said in a debate. Polygamy gets very messy, for the lack of a better term. The only problem I have is when people say "why did you not vote yes, marriage is only a word" I think it's good to vote for it, but if one truly believes that marriage is only between a man and a woman, they too should be able to vote no without getting massive harassment. (if we go down that line of thought). After all, it's only a word. It'd probably be better if the government quit calling them marriage licenses. Why can't I just go get a registered sexual partner for purposes of making them my immediate family legally? Attach whatever significance to that legal contraption as you'd like. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15742 Posts
On February 09 2012 14:18 RodrigoX wrote: I am not for stopping of civil unions between gay people. I just dont understand why they want to be part of the RELIGIOUS institution marriage is. I mean, marriage is religious by definition (i am not religious by the way), and I don't understand why they want to be part of a religion or religions that frown on their lifestyles. Fight for Civil Unions not Marriage. You morons. When the government became involved in marriage, marriage lost its exclusivity. As I have said in earlier posts, people don't just proclaim they are married and leave it at that. They get a marriage license. Some people even get married at city hall. The argument that marriage is exclusively religious stopped being valid once it lost its exclusivity. Things change. Society changes. It changed a long time ago. Also keep in mind that the religious aspect of marriage also used to mean ownership of the woman. The definition of marriage, *even without religious institutions* has changed many times. But the fact remains, its not longer exclusively a religious idea. | ||
|
danl9rm
United States3111 Posts
On February 09 2012 13:06 Probulous wrote: 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... | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
Everyone wins. Gay people win, religious people win. But I know, it's not enough to have the same legal rights. People want to be completely "accepted" by society. Sorry, it's not gonna happen, whether you are gay or not. There will always be assholes and bigots everywhere. | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On February 09 2012 14:16 vetinari wrote: No, I'm saying that that the laws which allow people to shit all over the concept of marriage need to be changed to be rather less . . . liberal. This means making it much harder to enter and leave marriage, and absolutely no government subsidies towards any form of alternative lifestyle, and frankly, restricting it to those who would be able to have children in principle. That is, fertile/infertile men + women can get married, but post menopausal women cannot/same sex couples cannot. Right at least that's consistent. Good luck with that though :p It also happens to discrminatory against people who are born sterile but hey if you change the discrimination act like you suggest then apparently that's ok as well. I don't see the point though. you are basically separating people based on their ability to have kids. What about people who get married intending to have kids then don't, do they have to get a divorce? Weird position to take. | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
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. | ||
|
ghosthunter
United States414 Posts
On February 09 2012 14:18 RodrigoX wrote: I am not for stopping of civil unions between gay people. I just dont understand why they want to be part of the RELIGIOUS institution marriage is. I mean, marriage is religious by definition (i am not religious by the way), and I don't understand why they want to be part of a religion or religions that frown on their lifestyles. Fight for Civil Unions not Marriage. You morons. Why can't gays be religious? | ||
|
reincremate
China2216 Posts
On February 09 2012 14:09 Ryder. wrote: Playing starcraft doesn't contribute in any way to you reproducing. In fact, you could say it is a hindrance as time spent playing starcraft could be used searching for potential mates. So if you are gonna use this 'primary function intended by evolution' maybe you should stop being counter productive get off this forum and go reproduce... Wtf are you talking about--Starcraft is practice for sex. You need to practice so that you don't screw up when you do the real thing. | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On February 09 2012 14:22 liberal wrote: Eliminate marriage as a legal notion altogether and the problem is eliminated. Eliminate the extra rights we afford to "married" people, and allow anyone who wants all the legal necessities of a marriage do so through a legal contract that isn't called the same thing as some religious institution. Everyone wins. Gay people win, religious people win. But I know, it's not enough to have the same legal rights. People want to be completely "accepted" by society. Sorry, it's not gonna happen, whether you are gay or not. There will always be assholes and bigots everywhere. That is essentially the same thing, you're just changing the name from marriage to something else. if you think that will make the debate go away you are in for a surprise. | ||
|
vetinari
Australia602 Posts
On February 09 2012 14:14 Froadac wrote: Well, the terminology is convoluted. Conservatives generally are for the past, the good old days of family values. In this sense, their super conservative family value rhetoric holds to their name. Guns, etc. In terms of fiscal policy.... yeah, it's a different beast. Conservatives are all over the place with respect to fiscal policy. However, when it comes to values, conservatives value compassion, fairness, purity, respect for legitimate authority (order) and loyalty, roughly equally. Liberals value compassion and fairness almost exclusively. As a result of this, liberals tend to consider conservatives to be hateful, ignorant or evil, because conservatives have a more nuanced view of morality than liberals. To my amusement, some social scientists did some testing. Basically, they had conservatives and liberals decide on ethical cases. When under no stress, conservatives would take conservative positions, while liberals would take liberal positions. But while under cognitive stress (that is, they had to do a difficult mental task at the same time), liberals would still take liberal positions, but conservatives would take liberal positions. The researchers interpreted the findings as meaning that liberals were brighter than conservatives, since they were able to take the same position under stress and no stress. But . . . couldn't that just mean that conservative ethical thought is more cognitively demanding? After all, conservatives must balance 5 different variables. Liberals only need to balance 2. | ||
|
Blennd
United States266 Posts
On February 09 2012 14:22 liberal wrote: Eliminate marriage as a legal notion altogether and the problem is eliminated. Eliminate the extra rights we afford to "married" people, and allow anyone who wants all the legal necessities of a marriage do so through a legal contract that isn't called the same thing as some religious institution. Everyone wins. Gay people win, religious people win. But I know, it's not enough to have the same legal rights. People want to be completely "accepted" by society. Sorry, it's not gonna happen, whether you are gay or not. There will always be assholes and bigots everywhere. Everyone wins except the millions of atheists and agnostics who are married or wish to get married. As has been said many times in this thread, marriage is not owned by religious people. Marriage has meaning far beyond it's religious and legal definitions. | ||
|
reincremate
China2216 Posts
On February 09 2012 14:32 vetinari wrote: To my amusement, some social scientists did some testing. Basically, they had conservatives and liberals decide on ethical cases. When under no stress, conservatives would take conservative positions, while liberals would take liberal positions. But while under cognitive stress (that is, they had to do a difficult mental task at the same time), liberals would still take liberal positions, but conservatives would take liberal positions. The researchers interpreted the findings as meaning that liberals were brighter than conservatives, since they were able to take the same position under stress and no stress. But . . . couldn't that just mean that conservative ethical thought is more cognitively demanding? After all, conservatives must balance 5 different variables. Liberals only need to balance 2. It could mean that conservative thought is more cognitively demanding, as in requiring more cognitive resources or effort (i.e., firing of neurons or something) but that does not mean it's more correct, rational or intelligent. | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On February 09 2012 14:32 vetinari wrote: Conservatives are all over the place with respect to fiscal policy. However, when it comes to values, conservatives value compassion, fairness, purity, respect for legitimate authority (order) and loyalty, roughly equally. Liberals value compassion and fairness almost exclusively. As a result of this, liberals tend to consider conservatives to be hateful, ignorant or evil, because conservatives have a more nuanced view of morality than liberals. To my amusement, some social scientists did some testing. Basically, they had conservatives and liberals decide on ethical cases. When under no stress, conservatives would take conservative positions, while liberals would take liberal positions. But while under cognitive stress (that is, they had to do a difficult mental task at the same time), liberals would still take liberal positions, but conservatives would take liberal positions. The researchers interpreted the findings as meaning that liberals were brighter than conservatives, since they were able to take the same position under stress and no stress. But . . . couldn't that just mean that conservative ethical thought is more cognitively demanding? After all, conservatives must balance 5 different variables. Liberals only need to balance 2. I think this may be getting off topic, though of course with your superior conservative mind you can handle multiple topics in this thread at once. I'm just a dumb liberal so please can we stay on the topic. Is personal freedom not a conservative value? I always thought conservatives were against most forms of government intervention. By that logic it would make sense for them to support a position of government having no say in what marriage constitutes. | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
On February 09 2012 14:31 Probulous wrote: That is essentially the same thing, you're just changing the name from marriage to something else. if you think that will make the debate go away you are in for a surprise. There is no way people are going to argue against two gay people getting in a legal contract distinct from marriage. The US obviously wouldn't be having a national debate about whether or not gay people can leave possessions to each other in a will, for example. What people are opposed to is allowing the definition of marriage to be open to interpretation. Even a lot of the people who are supposedly enlightened and tolerant suddenly become very defensive when the suggestion of allowing polygamous/incenstual/inter-specie/etc. marriages. Gay is the new normal, but all other sexual/romantic inclinations, those are still considered "perverted" and shouldn't be compared with "normal" homosexuality. Either marriage has no definition and we don't discriminate against anything, or we have a strict definition and discriminate. People want to have it both ways, but they can't. I say eliminate marriage as a legal institution altogether and you bypass the problem completely. The important thing is equal rights, not equal labels. | ||
|
Ungrateful
United States71 Posts
On February 09 2012 14:38 Probulous wrote: I think this may be getting off topic, though of course with your superior conservative mind you can handle multiple topics in this thread at once. I'm just a dumb liberal so please can we stay on the topic. Is personal freedom not a conservative value? I always thought conservatives were against most forms of government intervention. By that logic it would make sense for them to support a position of government having no say in what marriage constitutes. Both of you are dumb if you truely believe political ideology has anything to do with intellegence. | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
| ||
|
Wafflelisk
Canada1061 Posts
Oh, I forgot to mention it won't take place in a church and the vows won't involve God at all. There's also a chance she might be sterile, if not being able to reproduce affects your views. You want a monopoly on marriage? Then don't give married couples greater legal benefits than what we have now. If you want to have your cake and eat it too, that's basically discriminating against everyone who isn't a straight Christian, although it seems to me that many people would like a USA like that. | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On February 09 2012 14:40 Ungrateful wrote: Both of you are dumb if you truely believe political ideology has anything to do with intellegence. Should I include a "/sarcasm" to make it obvious? His point is irrelevant and debatable at best. | ||
| ||
