|
On February 09 2012 16:05 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:02 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:00 1Eris1 wrote:On February 09 2012 12:55 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 12:49 bRiz wrote:
Don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, it's a positive answer to a problem being experienced in the GLT community, but I personally prefer to keep marriage between a man and a woman, though I don't think I'd vote for a restriction like that. Just a personal opinion. I wouldn't vote for this to pass but if I would vote to not let is pass. Although even in nature gay animals exist, I feel it's like any other deficiency that people / animals can be born with. One of the sole thing we rely on to define life is reproduction. You cannot do this naturally on gay people. Not to be rude but I don't count this as a step up, but as a step down. You say they are born with it, than why does it matter if they can get married? It's not like you're going to convince one of them to turn straight, and thus reproduce anyways. I figure it goes against nature. Why support it further? Mentally ill people who are born with deficiency's also should be restricted on what they can and can't do. I would not like a mentally handicapped person to operate extremely heavy machinery. And I don't think gay people should marry. I feel it's a defilement of what marriage is. 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.
Haha, well I have nothing against his train of thought, but for the sake of argument, say that we are mentally ill, how is that illness bad? What does it prevent us from doing which straight people can do?
And when fighting homophobia, I think it is a bad idea to insult people. When I debate with people and they insult me, I feel less inclined to listen to them even if they are right.
|
Just read Illinois also trying to legalize gay marriage!
|
United States7483 Posts
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.
You completely lost me when you got to the paragraph where you mention evolution. I read what you wrote, and this is the only response I can come up with: What? That's nonsensical.
For the record, your god doesn't say anything about gay marriage being wrong. Leviticus mentions homosexuality being wrong a couple of times, but also mentions a whole bunch of completely ridiculous assertions as well. Unless you believe everything in the bible is the literal word of god (which you might, I suppose), your argument is extremely fragmented.
Some other examples of what Leviticus has written that I guarantee you don't believe should be done: women after childbirth must remain unclean for 7 days and remain in a state of blood purification for 33 days after birthing a boy, and double that if having birthed a girl. Then she was to bring a lamb to burn as an offering, and a dove or pidgeon as a sin offering (Yeah, apparently, according to Leviticus, giving birth is a sin, but at the same time, he considers childlessness a punishment. Go figure.)
It is also in Leviticus that Yom Kippur is commanded, do you follow through with that? Generally, it's a Jewish holiday and not celebrated by Christians, but it's in there all right.
It's also mentioned by Paul, who is completely intolerant of many many different peoples and things that I'd bet you don't take issue with.
The majority of the bible's remarks about gays as people claim them to be, are actually referring to the Sodomites, who weren't actually homosexual, and there's no mention of them being homosexual. They are evil, horrible people in the book, but it's never mentioned anywhere that they are homosexual.
You can't have it both ways and cherry pick things and then think that it's logical; doing so is ridiculous. Either you consider the entire thing to be the word of god, or you have to have some kind of objective criteria for figuring out what is and isn't, and "what I like to think is" doesn't cut it.
To continue your line of thought however: If god decides what is right and what is wrong, then morals are completely arbitrary, god could at any point in time, just because he wants to, change what is right and what is wrong. He could suddenly decide that raping 12 year old girls is the correct thing to do and inform us as such, and we'd have to accept that if what you say is true. And don't say "but he wouldn't do that," the whole point of your argument is that if he does, it wouldn't be wrong for him to have done so, because he determines what is right and what is wrong. This is a ridiculous consequence to accept, but it's the ultimate result of your argument.
|
United States7483 Posts
On February 09 2012 16:08 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 16:05 Whitewing 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. 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. Haha, well I have nothing against his train of thought, but for the sake of argument, say that we are mentally ill, how is that illness bad? What does it prevent us from doing which straight people can do? And when fighting homophobia, I think it is a bad idea to insult people. When I debate with people and they insult me, I feel less inclined to listen to them even if they are right.
Every time someone makes a homophobic statement, they're insulting every gay person on the planet, suggesting that they aren't on the same level as heterosexual people, or that they're evil, or that they're mentally insane. Do you really think people who are homophobic are going to listen to any argument you provide? Or that they're even thinking logically about it?
The purpose of such discussions is mostly for the benefit of people on the fence who don't really know what to think.
|
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 How is that a slap to many ? Nobody forced you to marry a person of the same sex. I would say that IF you see marriage as something religous it should be deprived of its legal standing. To me its just a contract.
|
On February 09 2012 16:22 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 16:08 Shiragaku wrote:On February 09 2012 16:05 Whitewing 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. 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. Haha, well I have nothing against his train of thought, but for the sake of argument, say that we are mentally ill, how is that illness bad? What does it prevent us from doing which straight people can do? And when fighting homophobia, I think it is a bad idea to insult people. When I debate with people and they insult me, I feel less inclined to listen to them even if they are right. Every time someone makes a homophobic statement, they're insulting every gay person on the planet, suggesting that they aren't on the same level as heterosexual people.
True as that may be, unfortunately pointing it out won't change their mind. People probably won't listen to reason but they definitely won't listen to people insulting them. It is futile pointing out homophobic statements if the person who said them won't listen. That is why tone is important.
|
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.
Just the same way blacks could travel buy bus - they just had to pick the seats in the back. Rosa Parks should have been fine with that right ?
|
United States7483 Posts
On February 09 2012 16:26 Robinsa 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 How is that a slap to many ? Nobody forced you to marry a person of the same sex. I would say that IF you see marriage as something religous it should be deprived of its legal standing. To me its just a contract.
Agreed, if you believe marriage to be a religious institution, it should, constitutionally, be deprived of any legal recognition or benefits.
|
On February 09 2012 16:08 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 16:05 Whitewing 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. 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. Haha, well I have nothing against his train of thought, but for the sake of argument, say that we are mentally ill, how is that illness bad? What does it prevent us from doing which straight people can do? And when fighting homophobia, I think it is a bad idea to insult people. When I debate with people and they insult me, I feel less inclined to listen to them even if they are right.
Mental illness is a rather nebulous concept itself, as the proposal to include hebephilia into the DSM shows. (Seriously, including as a mental illness "sexual attraction towards teenage females with developed secondary sex characteristics" makes the field a joke). Or bereavement as a psychiatric disorder . . . 
That said, any mental issue that alters sexual attraction in such a way that following it would prevent the possibility of reproduction, could easily be classified as a mental illness. That said, if memory serves, the various paraphilias were removed from the classification as mental disorders, and only ones that cause distress to self or others are considered to be disorders. Its an odd position to take, but hey.
Sometimes the psychiatric profession needs a bit of common sense knocked into them.
|
I'm from Washington State and this doesn't seem to be that big. I mean comparatively COSCO dumping tens of millions of dollars (~35mil) into passing the privatization of alcohol seemed ludicrous, but to me this is a meh who cares type of thing. I tried real hard to hate gays, but I just couldn't (well I lied, I still hate the flamboyant gays that always look at you in a creepy way) because I came to realize they are just normal people...
I don't know why but threads like these make me rage. The topic doesn't really get me worked up, it's the people caring so much about the topic that does.
|
On February 09 2012 16:37 iTzSnypah wrote:
I'm from Washington State and this doesn't seem to be that big. I mean comparatively COSCO dumping tens of millions of dollars (~35mil) into passing the privatization of alcohol seemed ludicrous, but to me this is a meh who cares type of thing. I tried real hard to hate gays, but I just couldn't (well I lied, I still hate the flamboyant gays that always look at you in a creepy way) because I came to realize they are just normal people...
I don't know why but threads like these make me rage. The topic doesn't really get me worked up, it's the people caring so much about the topic that does.
If you don't care why post? More importantly why get upset at those that find this a genuine issue. If you are truly apathetic about it then you wouldn't care.
|
A couple thoughts from a Washington resident and attorney (after having had a few beers at Chao Bistro for the Wednesday barcraft, so be gentle):
(1)(a) If a person opposes gay marriage, but is in favor of civil unions, they're not a bigot; they're just ignorant. Why are they ignorant? Because they don't understand what "gay marriage" is. Civil Marriage -- at least in the context of the gay marriage debate -- is merely a contractual granting of certain privileges (and penalties) to two consenting adults in our civil society. While it may have origins in religion, it actually has nothing to do with religion in the context of the legal right. In other words, if they think that this debate is about whether a church must recognize two gay people as being "married" within the church, they simply do not understand the debate.
(1)(b) So with that understanding, what are the justifications for distinguishing between "marriage" and "civil unions", when the same rights are granted by both? Well, that happens to be the precise issue that was decided today by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (opinion here). The justification given by lay-people is that "I think gay people should have the same rights, but I think 'marriage' is between a man and a woman because those are my religious beliefs." In other words, same rights, different name. You can totally have that. In your church, where the government can say nothing about it, you can call the gays not married. But guess what? When the state or federal government formally recognizes a union, if there is a distinction between the label for gay couples and hetero couples, it sends a pretty clear message: that gay unions are inferior to hetero ones. Now, some people say that is totally legitimate (but those people are bigots).
(1)(c) Edit: I had to add this just re-reading some comments. If you get "married" in a church, and do nothing more, you are married in the eyes of god (er... I'm atheist, but that's correct, right?). But guess what? You're not "married" in the context that we're talking about. In order to be "married", as in a union recognized by the government, you must apply for a marriage license from the state government. It's not a religious thing. There is no requirement that you have a specific religion. None. This, the state recognition thing, is 100% the only thing we are talking about in this debate.
(2) On February 09 2012 16:01 slyderturtle wrote:
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.
Spot on. There will definitely be a referendum on the ballot. For those not familiar, a "referendum" is essentially a voter veto of a law passed by the legislature. It, along with "initiatives", or voter sponsored laws, are totally retarded and defeat the purpose of representative democracy. Initiatives are the reason California is bankrupt right not (voters essentially passed a constitutional amendment preventing property tax increases).
Anyhow. Yes. Referendum. This, I welcome - because Washington voters will probably reject the referendum and approve the gay marriage law. I like this because it would make Washington the first state in which voters actually approved gay marriage by a majority.
(3) On February 09 2012 16:35 vetinari wrote:Mental illness is a rather nebulous concept itself, as the proposal to include hebephilia into the DSM shows. (Seriously, including as a mental illness "sexual attraction towards teenage females with developed secondary sex characteristics" makes the field a joke). Or bereavement as a psychiatric disorder . . . That said, any mental issue that alters sexual attraction in such a way that following it would prevent the possibility of reproduction, could easily be classified as a mental illness. That said, if memory serves, the various paraphilias were removed from the classification as mental disorders, and only ones that cause distress to self or others are considered to be disorders. Its an odd position to take, but hey. Sometimes the psychiatric profession needs a bit of common sense knocked into them.
This probably will take me longer than I have, since I got to wake up tomorrow. Basically though, there is a very good evolutionary reason for gay people to exist. I.e. people that are not procreating in a society have time to do other things, which they would not otherwise have time for, such as creating art, inventing stuff, etc. Which ultimately help that society flourish, while another society lacking gay people, all things being equal, would not have that benefit. This is not unlike the advances in technology we see when civilizations stop being nomadic people and start planting crops, etc. They have more time on their hands to invent stuff and make progress. It probably wasn't a coincidence that the Greeks/Romans were among the gayest civilizations that have ever existed. (Seriously, they were really, really, gay).
Anyhow... yeah. If anyone has any, like, in-depth "legal/constitutional" questions on the issue, I can weigh in more. (or if you just want to debate the constitutionality of this issue, I'm game).
|
i would delegalize the marriage between a man and a woman and leave it at that. it would still be equality.
one can argue now that married ppl are more equal then the other ones.
|
On February 09 2012 16:50 xM(Z wrote:
i would delegalize the marriage between a man and a woman and leave it at that. it would still be equality.
one can argue now that married ppl are more equal then the other ones.
Totally makes sense. Entirely unrealistic, and therefore solves nothing.
|
To the secular people like Yosho who "think it's just wrong", do you know how unimportant your senses of disgust or disapproval to gay marriage is compared to the happiness of two gay people who can finally marry each other and receive the same government benefits that other partners have?
You disapprove and move on with your life. Gay marriage is not involved in your life. When they are barred from marrying, it is a huge influence in their lives, sentimentally and physically.
To the Christian anti-gay people, I will ask you Pascal's Wager one thousand-fold: If Hinduism is true, then you get reincarnated as pubic lice. If you are correct, 1 billion Hindus in India burn in hel- I mean, congratulations, you go to an idealized version of Earth. Seeing as how each reality is equally likely (you'd both use circular logic to prove your own religions true - "My scripture is true! No, my scripture is true!") the chance of Christianity being true is 50% and the chance of Hinduism being true is 50%.
But wait, there are more religions...
If Islam is true, then every Christian and Hindu will get poked in hell by snakes for eternity. The chances of each religion being true is now 33%.
If <insert worldview> is true, then every other religion is incorrect, and you'd be punished according to their threats and claims.
Repeat for all the religions and religious denominations ever conceived, and the chance of each religion being true becomes virtually 0%.
It is better to be humble and admit you don't know something. However, religious homophobes in America take one step beyond the Constitution and want everyone to cater to their beliefs over everyone else's.
|
Cool! Looks like progress is being made,
|
On February 09 2012 11:39 Boblhead wrote:
mostly democratic states vote yes on gay marriage. Southern states and republican majority states will vote against because they are anti gay or don't support it because of their church/ religion. Plus the amount of money churches put in to stop these things from passing is insane.
It's bipartisan read the article, and most republicans I know in West Michigan are more libertarian and approve of gay marriage yest our high religious and very conservative religions here.
|
As a liberally minded person from the first country ever to allow for gays to get married, it saddens me that this is still such a major issue / point of debate.
Equal rights for everyone and separation of state and church should be a given, not a goal.
|
On February 09 2012 16:52 Rainmaker21 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 16:50 xM(Z wrote:
i would delegalize the marriage between a man and a woman and leave it at that. it would still be equality.
one can argue now that married ppl are more equal then the other ones. Totally makes sense. Entirely unrealistic, and therefore solves nothing.
there are a vast number of unmarried people that pay their taxes in full, without a 'marriage discount'. way more then the number of gay people.
people see this as a victory for the oppressed few, i see it as increasing the privileged, by a small amount.
|
On February 09 2012 17:02 Rannasha wrote:
As a liberally minded person from the first country ever to allow for gays to get married, it saddens me that this is still such a major issue / point of debate.
Equal rights for everyone and separation of state and church should be a given, not a goal.
Curiously, the marriage rate by homosexuals has been declining each year since it was introduced, with only ~5000 married homosexual couples, about half of which are lesbian couples, even though lesbian couples only make up 20% of the homosexual population in the netherlands, out of a total of ~350,000 homosexuals, meaning that only 0.33% of the homosexual population being married, as opposed to some 60% of the straight population.
In one sense, it seems that gay marriage is no big deal, and even homosexuals don't really want to get married (not that I blame them, who wants to get married for a year and lose half your stuff, and you don't even have your own children to soften the blow).
On the other hand, marriage rates started to fall among the heterosexual population in 1989, when the gay marriage debate was first introduced there, with the rate of fall accelerating when it was enacted.
So it appears that gay marriage did serve to undermine marriage after all, making the conservative fears somewhat justified.
/shrug
I oppose gay marriage on ideological grounds, as opposed to abortion, which i support on pragmatic grounds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
