|
On February 09 2012 14:38 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 14:32 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 14:14 Froadac wrote:On February 09 2012 14:12 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 14:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Only 2 Republicans were for gay marriage. Sigh. Reality really does have a liberal bias. I wish they wouldn't hold us back. They are supposedly "conservative". The issue I have is that they are purpotedly the party of individual freedom. Well it seems that small government exists is the mantra in every case except marriage. 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. 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.
Conservatism is a nebulous ideology. Personal freedom is a libertarian value, and you can be a conservative libertarian or liberal libertarian. Most people who consider themselves to be conservatives are not very libertarian, as they favour government intervention for things like gay rights.
I guess your question is rhetorical and meant to point out the hypocrisy of conservative values, but there isn't a singular conservative ideology. There are just multiple and potentially dissonant ideologies that tend to go together to form what most people consider to be 'conservative'.
|
On February 09 2012 14:29 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On February 09 2012 14:43 reincremate wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 14:38 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 14:32 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 14:14 Froadac wrote:On February 09 2012 14:12 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 14:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Only 2 Republicans were for gay marriage. Sigh. Reality really does have a liberal bias. I wish they wouldn't hold us back. They are supposedly "conservative". The issue I have is that they are purpotedly the party of individual freedom. Well it seems that small government exists is the mantra in every case except marriage. 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. 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. Conservatism is a nebulous ideology. Personal freedom is a libertarian value, and you can be a conservative libertarian or liberal libertarian. Most people who consider themselves to be conservatives are not very libertarian, as they favour government intervention for things like gay rights.
Thanks for clarifying. It's so weird to hear people like the tea party go on and on about how perfect the constitution is, that is some holy document which prescribes basic freedoms. Then in the same breath condemn gay marriage. It seems awefully contradictory to me. On one hand people are all for personal freedom (guns and such) but not when it comes to marriage? Anyway, this is probably way off topic and we should be celebrating a small step towards federal recognition og gay marriage.
|
On February 09 2012 14:43 reincremate wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 14:38 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 14:32 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 14:14 Froadac wrote:On February 09 2012 14:12 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 14:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Only 2 Republicans were for gay marriage. Sigh. Reality really does have a liberal bias. I wish they wouldn't hold us back. They are supposedly "conservative". The issue I have is that they are purpotedly the party of individual freedom. Well it seems that small government exists is the mantra in every case except marriage. 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. 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. Conservatism is a nebulous ideology. Personal freedom is a libertarian value, and you can be a conservative libertarian or liberal libertarian. Most people who consider themselves to be conservatives are not very libertarian, as they favour government intervention for things like gay rights.
Yes, you are completely right about this. Thanks for clearing this up in case anyone get's confused 
I would say the government intervention is when government distinguished between married and unmarried people to begin with. What we need to change are the additional rights we grant to married individuals. Legal rights between two individuals can be solved with a voluntary contract. Additional legal rights between two individuals and the government shouldn't exist.
|
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.
Well as I have said before that is a fair position to take. You can certainly oppose gay marriage on religious grounds (though people will debate this) but just don't expect people to have a civil conversation with you. You are basically saying that your position cannot be changed so there is no point continuing the discussion. It is people who are not religious who oppose gay marriage that give me the shits.
|
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.
Really? According to the state of California, I am considered mentally handicapped because I have ADHD. I would argue, however, that I am capable of performing all of the tasks a "normal" individual can just as well, if not better, than them. We shouldn't limit individuals or couples from the things "normal" people can do because they are different.
|
On February 09 2012 14:52 Probulous 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. Well as I have said before that is a fair position to take. You can certainly oppose gay marriage on religious grounds (though people will debate this) but just don't expect people to have a civil conversation with you. You are basically saying that your position cannot be changed so there is no point continuing the discussion. It is people who are not religious who oppose gay marriage that give me the shits.
I appreciate your candor Probulous. I understand where you are coming from when you say, "You are basically saying that your position cannot be changed so there is no point continuing the discussion." But, I also do not believe my position isn't grounded in logic. I don't want anyone to think that I, or even most "religious" people, went religion shopping one day and bought one we thought sounded good. Believe me, I know that some people do just that, but that's not what I did. I believe Christianity is the most intellectually satisfying worldview I have ever learned about, including atheism.
|
No idea that this was being voted on and i live in Washington! haha
Definitely good news, people deserve to live life they choose to the fullest.
|
On February 09 2012 14:23 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 14:16 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 13:49 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:45 vetinari wrote: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 have as much a right to fuck up marriage as straight people. None. Marriage laws are a complete fucking joke, and need to be seriously reformed. As in, eliminate no-fault divorce, require disclosure of medical/criminal history prior to nuptials, at-fault divorce needs to require adultery on the part of the woman, concubinage on the part of the man, a severe criminal conviction, abandonment or insanity and complete elimination of subsidies towards single parents. And finally, laws against discrimination on the basis of marital status need to be removed. If people don't want to get married, then so be it. If they want to shack up and have children, so be it. The western notion of romantic marriage undermines it completely. Marriage isn't just about the two of you. Its about forming stable families that allow for the accumulation of social capital. I'm not sure what you are saying  My point was simple. If straight people have the right to completely shit all over the concept of marriage and what it is traditionally supposed to be, why can't gay people? Who says gay families are inherently less stable than staight ones? Edit: Are you saying that no-one should get married? 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.
Not quite. Infertile men and women could still get married, as that is the real purpose of reproductive medicine: to help the unlucky to have children. If they cannot have children, they would get priority in adoption. As for intending to have children going in but not having them . . . I don't know how to deal with that. It would probably be too rare to bother legislating around, especially when in a society where it is commonly understood that if you have been married for more than a year and still not pregnant, its time to check with the doctor.
The point of the discrimination act changes is to allow social pressure to work its magic: hotels being able to refuse to let rooms to unmarried couples, offering married men priority for work over women/single men.
|
On February 09 2012 15:02 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 14:52 Probulous wrote: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. Well as I have said before that is a fair position to take. You can certainly oppose gay marriage on religious grounds (though people will debate this) but just don't expect people to have a civil conversation with you. You are basically saying that your position cannot be changed so there is no point continuing the discussion. It is people who are not religious who oppose gay marriage that give me the shits. I appreciate your candor Probulous. I understand where you are coming from when you say, "You are basically saying that your position cannot be changed so there is no point continuing the discussion." But, I also do not believe my position isn't grounded in logic. I don't want anyone to think that I, or even most "religious" people, went religion shopping one day and bought one we thought sounded good. Believe me, I know that some people do just that, but that's not what I did. I believe Christianity is the most intellectually satisfying worldview I have ever learned about, including atheism.
It seems presumptuous to assume that choice of a product based on intellectual satisfaction isn't just some more convoluted form of commodity fetishism (in this case religious fetishism) akin to religion shopping. In order for it to have sounded good enough to you for you to choose it, you would have to have some preconception(s) or existing disposition(s). For example, if you choose an ideology that says gays can't get married, you probably disliked gays to begin with. Thus your opposition to gay marriage is based in some form of bigotry that is based on arbitrary values rather than logic.
|
On February 09 2012 15:02 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 14:52 Probulous wrote: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. Well as I have said before that is a fair position to take. You can certainly oppose gay marriage on religious grounds (though people will debate this) but just don't expect people to have a civil conversation with you. You are basically saying that your position cannot be changed so there is no point continuing the discussion. It is people who are not religious who oppose gay marriage that give me the shits. I appreciate your candor Probulous. I understand where you are coming from when you say, "You are basically saying that your position cannot be changed so there is no point continuing the discussion." But, I also do not believe my position isn't grounded in logic. I don't want anyone to think that I, or even most "religious" people, went religion shopping one day and bought one we thought sounded good. Believe me, I know that some people do just that, but that's not what I did. I believe Christianity is the most intellectually satisfying worldview I have ever learned about, including atheism.
Ok, maybe I should rephrase that. It should read
"You are basically saying that your position cannot be changed without your religious view being changed which is a completely different topic and so there is no point continuing the discussion."
I like most people on TL it seems, am an atheist but I don't have an issue with religious people who keep their religion to themselves. The problem I have is when, because they are religious, they believe they have the right to shit on other people. You don't seem to be in that group which is refreshing. Ultimately belief in a god comes down to faith. If you find a life of faith satisfying, then good for you, but you can keep it. I cannot reconcile the world I live in with one created by a supreme being. Or perhaps more succintly, if there was a supreme being, he is the ultimate hide-and-seek master.
|
On February 09 2012 15:10 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 14:23 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 14:16 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 13:49 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:45 vetinari wrote: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 have as much a right to fuck up marriage as straight people. None. Marriage laws are a complete fucking joke, and need to be seriously reformed. As in, eliminate no-fault divorce, require disclosure of medical/criminal history prior to nuptials, at-fault divorce needs to require adultery on the part of the woman, concubinage on the part of the man, a severe criminal conviction, abandonment or insanity and complete elimination of subsidies towards single parents. And finally, laws against discrimination on the basis of marital status need to be removed. If people don't want to get married, then so be it. If they want to shack up and have children, so be it. The western notion of romantic marriage undermines it completely. Marriage isn't just about the two of you. Its about forming stable families that allow for the accumulation of social capital. I'm not sure what you are saying My point was simple. If straight people have the right to completely shit all over the concept of marriage and what it is traditionally supposed to be, why can't gay people? Who says gay families are inherently less stable than staight ones? Edit: Are you saying that no-one should get married? 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. Not quite. Infertile men and women could still get married, as that is the real purpose of reproductive medicine: to help the unlucky to have children. If they cannot have children, they would get priority in adoption. As for intending to have children going in but not having them . . . I don't know how to deal with that. It would probably be too rare to bother legislating around, especially when in a society where it is commonly understood that if you have been married for more than a year and still not pregnant, its time to check with the doctor.The point of the discrimination act changes is to allow social pressure to work its magic: hotels being able to refuse to let rooms to unmarried couples, offering married men priority for work over women/single men.
The thing is if you don't sort that out somehow your whole premise fall apart. What is stopping people who never intend on having children pretending they do? They would be actively deceiving the celebrant. Surely that is worse than being gay.
|
Actually, if there is a supreme being, and he's the Christian God, as opposed to the several thousands of Gods out there, then he's the ultimate douchebag. "Herp, here's free will, but if you don't believe in me, go to Hell, derp." Seriously?
Hopefully there are more reasonable people in Washington than there are religious bigots, good luck.
|
On February 09 2012 14:38 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 14:32 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 14:14 Froadac wrote:On February 09 2012 14:12 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 14:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Only 2 Republicans were for gay marriage. Sigh. Reality really does have a liberal bias. I wish they wouldn't hold us back. They are supposedly "conservative". The issue I have is that they are purpotedly the party of individual freedom. Well it seems that small government exists is the mantra in every case except marriage. 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. 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.
Strictly speaking, personal freedom is the highest value in liberalism. Modern american "conservatism" is a mixture of conservative, traditionalist and liberal views. The belief in personal freedom as the most important social good is one that has been internalised throughout western society, and this is a liberal position. Almost everyone is somewhat liberal (especially the most die-hard conservatives, who hold liberal views even though they don't realise it).
The "liberal", as per the american understanding, considers that only through your personal choices can you express your humanity. It also considers all people are equal, and therefore, that differences that are not chosen (race, ethnicity, nationality, gender) must be made to not matter. Following the liberal logic to conclusion, all people must be given a level playing field, so that only their choices matter and anything that is predetermined must be abolished.
|
On February 09 2012 15:15 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 15:10 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 14:23 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 14:16 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 13:49 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:45 vetinari wrote: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 have as much a right to fuck up marriage as straight people. None. Marriage laws are a complete fucking joke, and need to be seriously reformed. As in, eliminate no-fault divorce, require disclosure of medical/criminal history prior to nuptials, at-fault divorce needs to require adultery on the part of the woman, concubinage on the part of the man, a severe criminal conviction, abandonment or insanity and complete elimination of subsidies towards single parents. And finally, laws against discrimination on the basis of marital status need to be removed. If people don't want to get married, then so be it. If they want to shack up and have children, so be it. The western notion of romantic marriage undermines it completely. Marriage isn't just about the two of you. Its about forming stable families that allow for the accumulation of social capital. I'm not sure what you are saying My point was simple. If straight people have the right to completely shit all over the concept of marriage and what it is traditionally supposed to be, why can't gay people? Who says gay families are inherently less stable than staight ones? Edit: Are you saying that no-one should get married? 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. Not quite. Infertile men and women could still get married, as that is the real purpose of reproductive medicine: to help the unlucky to have children. If they cannot have children, they would get priority in adoption. As for intending to have children going in but not having them . . . I don't know how to deal with that. It would probably be too rare to bother legislating around, especially when in a society where it is commonly understood that if you have been married for more than a year and still not pregnant, its time to check with the doctor.The point of the discrimination act changes is to allow social pressure to work its magic: hotels being able to refuse to let rooms to unmarried couples, offering married men priority for work over women/single men. The thing is if you don't sort that out somehow your whole premise fall apart. What is stopping people who never intend on having children pretending they do? They would be actively deceiving the celebrant. Surely that is worse than being gay.
Legislating for the whole based around cases on the edge is a one way road towards terrible laws.
I think that the problem would be too minor to bother to legislate around. People have a tendency to change their minds about wanting children when the biological clock starts ticking. At any rate, in a society in which it is the norm for married couples to have children quickly, social pressure would change peoples minds. Especially among women, who tend to be more strongly influenced by the attitudes of the group (whether its about fashion, meal sizes, getting married, having children, etc).
|
Good for them.
Ideally the government as a whole would only recognize unions and not marriages at all. Man/Woman, Woman/Woman, Man/Man can go apply for their union. Everyone gets the exact same benefits across the board. Government doesn't give a shit, and people can call their little relationship whatever the hell they want.
|
I feel like the main reason gay people want to get married is to feel accepted by society. Good for them. I hope this makes everyone feel more comfortable in their own skin.
I also think what gay people ultimately desire is to be able to get married in a church rather than by some random "preacher". Unfortunately for them, I don't think that will ever happen.
|
Guys!!! Please do not make this thread about "OMG GOOD EVIL!!!" or "OMG WHY U SO HOMOPHOBIC"
Let's just be happy for our fellow LGBT brothers and sisters. No need to feel angry all the time.
On February 09 2012 15:51 Zyos wrote:
I feel like the main reason gay people want to get married is to feel accepted by society. Good for them. I hope this makes everyone feel more comfortable in their own skin.
I also think what gay people ultimately desire is to be able to get married in a church rather than by a some random "preacher". Unfortunately for them, I don't think that will ever happen.
Dude...I do not believe in God, but a church is still the ideal place to get married in my opinion. It has the perfect environment (assuming the people inside are not jackasses) Getting married in a church does not always have to be a religious experience.
And even though I live in a very homophobic area of PA, we have a church that would be more than happy to help gay and lesbian couples get married.
|
I think it's worth putting into the OP that it's basically 100% there's going to be a referendum, as there is easily enough support, and if there is a referendum, no one would be able to marry until a November public vote. Just some input from a Washington resident.
|
United States7483 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.
You figure it goes against nature... based on what evidence or logic?
Did you just compare being gay with being mentally handicapped or ill? Really? I suggest you pull your head out of your ass and learn something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
